Kristina O'Connor, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel & Anor

The claimant sought judicial review of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s handling of a complaint of inappropriate conduct by a serving officer in 2011 and of the subsequent disciplinary panel decision. The court held that the Commissioner’s referral to the IOPC and the local investigation were lawfully conducted and that the investigating officer’s choices of lines of inquiry were within reasonable judgment and consistent with the applicable IOPC guidance. The disciplinary panel properly found gross misconduct but lawfully exercised its discretion under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 to impose a final written warning rather than dismissal, having regard to the College of Policing Outcomes Guidance (section 87 Police Act 1996) and to aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court also recorded criticism of late disclosure by the Commissioner in the proceedings but accepted the explanations and apologies and concluded those disclosure failings did not make the investigation or the panel decision unlawful. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

Background and parties: The claimant complained in October 2020 about the conduct of Detective Chief Inspector James Mason in October 2011. The Commissioner referred the matter to the IOPC, which directed a local investigation. An investigating officer reported a case to answer for gross misconduct and a misconduct panel found gross misconduct at a hearing in October 2021 and imposed a final written warning to remain on the officer’s record for three years. The claimant applied for judicial review challenging the adequacy and legality of the Commissioner’s investigation and the lawfulness and rationality of the panel’s outcome.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claimant sought judicial review relief quashing the conduct of the Commissioner’s investigation (principally for failure to treat the complaint as discrimination/harassment and to follow IOPC discrimination guidance) and quashing or remitting the panel’s outcome on the basis that it failed to have regard to College of Policing guidance or was otherwise irrational.

Issues framed: (i) whether the IOPC referral and subsequent local investigation were unlawful for failing to treat the complaint as one involving discrimination and for not following the IOPC Allegations of Discrimination guidance; and (ii) whether the misconduct panel erred in law or acted irrationally in imposing a final written warning rather than dismissal, including whether it had regard to the College of Policing Outcomes Guidance under section 87 of the Police Act 1996.

Court’s reasoning on investigation: The court held the referral form to the IOPC, although not ticking the "discrimination" box, was not a legal error because the IOPC was provided with the substance of the complaint. The investigating officer’s choices of lines of inquiry were matters of reasonable investigative judgment. While the Allegations of Discrimination guidance emphasises looking for patterns, the investigator did consider whether there were other complaints and the absence of contemporaneous records limited what could reasonably be pursued; the late emergence of another officer’s complaint (made in 2022) did not render the earlier investigation unlawful. Other specific criticisms (such as not interviewing certain officers or not probing potential compromise of the criminal inquiry) were held to be matters within investigative discretion and not unlawful omissions.

Court’s reasoning on panel decision: The court analysed the Panel’s decision against the Outcomes Guidance. It concluded the Panel had considered culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors and had had regard to public confidence, so there was no failure to have regard to the guidance. The panel had made explicit findings of fact, treated the matter as sexual harassment (a form of discrimination), and set out aggravating and mitigating factors before selecting the least severe proportionate outcome. The imposition of a final written warning for three years was within the available range and not irrational.

Other findings: The court criticised late disclosure by the Commissioner, accepted apologies, and emphasised the defendant’s duty of candour and the importance of careful disclosure assessment, but found those disclosure failures did not change the outcome.

The application for judicial review is dismissed. The court found no legal error in the Commissioner’s referral to the IOPC or in the local investigation and concluded the investigating officer’s decisions were within reasonable judgment and consistent with relevant IOPC guidance. The misconduct panel lawfully found gross misconduct and, having regard to the College of Policing Outcomes Guidance and to aggravating and mitigating factors, permissibly imposed a final written warning rather than dismissal. Late disclosure by the Commissioner was regrettable but did not render the proceedings unlawful.