The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, R (on the application of) v The Police Appeals Tribunal

13 September 2024

[2024] EWHC 2348 (Admin)

High Court

A police officer was fired for bad work. An appeals panel said the officer should get another hearing because her problems were due to disabilities. A judge disagreed, saying the disability argument wasn't properly raised initially, and the original decision to fire her was fair.

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.

The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, R (on the application of) v The Police Appeals Tribunal

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Stephen Dalton, R (on the application of) v Chair of the Police Appeals Tribunal

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

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

IXF, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police

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