Key Facts
- •Judicial review of a Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT) decision concerning the appeal of Sandeep Khunkhun, a Metropolitan Police officer dismissed for gross misconduct.
- •The PAT quashed the Police Misconduct Panel's decision and remitted the case to a fresh panel.
- •The misconduct allegations stemmed from the IP's inadequate investigation of domestic abuse allegations resulting in the victim's murder.
- •The PAT's reasoning was that the Panel hadn't addressed the IP's argument that her failings were due to disabilities, thus constituting a performance issue, not misconduct.
- •The Claimant argued the Panel fully addressed the case and the gross misconduct finding was reasonable.
- •The IP's case significantly shifted between the Panel and PAT hearings, with the PAT's focus on the impact of the IP's disabilities, not initially a central argument before the Panel.
Legal Principles
Wednesbury unreasonableness
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223
Procedural fairness in disciplinary hearings; necessity to put allegations of dishonesty to the accused.
Haringey LBC v Hines [2010] EWCA Civ 1111; Abbey Forwarding Ltd (in liquidation) v. Hone; Dempster v. HMRC [2008] STC 2079
Limited weight of personal mitigation in police misconduct cases involving dishonesty or impropriety.
R (Chief Constable of Dorset) v Police Appeals Tribunal and Salter [2011] EWHC 3366 (Admin); R (Williams) v PAT [2017] ICR 235; R (Bolt) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2007] EWHC 2607 (QB)
Public confidence in the police is a central consideration in misconduct proceedings.
College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings (2017)
Standard of review for judicial review of expert tribunals – Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Outcomes
Judicial review application allowed; PAT decision quashed.
The PAT unlawfully overturned the Panel's decision because the IP's reliance on disabilities as the explanation for her actions was a new legal argument not raised before the Panel. There was insufficient evidence to link the IP's disabilities to her untruthfulness, and the Panel's finding of gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable outcomes.