Alice Victor, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police
[2023] EWHC 2119 (Admin)
Nicholas Barnes v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
3 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2737 (Admin)
High Court
A police officer told a racist joke. He got a warning, but was then fired because his boss didn't think he'd be a good cop. A judge said the boss had the right to fire him, even though he'd already been warned.
Key Facts
- •Nicholas Barnes, a probationary constable, told a racist joke while on duty.
- •A misconduct panel found him guilty of misconduct, issuing a written warning.
- •The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police subsequently discharged Barnes under Regulation 13 of the Police Regulations 2003.
- •Barnes challenged the decision, arguing it was unlawful, irrational, and unfair given the previous misconduct proceedings.
Legal Principles
Police Regulations 2003, Regulation 13 allows for the discharge of a probationary constable if the chief officer considers them unfit, physically or mentally, or unlikely to become efficient or well-conducted.
Police Regulations 2003, Regulation 13
Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 define misconduct and gross misconduct, outlining procedures for disciplinary actions.
Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020
Section 87(3) of the Police Act 1996 requires consideration of Home Office Guidance on conduct, efficiency, and effectiveness.
Police Act 1996, Section 87(3)
Chief Constables must act fairly and provide an opportunity to be heard and respond to allegations, with fairness principles applying even if Regulation 13 does not explicitly require a formal hearing.
Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155
There is no obligation to commence misconduct proceedings before using Regulation 13 if the misconduct is admitted, unless there is conflict about the facts.
R (Begley) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] EWHC 534 (Admin); R (Khan) v Chief Constable of Lancashire [2009] EWHC 472 (Admin)
The decision to use Regulation 13 or misconduct procedures rests with the employing force and is not always an alternative means of dismissal.
R v Chief Constable of British Transport Police, ex parte Farmer (unreported) 30 July 1999, CA
Outcomes
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
The court found the Chief Constable was entitled to use Regulation 13, even after misconduct proceedings, as the processes address different issues. The procedure followed was deemed fair, as the Claimant had ample opportunity to address the misconduct. The Chief Constable's decision was not irrational or unlawful.
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)
Kristina O'Connor, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2892 (Admin)
Stephen Dalton, R (on the application of) v Chair of the Police Appeals Tribunal
[2024] EWHC 1116 (Admin)