Alice Victor, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police
[2023] EWHC 2119 (Admin)
Joseph Quirke, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary
8 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2826 (Admin)
High Court
A police officer's vetting was revoked due to an old, unproven allegation. He challenged the decision in court. The judge decided the panel's decision to uphold the revocation was reasonable, even though there were problems with the initial investigation and some mistakes in the first vetting decision. The judge felt the panel acted reasonably considering the seriousness of the original allegation and potential risks to public safety.
Key Facts
- •Joseph Quirke (Claimant) was a probationary police constable whose vetting was revoked.
- •The revocation was based on a 2014 non-conviction incident involving an allegation of possessing indecent images of a child.
- •The investigation was ultimately closed due to insufficient evidence.
- •Quirke appealed the revocation to a Police Vetting Appeal Panel, chaired by ACC Hall.
- •The Panel upheld the revocation.
- •Quirke sought judicial review of the Panel's decision.
Legal Principles
Vetting decisions must comply with the Authorised Professional Practice on Vetting (APP). A decision-maker needs 'good reason' not to follow the APP.
R (J) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police [2022] EWHC 26 (Admin) §86
The APP sets out a two-stage test for assessing vetting information: (i) reasonable grounds for suspicion of criminal activity, and (ii) appropriateness of refusing clearance in all circumstances.
APP §8.37.4
The Six Factors outlined in APP §8.8.2 should be considered in vetting assessments, particularly concerning non-conviction information.
APP §8.8.1, §8.8.2
Judicial review for unreasonableness considers whether a decision is outside the range of reasonable decisions and if there's a demonstrable flaw in the reasoning process.
R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin) [2019] 1 WLR 1649 at §98; R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] EWCA Civ 615 [2019] 1 WLR 5687 at §90
Reasonable grounds for suspicion means 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the individual may have committed the offence'.
R (A) v Chief Constable of C Police [2014] EWHC 216 (Admin) at §26
Outcomes
The claim for judicial review was refused.
The court found that ACC Hall's decision was not unreasonable. While acknowledging flaws in the initial vetting revocation decision, the court held that these were not repeated or adopted by ACC Hall. The court emphasized the Panel's latitude in evaluating risk and public protection.
Similar Cases
Stephen Dalton, R (on the application of) v Chair of the Police Appeals Tribunal
[2024] EWHC 1116 (Admin)
John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Independent Office of Police Conduct
[2022] EWHC 3307 (Admin)
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
[2024] EWHC 2796 (Admin)