Commissioner of Police v Police Appeals Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Heather Williams |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2711 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4357/2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2022] EWHC 2711 (Admin)
THE HONOURABLE Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE
Case No: CO/4357/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Olivia Checa-Dover (instructed by Directorate of Legal Services) for the Claimant
Kevin Baumber (instructed by Reynolds Dawson Solicitors) for the First Interested Party
Ailsa Williamson (instructed by Reynolds Dawson Solicitors) for the Second Interested Party
Hearing dates: 13 October 2022
Approved Judgment
This is a claim for judicial review brought by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis challenging the 30 September 2021 decision of the Police Appeals Tribunal (“PAT”) to quash the 24 July 2020 findings of the Misconduct Panel (“the Panel”) that the allegations against the first and the second interested parties were proven and amounted to gross misconduct. The PAT substituted the Panel's decision with a finding that the allegations were not proven. The PAT has played no active part in these proceedings, which are contested by the two interested parties. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the papers by Cutts J in a decision communicated on 26 April 2022.
The allegations arose from a road accident on 4 December 2016 involving a marked police vehicle. PC Michel was the driver of the police car and PC Charnock was the operator. PC Michel proceeded against a red light signal and caused a collision with a vehicle driven by a member of the public who was proceeding in accordance with a green light. In the aftermath of the accident both officers gave accounts that later turned out to be inaccurate. In particular, both officers had indicated that their vehicle moved forwards in accordance with a green light in their favour. Subsequent investigations established this was not the case and the officers accepted as much. The disciplinary charges alleged breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to honesty and integrity and to discreditable conduct. The key question for the Panel was whether the officers' inaccurate accounts were the product of deliberate lies or honest mistakes.
The Claimant's four grounds of challenge are as follows:
i) The PAT failed to direct itself correctly as to the test to apply in determining whether the findings of the Panel that the charges were proven and amounted to gross misconduct were “unreasonable” within the meaning of rule 4(4)(a) of the Police Appeals Tribunal Rules 2012 (2012/2630) (“the 2012 Rules”) (“Ground 1”);
ii) The PAT conflated the question of whether the Panel's findings were unreasonable with the substantive determination of the disciplinary charges and/or failed to allow the parties to make submissions on the PAT's substantive determination before announcing its conclusion that the charges were not proved (“Ground 2”);
iii) The PAT's conclusion that the charges were not proved was irrational and/or involved procedural irregularity (“Ground 3”); and
iv) It was irrational for the PAT to decide that the Panel's findings that the charges were proven and amounted to gross misconduct were “unreasonable” (“Ground 4”).
The factual background
The accident and the accounts given in the aftermath
The road traffic accident was captured on CCTV. Information was also obtained from the police vehicle's Incident Data Recorder. The police vehicle was on the Uxbridge Road travelling south. This becomes the Hampton Road, West after the road crosses the junction with the Hounslow Road (“the junction”). The accident occurred at about midday in the middle of the junction. The police car collided with a VW Polo being driven along the Hounslow Road by Raj Mehra, who had the right of way at the time. The junction is a crossroads controlled by automatic traffic signals (“ATS”), which were functioning correctly on the day.
As the police vehicle approached the junction, PC Michel accepted an immediate response call requiring the officers to attend a suspect vehicle in the vicinity. He then came to a stop at a red light at the junction. The police vehicle was the first car stopped at these lights. After waiting for a period of time, PC Michel drove forwards before the traffic light had changed and whilst it was still showing red. Around a second later he activated his front and rear blue lights and headlamp flash, but the siren was not switched on. The vehicle moved off at a slow rate before colliding with the other car. The nearside of the police vehicle hit the offside of Mr Mehra's car. Mr Mehra had to be cut from his vehicle and was taken to hospital with minor injuries.
Very shortly after the accident PC Michel reported to the police operator via his radio that he had had a “PolCol”, saying he had proceeded through a green light.
PS Harvey was the garage sergeant responsible for the area on the day. He attended the scene. He asked PC Michel what had happened. PC Michel said he had been stationary at a red traffic light and had waited for the lights to turn green before activating his warning equipment and proceeding; that there were two vehicles in front of him, which moved to the side, allowing him to proceed; and once through the junction the VW Polo had gone through a red light and collided with his vehicle.
PS Harvey then spoke with PC Charnock, asking him whether the version of events relayed to him by PC Michel was correct. PC Charnock indicated that he agreed with PC Michel's account.
Mr Mehra was reported for driving without due care and having no insurance.
PC Michel made a witness statement setting out his account of the accident dated 9 December 2016. He signed this indicating that the contents were true to the best of his knowledge and belief. His account included: that he was stationary at the lights in the nearside lane with two stationary vehicles in front of him; due to the traffic lights being red he decided to wait for the phasing to turn green before moving off and activating his blue lights; when the light turned from red to green and the two vehicles in front of him began to move off, he moved into the offside lane; and the only apparent factor that caused the collision was the other driving having run a red light.
PC Charnock made a witness statement dated 6 December 2016 setting out his account of the incident. He signed it indicating that the contents were true to the best of his knowledge and belief. His account included: the traffic lights governing their junction were showing red; the police vehicle stopped behind two cars that were in front of them; when the lights turned green, the two vehicles in front filtered left and the police vehicle drove straight ahead; and a grey VW Polo then approached from their left hand side at speed.
It is unnecessary for me to detail the subsequent investigations, since neither officer challenged that it was thereby established that the police vehicle had in fact been at the front of the junction when the light was red and not behind any other vehicle; and that it had proceeded through a red light. It also followed that Mr Mehra had driven forwards in accordance with a green light.
The Regulation 21 and 22 Notices
Notices serviced pursuant to regulation 21 of the Police Conduct Regulations 2012 (2012/2632) (“the 2012 Regulations”) alleged that both officers had breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour set out in regulation 3 and schedule 2, namely (i) honesty and integrity; and (ii) discreditable conduct. The notices also contended that the breaches were so serious that dismissal could be justified.
The allegations in respect of PC Michel were:
“ Charge 1
On 4 th December 2016 Police Constable 234520 Max Michel made representations that were false, namely he informed the police operator that he had proceeded through a green ATS, which he knew to be false.
Charge 2
On 4 th December 2016 Police Constable 234520 Max Michel made representations that were false, namely he informed PS Harvey that:
(i) he was, when in company with PC Charnock, held at a red ATS behind two other vehicles;
(ii) the ATS changed to green before the two vehicles in front of his police vehicle moved off;
(iii) his vehicle proceeded through a green ATS; and
(iv) Mr Mehra proceeded through a red ATS
which he knew or believed to be false.
Charge 3
On 9 th December 2016 Police Constable 234520 Max Michel made representations that were false, namely within a signed witness statement that he declared as true to the best of his knowledge and belief that:
(i) he was, when in company with PC Charnock, held at a red ATS behind two officer vehicles;
(ii) the ATS changed to green before the two vehicles in front of his police vehicle moved off;
(iii) his police vehicle proceeded through a green ATS; and
(iv) Mr. Mehra proceeded through a red ATS
which he knew or believed to be false.”
The allegations in respect of PC Charnock were:
“ Charge 1
On 4 th December 2016 Police Constable 237725 Shaun Charnock made representations that were false, namely he confirmed to PS Paul Harvey that the account given by PC Michel was correct whereas he knew or believed the account to be false.
Charge 2
Between 5 th and 11 th December 2016 Police Constable 237725 Shaun Charnock made representations that were false, namely within a signed witness statement which he declared as true to the best of his knowledge and belief that:
(i) he was, when in company with PC Michel, held at a red ATS behind two other vehicles;
(ii) when the ATS changed to green two vehicles in front filtered left;
(iii) his police vehicle proceeded through a green ATS; and
(iv) Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial