The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, R (on the application of) v The Police Appeals Tribunal
[2024] EWHC 2348 (Admin)
Stephen Dalton, R (on the application of) v Chair of the Police Appeals Tribunal
14 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1116 (Admin)
High Court
A police officer was fired for roughing up a suspect. He appealed, but the appeal was rejected. He then tried to get the court to overturn the decision, but the court said the original decision was fair, even if some of the explanations weren't perfectly clear.
Key Facts
- •Police Constable Dalton (Claimant) was dismissed for gross misconduct following an incident where he forcefully pushed a detainee's head into a police vehicle, causing injury.
- •The Police Misconduct Panel found allegations of breach of professional standards relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Use of Force, and Discreditable Conduct proven.
- •Dalton appealed to the Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT), which dismissed the appeal finding no real prospect of success.
- •Dalton sought judicial review of the PAT's decision, challenging the adequacy of reasons, apparent bias, and the rationality of the PAT Chair's decision.
- •The High Court refused permission for judicial review, finding the Claimant's grounds unarguable and lacking realistic prospect of success.
Legal Principles
Standard of review for appeals to the PAT is not Wednesbury unreasonableness, but a less stringent test.
R (Chief Constable of Durham) v Police Appeals Tribunal & Ors [2012] EWHC 2733 (Admin)
Adequacy of reasons: Reasons must show the decision-maker engaged with main contentions, explain the outcome, be intelligible and relate to the evidence; the extent depends on context.
Davies v Bar Standards Board [2015] EWHC 2927 (Admin), Lawrence v General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 464 (Admin), Gupta v General Medical Council [2001] UKPC 61
Apparent bias: The test is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility of bias.
Southwark LBC v Jiminez [2003] EWCA Civ 502, Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330, Stanley Muscat v Health Professions Council [2008] EWHC 2798 (QB)
Permission for judicial review will be refused if there is no arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success, or if the outcome would likely be the same regardless of the complained-of conduct.
Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2023, Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31(3C)-(3D), Cava Bien Limited v Milton Keynes Council [2021] EWHC 3003 (Admin)
Good character evidence: Disciplinary tribunals must consider good character evidence but aren't required to explicitly state its consideration in their reasons. The court can infer consideration from the available material.
Nwosu v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2023] EWHC 2405 (KB), Shaw v Logue [2014] EWHC 5 (Admin), Khan v GMC [2021] EWHC 374 (Admin)
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review refused.
The High Court judge found all grounds of challenge unarguable and lacking a realistic prospect of success. Even if some reasons were inadequate, the outcome would likely have been the same.
Similar Cases
IXF, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police
[2023] EWHC 2793 (Admin)
Kristina O'Connor, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2892 (Admin)
Wayne Leighton v Chief Constable Of North Yorkshire Police
[2024] EWHC 2426 (KB)
McMahon v Independent Office for Police Conduct
[2024] EWCA Civ 994