Kristina O'Connor, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2892 (Admin)
Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel
4 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2796 (Admin)
High Court
A police officer was found guilty of misconduct, but only got a warning instead of being fired. A court decided the reasons for the lighter punishment weren't good enough and sent the case back to be decided again.
Key Facts
- •Daniel Buckett, a Detective Constable, faced police misconduct proceedings for allegedly misusing his warrant card and using racist language.
- •The Police Misconduct Panel found both allegations proven, constituting gross misconduct, and imposed a final written warning.
- •The IOPC challenged the sanction decision, arguing it was irrational and lacked adequate reasons; they contended dismissal was the only rational outcome.
- •Buckett was subsequently dismissed for gross incompetence due to the withdrawal of his vetting clearance, not directly related to the misconduct.
- •The IOPC's claim proceeded despite Buckett's dismissal, as the consequences differ between dismissal for gross misconduct and gross incompetence.
Legal Principles
Standard of reasons required for misconduct panel decisions.
Thames Valley Police case, South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2)
Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings (College of Policing) should be considered, though not necessarily strictly followed.
Police Conduct Regulations 2020, Police Act 1996, case law (Northumbria Police, West Midlands Police, O'Connor)
Judicial review cannot be used to argue undue leniency; the claimant must show the decision was outside the range of reasonable options.
Salter v Chief Constable of Dorset
Misconduct panels have a broad area of discretionary judgment, considering factors like culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors.
Thames Valley Police case, Salter v Chief Constable of Dorset
The court's power to substitute its own decision for a misconduct panel's is limited by the Senior Courts Act 1981, requiring an error of law and only one rational decision being possible without the error.
Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31(5)(b), CPR 54.19(2)(b)
Outcomes
The IOPC's claim succeeds in part; the sanction decision is quashed.
The Panel failed to give adequate reasons for its decision, falling short of the required standard by conducting a cursory checklist of factors without explaining how they were weighed or how the ultimate conclusion was reached.
The matter is remitted to the Panel for a fresh decision on sanction.
The court declines to substitute its own decision as it cannot be certain that only one rational decision would be reached by the Panel on remittal, given the uncertainties around future arguments and evidence.
Similar Cases
The Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel
[2023] EWHC 589 (Admin)
The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police v A Police Misconduct Panel
[2023] EWHC 2693 (KB)
Nicholas Barnes v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
[2023] EWHC 2737 (Admin)
Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v A Police Conduct Panel
[2022] EWHC 2857 (Admin)