The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel

In police misconduct proceedings, a panel must follow the structured approach in the applicable outcomes guidance. It must assess the seriousness of the proven conduct before considering personal mitigation, and character references receive limited weight where dismissal may be required to maintain public confidence.

Historical tolerance of inappropriate conduct does not establish that the conduct met a different standard at the time. Reduction in rank is available only where the misconduct falls below the dismissal threshold and involves poor leadership below the standard expected of the officer’s rank. It must not be used as a softer alternative where dismissal is otherwise justified.

The Commissioner sought judicial review of a Police Misconduct Panel’s decision to demote a former police sergeant to constable after finding that he had intentionally touched a female officer between the buttocks during a social event.

The officer had resigned before the claim was heard. The court held that the claim remained live because dismissal would have resulted in inclusion on the police barred list, unlike voluntary resignation. The challenge concerned the lawfulness and rationality of the sanction, including the panel’s treatment of character evidence, an alleged warning, historical standards, and reduction in rank.

1. The claim succeeded on grounds 1, 3 and 4, but failed on ground 2. The Panel’s outcome decision was quashed and the decision on sanction was remitted for lawful reconsideration.
2. The Panel was required by s87(3) of the Police Act 1996 to follow the Outcomes Guidance. It should first assess the seriousness of the proven misconduct. Personal mitigation, including testimonials and references, should be considered only afterwards, with the limited weight identified in section 6 of the guidance.
3. The Panel irrationally treated a possible change in culture as mitigating. The fact that inappropriate conduct may have gone unchallenged in 2017 did not mean that a police sergeant putting his hands inside a female officer’s clothing and touching her bare buttocks was acceptable by the standards of that time.
4. Under the Home Office Guidance and Outcomes Guidance, reduction in rank is available where dismissal is not justified, the conduct warrants more than a final written warning, and the misconduct involves poor leadership below the standard expected of the officer’s rank. It cannot be used merely as a softer option where the dismissal threshold has been reached.
5. The Panel had not explained why the misconduct fell below the dismissal threshold or why the officer was fit to serve as a constable but not as a sergeant. The reasoning therefore contained a significant gap. The position was similar to Salter v CC of Dorset [2012] EWCA Civ 1047.
6. On reconsideration, the Panel must apply the guidance, disregard perceived changes in the culture of responding to such conduct, decide whether poor leadership made reduction in rank available, and determine whether dismissal was required. The same Panel should preferably reconsider the outcome, subject to lawful reconstitution if necessary.

This was a judicial review claim against the Police Misconduct Panel’s sanction decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.