Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel

On judicial review, the court should not substitute its assessment for that of an experienced police misconduct panel. The question is whether the sanction was clearly inappropriate or outside the range reasonably open to the panel, assessed in context.

A panel must have regard to College of Policing guidance, but that guidance does not mandate a particular structured process or outcome. The panel must assess seriousness, including culpability, harm or risk of harm, aggravating factors and mitigating factors, and select the sanction that fulfils the purposes of the misconduct regime. Its reasons are read fairly and in the round.

The Chief Constable challenged the Police Misconduct Panel’s decision following misconduct proceedings against Inspector Alex Taylor. The Panel found gross misconduct arising from a sexual relationship with a junior colleague, including sex on police premises while Taylor was on duty, failures to disclose the conduct, and breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

The Panel imposed a final written warning lasting four years rather than dismissal. The Chief Constable alleged irrationality, insufficient evidence concerning mental health, misassessment of culpability and harm, inadequate evaluation of aggravating and mitigating factors, reliance on non-exceptional features, and failure to follow the Outcomes Guidance. The central issue was whether the sanction decision was unlawful on judicial review.

1. The claim was dismissed. Each ground of challenge failed. The Panel had found gross misconduct, but the court’s task was not to decide what sanction it would have imposed. It was to determine whether the decision was clearly inappropriate or outside the limits reasonably open to the Panel, having regard to the Panel’s practical expertise in maintaining public confidence and the reputation of policing (paras [12]–[17]).
2. The obligation to have regard to the College of Policing’s Outcomes Guidance required the Panel to consider its substance. The Guidance was non-exhaustive and did not mandate a structured approach or a particular outcome. The Panel also had to consider relevant matters in the Relationships Guidance (paras [18]–[20]).
3. The approach adopted in Fuglers v SRA [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin), as reflected in the Outcomes Guidance, required assessment of seriousness, consideration of the purposes of disciplinary sanctions, and selection of the sanction most appropriate to those purposes. Seriousness was informed principally by culpability and harm or risk of harm, together with aggravating and mitigating factors (paras [19], [37]).
4. The Panel was entitled to rely on psychiatric evidence that Taylor’s decision-making was impaired by depressive disorder and discontinuation of medication. The challenge sought to revisit the Panel’s evaluation of the evidence and did not disclose an error of law (paras [21]–[23]).
5. The assessment of culpability and harm as medium, and medium to high respectively, was reasonably open to the Panel. The consensual and short-lived relationship, absence of manipulation or misuse of authority to initiate or maintain it, impaired decision-making, and limited impact on policing were relevant. The Panel was entitled not to accept the allegation of a toxic working environment as unsupported and exaggerated (paras [24]–[32]).
6. Although the Panel’s reasoning could have been expressed differently, its decision was sufficiently reasoned when read fairly and in the round. The listing and evaluation of aggravating and mitigating matters did not require a sentencing-style analysis where the matters identified spoke for themselves. The decision was distinguishable in context from the inadequate reasoning criticised in R (O’Connor) v Panel Chair, Police Misconduct Panel [2025] ICR 1137 (paras [33]–[37]).
7. The references to exceptional or unique features explained the tipping point between a final written warning and dismissal. They did not disclose legal error. The Panel was entitled, given its expertise and the objectives of the misconduct regime, to conclude that an informed reasonable member of the public could regard the sanction as fulfilling those objectives (paras [38]–[44]).

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The application challenged the Police Misconduct Panel’s decision dated 4 November 2024. The High Court dismissed the application.