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

A police misconduct panel determining sanction must apply three stages: assess the seriousness of the misconduct; keep the purposes of disciplinary sanctions in mind; and select the sanction which best fulfils those purposes. The first stage requires consideration of culpability, harm, aggravating factors and mitigating factors, although no prescribed format or rigid template is required.

A list of relevant factors is insufficient unless the panel analyses their significance and explains the resulting assessment of seriousness. Purely personal mitigation does not reduce seriousness and may be considered only after seriousness has been assessed. Historic misconduct remains serious if it was reprehensible by the standards prevailing when it occurred.

A police misconduct panel found that a senior police officer had used his position of authority to pursue a sexual relationship with a vulnerable victim of crime. His deliberate and targeted conduct amounted to gross misconduct, but the Panel imposed a three-year final written warning.

Swift J dismissed the victim’s claim for judicial review. She appealed, contending that the Panel had failed to follow the Outcomes Guidance, had inadequately assessed seriousness, culpability and harm, and had imposed an irrationally lenient sanction.

The central issues were whether the Guidance mandated a particular structured form of decision-making and whether the Panel had adequately analysed and explained the seriousness of the misconduct before selecting the sanction.

1. Appeal allowed on ground 2; ground 1 dismissed. The Panel’s decision to impose a final written warning was quashed and the issue of sanction was remitted to a police misconduct panel. Ground 3, challenging the rationality of the warning, did not require determination.

2. The Outcomes Guidance did not mandate a rigid or prescribed structure. Following Fuglers LLP v Solicitors Regulatory Authority [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin), a panel must: assess seriousness; keep the purposes of sanctions in mind; and choose the sanction which appropriately fulfils those purposes. Within the first stage it must consider culpability, harm, aggravating factors and mitigating factors. Those matters can overlap, and the task is one of substance rather than form. The Guidance is not a template or a tick-box exercise.

3. The Panel nevertheless committed an error of law. Its list of aggravating and mitigating factors did not provide the required analysis of seriousness, culpability and harm. The misconduct was deliberate and targeted, involved sexual impropriety by an officer occupying a position of trust and authority, and was directed towards a vulnerable victim. The Panel neither evaluated the weight of those features nor explained how they informed its ultimate assessment of seriousness.

4. The Panel also failed adequately to explain why a final written warning, rather than reduction in rank or dismissal, was appropriate. Merely stating that the more severe sanctions would be disproportionately harsh did not disclose sufficient reasoning.

5. Purely personal mitigation, including character references and an outstanding service record, does not reduce the seriousness of misconduct. It may be considered only after seriousness has been assessed. Its weight is then a fact-sensitive question, bearing in mind the importance of public confidence in the profession. Although historic misconduct should be considered by reference to contemporary standards, the conduct in question was as reprehensible when committed as it was at the date of the hearing.

6. Under Regulation 2 of Schedule 1 to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, the officer’s resignation did not prevent remittal. The Panel could determine whether he would have been dismissed had he remained a member of the police force. If possible, the same Panel was to be convened.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed on ground 2 and dismissed on ground 1. The sanction was quashed and remitted to a police misconduct panel. Ground 3 was not determined. [2025] EWCA Civ 27

2. Administrative Court: Swift J dismissed the claim for judicial review, holding that the Panel had lawfully had regard to the Outcomes Guidance and had adequately assessed seriousness. No neutral citation is stated in the judgment.

3. Police Misconduct Panel: The Panel found gross misconduct and imposed a final written warning lasting three years.