The Commissioner of the Police of Metropolis, R (on the application of) v The Police Appeals Tribunal

In a remedies decision following a successful judicial review, the court may quash an appeal tribunal’s decision in its entirety where the tribunal’s grounds are inseparable and the underlying disciplinary findings were lawful. There is no bright line between poor performance and misconduct. A disciplinary panel need not expressly analyse that distinction where its findings establish conduct properly characterised as gross misconduct. Where gross misconduct includes deliberate misleading of the panel, dismissal may fall clearly within the range of reasonable responses. A court may order repayment of public funds paid following an unlawful reinstatement, taking account of the recipient’s circumstances but also the objective risk of repayment and the need to protect public funds.

This was a remedies judgment following the substantive judicial review decision in The King (on the application of) The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v The Police Appeals Tribunal [2024] EWHC 2348 (Admin). The court had found that the Police Appeals Tribunal had acted irrationally in allowing the interested party’s appeal against disciplinary findings and dismissal.

The parties disputed the consequential order. The issues were whether the Police Appeals Tribunal decision should be quashed in full or only in relation to particular grounds, whether any issues should be remitted, and whether the interested party should repay backpay received during the period of reinstatement.

1. Quashing order. The court quashed the Police Appeals Tribunal decision in its entirety. The substantive judgment had established that the disciplinary panel’s findings of misconduct and gross misconduct were reasonable and that the tribunal had acted unlawfully in interfering with them.
2. Performance and misconduct. There was no bright line between poor performance and misconduct. The panel was not required formally to state that it had considered whether the matters were performance issues before finding misconduct. In light of the panel’s factual findings, its conclusion that the conduct amounted to gross misconduct was lawfully open to it.
3. Sanction. Once gross misconduct and an active attempt to mislead the panel had been established, dismissal was plainly within the range of reasonable responses. The disciplinary scheme served, among other purposes, to maintain public confidence in the police. No basis existed for remitting the sanction issue.
4. Repayment. The court had jurisdiction to order repayment of backpay received during the period between the original dismissal and reinstatement. The interested party’s vulnerabilities and personal circumstances were considered, but the payments were public funds and she had been put on notice by the pre-action protocol letter that payment was at risk if judicial review succeeded. A separate unjust enrichment claim was unnecessary and would create additional cost. Repayment was therefore ordered.

Not an appeal. The judgment followed the court’s substantive judicial review decision in The King (on the application of) The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v The Police Appeals Tribunal [2024] EWHC 2348 (Admin).