Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, R (on the application of) v A Legally Qualified Chair

13 June 2024

[2024] EWHC 1454 (Admin)

High Court

A police officer was accused of misconduct before he joined the force. The judge ruled that the rules for police misconduct don't apply to things done before becoming an officer. However, he still has to tell the truth about his past, and lying about it after joining is misconduct. There are other ways to deal with bad things done before becoming an officer, too.

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.

Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, R (on the application of) v A Legally Qualified Chair

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Alice Victor, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police

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

Nicholas Barnes v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

Joseph Quirke, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary

The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, R (on the application of) v The Police Appeals Tribunal