The Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel

17 March 2023

[2023] EWHC 589 (Admin)

High Court

A police officer was inappropriate with a woman, showing his badge and making comments to try to get her number. A panel decided only to give him a warning, but a judge disagreed, saying he should be fired because his actions hurt the public's trust in the police. The judge said the panel didn't understand how serious the officer's actions were.

Key Facts

•On April 15, 2020, an off-duty British Transport Police officer (PC Aftab) approached a lone female pedestrian, engaging her in conversation.
•PC Aftab made inappropriate comments, including a racially charged remark about the woman's physique, and showed her his warrant card.
•He showed her photographs of himself working out, asked for her phone number, and sought a hug.
•Following a complaint, a Police Misconduct Panel found PC Aftab guilty of gross misconduct.
•The Panel imposed a final written warning as a sanction, rather than dismissal.
•The Chief Constable of British Transport Police (BTP) sought judicial review, arguing that dismissal was the only rational outcome.

Legal Principles

Structured approach to disciplinary outcome (Fuglers approach): assess seriousness, consider purpose of sanctions, choose appropriate sanction.

Fuglers LLP v SRA [2014] EWHC 179 (Admin)

Three central pillars of police misconduct proceedings: maintain public confidence, uphold high standards, protect the public.

HOG 2020, paragraph 4.26

Public confidence in the police is paramount; misconduct that undermines this warrants serious sanctions.

R (on the application of Green) v Police Complaints Authority [2004] UKHL 6

When police officers produce their warrant card or act in a way suggesting they are on duty, they are considered to be on duty and must adhere to professional standards.

HOG 2020, paragraph 2.21

Abuse of position for sexual purposes is serious corruption and has no place in policing; even without a sexual element, abuse of position is taken seriously.

NPCC National Strategy 2017

Judicial review standard: A decision is irrational if no reasonable tribunal could have reached that conclusion on the same material.

R (CC of Dorset) v PAT & Salter [2011] EWHC 3366 (Admin)

Outcomes

The court quashed the Police Misconduct Panel's decision.

The Panel's decision to impose a final written warning instead of dismissal was irrational; dismissal was the only rational outcome given the seriousness of the officer's misconduct and its impact on public confidence.

The court substituted the Panel's decision with a dismissal.

Remitting the matter to a new panel would be inefficient and cause further delay; the court's power to substitute the decision was deemed appropriate in this case.

The Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police v A Police Misconduct Panel

Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel

Kristina O'Connor, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel & Anor

Nicholas Barnes v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v A Police Conduct Panel