Court Upholds Police Misconduct Hearing Decision in O'Connor v Police Misconduct Panel: Key Legal Principles and Outcomes

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2892 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

The High Court of Justice in Kristina O’Connor, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel & Anor [2023] EWHC 2892 (Admin) delivered a judgment addressing the challenge of a police misconduct hearing outcome and investigation legality. The key focal points were the adherence to guidelines issued by the College of Policing, consideration of relevant matters by the panel, and the rationality of the decision taken.

Key Facts

The claimant, Kristina O’Connor, lodged a judicial review against the outcome of a police misconduct hearing concerning the conduct of former Detective Chief Inspector James Mason. The complaint, made in October 2020, pertained to events from October 2011 where the claimant alleged that Mason, then a Detective Sergeant, engaged in inappropriate behavior amounting to sexual harassment. The panel concluded this as gross misconduct issuing a final written warning for three years.

The claimant argued that the panel failed to properly adhere to the guidance from the College of Policing, did not adequately consider relevant matters, placed excessive weight on certain factors, and consequently made an irrational decision in imposing a warning rather than dismissal.

Judicial Review and Statutory Guidance Adherence

The court assessed the adherence to the College of Policing’s “Outcomes Guidance” as per Police Act 1996 Section 87(3), which mandates the consideration of such guidance in police disciplinary functions. The “Outcomes Guidance” facilitates an assessive framework on the seriousness of conduct through four elements: culpability, harm caused, aggravating factors, and mitigating factors.

Investigation Adequacy and Discrimination

Concerning the investigation’s adequacy, the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 were scrutinized for compliance concerning treating complaints as those of discrimination. The claimant asserted that discrimination was not duly regarded as part of the claim.

Panel’s Decision-Making and Rationality

In deciding on the penalty, the court referenced principles from Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 on maintaining public confidence and the reputation of the profession. The panel’s assessment was checked for rationality and reasonableness while considering all factors stipulated under the regulations and the “Outcomes Guidance”.

Outcomes

The court dismissed the application for judicial review on all grounds:

  1. No Error in Referring Process: There was no legal error in how the complaint was referred to the IOPC and subsequently classified.

  2. No Error in Investigation: The investigation by the Commissioner was deemed neither contrary to the relevant guidance nor inadequate.

  3. Adherence to Guidance: The panel’s approach aligned with the “Outcomes Guidance” from the College of Policing in assessing the severity of misconduct.

  4. Panel Decision Reasonable: The decision to issue a final written warning for three years instead of dismissal was within the Panel’s discretion and not considered irrational by the court.

Conclusion

The High Court articulated the importance of adherence to statutory guidance while granting reasonable discretion to misconduct panels in sanctioning decisions. It underscored that judicial review scrutinizes the lawfulness and adherence to procedural requirements rather than substituting the judgment of the reviewing court for that of the decision maker. The court emphasized the fundamental principle of statutory “have regard” obligations and the essentiality of disclosures fulfilling the obligation of candour. The ruling demonstrates a balance between upholding the regulatory framework, ensuring a fair assessment of misconduct severity, and the exercise of discretion by panels in disciplinary matters.