Nicholas Barnes v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
[2023] EWHC 2737 (Admin)
Alice Victor, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police
18 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2119 (Admin)
High Court
A police officer got a warning for bad behavior, but lost her job anyway because a separate review said she wasn't suitable to be a police officer. The court decided the rules allowed for this, even though it seemed unfair.
Key Facts
- •Alice Victor, a student probationer police constable, was discharged by West Mercia Police on March 16, 2022.
- •The discharge followed the withdrawal of her recruitment vetting clearance due to an incident on May 29, 2021, involving shouting abuse.
- •Prior misconduct proceedings resulted in a final written warning, not dismissal.
- •Victor challenged the vetting decision and the discharge decision via judicial review.
- •The central issue was whether it was lawful to remove vetting clearance and subsequently discharge her, given the misconduct outcome.
Legal Principles
A power conferred in general terms cannot defeat the intention of clear statutory provisions.
R v Liverpool CC ex p Baby Products Association
Wide-ranging prerogative powers cannot frustrate the purpose of a statute.
R(Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
Two separate dismissal procedures govern probationers; the choice of which to use is for the employing force.
R v Chief Constable of British Transport Police ex p Farmer
In cases of disputed misconduct, the Conduct Regulations' procedures should be followed. If misconduct is admitted or undisputed, other procedures may be used, provided they don't subvert protections afforded under the Conduct Regulations.
R(Monger) v Chief Constable of Cumbria and C v Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police
Vetting decisions can be based on reasonable grounds for suspicion, but the decision-maker must consider whether it's appropriate to refuse clearance in all circumstances.
R(A) v Chief Constable of C Constabulary
The ability to discharge under regulation 13 depends on the Chief Constable's consideration, not objective assessment. A substantial degree of deference is owed.
R(Verity) v Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police
A chief officer has discretion to use disciplinary procedures or Regulation 13 of the Police Regulations 2003 for misconduct matters involving probationers.
Home Office Guidance on Conduct, Efficiency, and Effectiveness
Outcomes
The claim was dismissed.
The Vetting Decision, while leading to Victor's discharge, was not unlawful. The misconduct and vetting processes, though related, are distinct, with different criteria. The vetting review was mandated by the APP and was a full review, not constrained by the misconduct proceedings' outcome. The discharge under Regulation 13 was a rational consequence of the vetting decision.
Similar Cases
Joseph Quirke, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary
[2024] EWHC 2826 (Admin)
Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel
[2024] EWHC 2796 (Admin)
The Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel
[2023] EWHC 589 (Admin)
Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, R (on the application of) v A Legally Qualified Chair
[2024] EWHC 1454 (Admin)