Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel
[2024] EWHC 2796 (Admin)
Kristina O'Connor, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel & Anor
17 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2892 (Admin)
High Court
A woman complained about a police officer's inappropriate behavior after she reported a crime. A panel found the officer guilty but only gave him a warning, not firing him. The woman sued, saying the investigation was bad. The judge said the investigation was okay, even if it could have been better, and the punishment was fair considering the officer's long good record.
Key Facts
- •Kristina O'Connor complained about the conduct of DCI James Mason, now resigned, concerning events in October 2011.
- •A misconduct hearing found Mason guilty of gross misconduct, imposing a final written warning.
- •O'Connor's judicial review challenged the hearing's outcome and the preceding investigation.
- •The complaint alleged inappropriate behaviour, including sexually suggestive emails, towards O'Connor after she reported a robbery.
- •The IOPC referred the complaint for local investigation by the Commissioner.
- •The investigation classified the complaint as 'Discreditable Conduct', not 'discrimination'.
- •A separate complaint against Mason emerged in 2022, alleging a pattern of inappropriate sexual behaviour towards female officers.
- •O'Connor argued the investigation was inadequate for failing to treat the complaint as discrimination and failing to uncover a pattern of behaviour.
Legal Principles
Treatment of complaints against police officers is governed by the Police Reform Act 2002 and related regulations.
Police Reform Act 2002
The Commissioner must have regard to guidance issued under section 22(1) of the 2002 Act.
Police Reform Act 2002, section 22(7)
Misconduct panels must have regard to guidance issued under section 87 of the Police Act 1996 regarding disciplinary functions.
Police Act 1996, section 87(3)
Judicial review will only succeed if the panel erred in law, failed to consider relevant evidence, or failed to give proper reasons.
Fuglers LLP v Solicitors Regulatory Authority [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin)
A defendant in judicial review has an obligation of candour to disclose relevant information.
Case law on judicial review
Outcomes
Judicial review application dismissed.
The court found no legal error in the Commissioner's investigation or the misconduct panel's decision. While the investigation could have been conducted differently, the steps taken were reasonable and appropriate. The panel's decision on the penalty was also considered proportionate and not irrational.
Commissioner's investigation upheld.
The court found the investigation, while not perfect, was conducted lawfully and in accordance with the relevant guidance. The failure to explicitly label the complaint as 'discrimination' was not deemed a material error, given the substance of the complaint and the IOPC's awareness of the details.
Misconduct panel's decision upheld.
The panel's decision to impose a final written warning instead of dismissal was deemed proportionate, considering the mitigating factors (Mr. Mason's long service, remorse, and lack of prior similar incidents), while acknowledging the seriousness of the misconduct and the public interest.
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)
John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Independent Office of Police Conduct
[2022] EWHC 3307 (Admin)
Stephen Dalton, R (on the application of) v Chair of the Police Appeals Tribunal
[2024] EWHC 1116 (Admin)