Ronald Philpot, R (on the application of) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

A chief officer’s instruction restricting a police officer’s private life is lawful only if it falls within one of the categories in regulation 6(2) of the Police Regulations 2003. That provision limits, rather than confers, the relevant managerial power. A restriction designed to secure the proper exercise of a constable’s functions may be imposed on an individual officer and need not be reported to the Secretary of State.

An officer subject to misconduct proceedings remains obliged to act with integrity and not to discredit the police service. A proportionate prohibition on contacting a complainant who may be a witness can secure compliance with those obligations and protect that person’s rights. Such a restriction may be compatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights where its impact on family life is limited and childcare contact can proceed through a third party.

A serving Metropolitan Police officer was subject to misconduct proceedings arising from allegations of domestic abuse made by his wife. While the criminal investigation resulted in no further action, the disciplinary investigation continued. The Commissioner imposed restricted duties, including a condition preventing direct or indirect contact with the wife, subject to exceptions for family-court requirements and childcare arrangements through a third party.

On judicial review, Lang J held that regulation 11 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 did not authorise the contact restriction. She nevertheless refused relief under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, holding that the same condition could lawfully have been imposed under regulation 6 of the Police Regulations 2003: [2022] EWHC 1852 (Admin).

The appeal concerned whether regulation 6 permitted an individual, private-life restriction of this kind and, if so, whether the restriction was proportionate under article 8.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court unanimously upheld the refusal of relief. Regulation 11 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 was not a lawful source for the condition. A prohibition on contacting a complainant cannot be characterised as temporary deployment to alternative or restricted duties.
2. Regulation 6(2) of the Police Regulations 2003 envisages three categories of restrictions on private life: restrictions designed to secure the proper exercise of a constable’s functions; temporarily necessary restrictions, which must be reported to the Secretary of State; and restrictions approved by the Secretary of State after consultation. The first category, when applied individually, need not be reported.
3. Regulation 6(2) does not itself create a managerial power to give directions. Its function is to limit that power where an instruction affects private life. There is no sound distinction between a direction affecting private life a little and one affecting it substantially. An individual instruction is therefore lawful if it falls within one of the three categories, including where it is designed to secure proper exercise of constabulary functions.
4. An officer facing disciplinary proceedings remains subject to the standards of integrity and conduct that preserve public confidence. Compliance with those standards is an essential part of properly exercising the functions of a constable. A prohibition on contacting a complainant or witness may therefore be imposed to prevent interference with the disciplinary process and to protect the witness.
5. The restriction was proportionate under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It protected the complainant, who was the principal witness and might be vulnerable to pressure to withdraw her complaint. It did not prevent contact with the children, because arrangements could be made through a third party and the family court remained able to determine child contact. The restriction’s limited effect on private life was justified by protection of the complainant’s rights and freedoms.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the officer’s appeal and upheld the refusal of relief: [2023] EWCA Civ 66.
2. High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Held that the restriction had wrongly been imposed under regulation 11 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, but refused relief because it could lawfully have been imposed under regulation 6 of the Police Regulations 2003: [2022] EWHC 1852 (Admin).