The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police v A Police Misconduct Panel
[2023] EWHC 2693 (KB)
Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v A Police Conduct Panel
11 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 2857 (Admin)
High Court
Two police officers cheated on their gun training records. A judge said the punishment was too light and sent the case back to a new group of people to decide on a fair punishment.
Key Facts
- •PS Hayley Russell, a firearms instructor, and PC Christopher Strickland, a firearms instructor deployed to an ARV team, falsified firearms reclassification shoot records and authorisations in November 2019.
- •PC Strickland falsely stamped his blue book to extend his firearm authorisation without permission.
- •PS Russell falsely entered PC Strickland's results on score sheets, claiming it was a mistake.
- •A misconduct hearing found both officers guilty of gross misconduct, but only issued final written warnings.
- •The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis sought judicial review of the sanctions decision.
Legal Principles
Armed police officers must be authorized to carry weapons through a transparent, effective, and incorruptible process and rigorously trained in their use.
College of Policing guidance and s. 54(1) and (3) of the Firearms Act 1968
Chief Officers have a duty to have regard to the Home Office Code of Practice on the Police Use of Firearms and Less Lethal Weapons (2003).
s. 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002
The three-stage structured approach to determining sanctions (assess seriousness, consider purpose, choose sanction) from Fuglers LLP v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin).
Outcomes Guidance, paragraphs 4.2
Testimonial evidence is inadmissible when assessing the objective seriousness of misconduct at stage 1.
Outcomes Guidance, paragraphs 4.6 and 6.2; Bolton v The Law Society [1993] EWCA Civ 32
In police misconduct cases, a non-trivial failure to follow the Outcomes Guidance will likely amount to an error of law.
Judgement
Dismissal is almost inevitable for operational dishonesty, with very few exceptions.
Outcomes Guidance, paragraph 5.3
A Wednesbury challenge asks whether the decision was one that no reasonable tribunal correctly applying the law could properly have made.
R (on the application of) DSD and NBV and others [2018] EWHC 694
Outcomes
The sanctions decision was quashed.
The Panel erred in law by considering testimonials when assessing the seriousness of the misconduct at stage 1, violating the Outcomes Guidance.
The sanctions decision against PS Russell was quashed as irrational.
No reasonable Panel could have given a final written warning given the finding of dishonesty and failure to address the consequences of that dishonesty in relation to maintaining public confidence.
The matter was remitted to a newly constituted Panel for redetermination of sanctions.
Remitting to the original Panel would cause reasonably perceived unfairness and damage public confidence.
Similar Cases
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)
The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, R (on the application of) v The Police Appeals Tribunal
[2024] EWHC 2348 (Admin)
Kristina O'Connor, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2892 (Admin)