Key Facts
- •Police officer C, joined Thames Valley Police in 2010. Misconduct proceedings alleged sexual activity with a minor (A) in 2008/2009, and failure to disclose this on vetting forms.
- •The Legally Qualified Chair (defendant) dismissed the case, ruling the PCR 2020 didn't apply to pre-attestation conduct.
- •The Chief Constable (claimant) sought judicial review.
- •The Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) intervened.
- •C resigned from the force before the proceedings.
- •The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal's decision in *Watson* (concerning similar legislation) was highly relevant.
Legal Principles
Statutory interpretation requires ascertaining Parliament's true meaning, considering the statute as a whole and its historical context.
Lord Bingham in *R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health* [2003] 2 AC 687
The purpose of statutory disciplinary regimes is to maintain public confidence and uphold professional standards, not to punish.
*Bolton v Law Society* [1994] 1 WLR 512; *Gupta v General Medical Council* [2002] 1 WLR 1691; *R (Coke-Wallis) v Institute of Chartered Accountants* [2011] 2 AC 146
Decisions of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal should be followed unless compelling reasons exist (e.g., the decision is clearly wrong).
*Deane v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions* [2011] 1 WLR 743; *R (Jwanczuk) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions* [2004] 2 WLR 795
Police officers have an ongoing duty to disclose information previously sought, even if the initial non-disclosure occurred before attestation.
*Watson's Application for Judicial Review* [2024] NICA 7
Outcomes
Judicial review allowed; defendant's decision quashed.
The defendant erred in law by not considering the officer's ongoing duty to disclose pre-attestation conduct on his vetting forms. This failure to disclose, post-attestation, constitutes misconduct under the PCR 2020.
PCR 2020 does not apply to conduct before a person becomes a police officer.
Following *Watson*, the Court held that the misconduct regulations apply only to conduct while a person is a serving police officer. The Court of Appeal decision in *Watson* was considered authoritative and not clearly wrong.
Removal of vetting clearance and proceedings under the PPR 2020 may be used to address pre-attestation misconduct.
This alternative approach, as recognized in *Watson*, offers a means to address conduct that predates police service, but impacts suitability for the role.