Police and Crime Commissioner for Nottinghamshire v Nottingham Crown Court & Anor

Forfeiture of a police pension under regulation K5(4) of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 requires both a conviction and a connection between the convicted offence and police service.

Only an offence admitted or proved in the criminal proceedings may be examined. Evidence may supplement the material available at conviction, but it must concern the factual circumstances of a convicted offence. The connection test is simple and fact-sensitive. Police service may facilitate offending, but the officer’s status alone is insufficient.

On judicial review, the Administrative Court supervises for material legal error and must not substitute its own evaluative assessment of seriousness or proportionality. A Crown Court’s decision on the extent of forfeiture will stand if it falls within the reasonable range.

The claimant decided to forfeit 60% of a former police officer’s pension after convictions for historic sexual offences against children. The Crown Court, exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction under regulation H5(1) of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, accepted that forfeiture was justified for offences against one victim but rejected a sufficient connection with police service for other convictions. It reduced the permanent forfeiture to 25%.

The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. The challenge concerned whether facts relating to an untried count could be used to establish a connection with a convicted offence, whether the conviction involving one victim was connected with police service, and whether the reduction in forfeiture was legally unreasonable.

1. Claim dismissed. The Crown Court’s order permanently forfeiting 25% of the pension was not based on a misdirection of law or fact and was not unreasonable.
2. Regulation K5(4) contains two requirements: there must be a conviction, and the conviction must concern an offence committed in connection with police service. The forfeiture process cannot itself determine that conduct constituted a criminal offence. Only an offence admitted or proved in the criminal proceedings can be examined for its connection with service.
3. Evidence available at, or obtained after, the criminal proceedings may supplement the material concerning a convicted offence, subject to proof. It cannot be used to establish further offences which were acquitted, not proceeded with, or otherwise did not result in conviction. The Crown Court therefore made no error in refusing to treat the facts of count 4 as an offence for the purposes of regulation K5(4).
4. The connection test is the ordinary, simple and straightforward test identified in Whitchelo. It includes circumstances in which police service facilitates offending. However, the mere fact that the offender was a police officer does not establish the connection. Whether police status enabled or materially contributed to the offending depends on the facts. The Crown Court was entitled to find that the police status was ancillary to the offending against B and that the alleged preparatory conduct had not been established.
5. The extent of forfeiture involved an evaluative judgment concerning seriousness, culpability and impact on public confidence. Mitigating features, including historic offending, youth at the time and a long unblemished period of service, remained relevant despite concealment of the offending. The Crown Court properly considered aggravating and mitigating features and relevant comparators. A permanent 25% reduction was within the reasonable range.
6. Judicial review does not permit substitution of the Administrative Court’s view for the Crown Court’s assessment of the facts or seriousness.

• Nottingham Crown Court: On an appeal under regulation H5(1) of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, allowed the pension appeal in part and reduced permanent forfeiture from 60% to 25%.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Judicial review claim dismissed. The Crown Court’s decision was upheld.