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
27 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2693 (KB)
High Court
A police officer touched a female colleague inappropriately. A panel said he was guilty but didn't fire him. A judge said the panel made mistakes and sent the case back for them to decide again whether he should lose his job.
Key Facts
- •PC Hafeez Javeed, a police officer with two years' service, was found guilty of gross misconduct by a Police Misconduct Panel for inappropriate touching of a female colleague, Miss A.
- •The incident involved several instances of touching Miss A's shoulders, back, and near her breast, captured on CCTV.
- •Miss A reported feeling shocked and offended by PC Javeed's actions.
- •PC Javeed denied any sexual intent and claimed his actions were 'jokey'.
- •PC Javeed was acquitted of a criminal charge of sexual assault prior to the misconduct hearing.
- •The Panel imposed a final written warning, extended for five years, as a sanction.
- •Thames Valley Police challenged the Panel's decision via judicial review, arguing that dismissal was the only appropriate sanction.
Legal Principles
Three-stage approach to determining sanction: assess seriousness of misconduct, consider purpose of sanctions, choose sanction fulfilling purpose.
Fuglers LLP v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin)
Maintaining public confidence in the police service is paramount; the weight given to personal mitigation is limited in serious cases.
Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512; Salter v The Chief Constable of Dorset [2012] EWCA Civ 1047; Williams v Police Appeals Tribunal [2016] EWHC 2708 (Admin)
Judicial review is not an appeal; the court applies the Wednesbury test – the claimant must show the panel's conclusions were clearly wrong.
R (oao Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis) v PAT and Robyn Williams [2022] EWHC 1951 (Admin)
The panel must give sufficient reasons for its decision, enabling parties and the court to understand the reasoning process.
Not explicitly cited but established principle in judicial review.
Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 applies by analogy: some actions are inherently sexual; others may be sexual depending on the circumstances.
Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.78
Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020: Defines misconduct and gross misconduct.
The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (SI No 4 of 2020)
College of Policing’s Guidance on outcomes in police misconduct proceedings: Outlines factors for assessing seriousness of conduct (culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors).
College of Policing’s “Guidance on outcomes in police misconduct proceedings”, 2017 version
Outcomes
Judicial review application allowed; case remitted to a new Police Misconduct Panel for reconsideration of sanction.
While the Panel's findings of fact were not overturned, material errors in their reasoning regarding the seriousness of the harm and the weight given to mitigating factors were identified. The court could not confidently determine the appropriate sanction without these errors.
Similar Cases
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
[2023] EWHC 2892 (Admin)
Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v A Police Conduct Panel
[2022] EWHC 2857 (Admin)
The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, R (on the application of) v The Police Appeals Tribunal
[2024] EWHC 2348 (Admin)