Gareth Watson and The Police Service of Northern Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Scoffield J |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] NICA 7 |
| Date | 23 January 2024 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2024] NICA 7
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: SCO12398
ICOS No: 21/060721/
Delivered: 23/01/2024
IN HIS MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
KING’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
Between:
GARETH WATSON
Appellant
-and-
THE POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
Respondent
___________
Ian Skelt KC and Michael Egan (instructed by Edwards & Co, Solicitors) for the appellant
Mark Robinson KC and Mark McEvoy (instructed by the Crown Solicitor’s Office) for the
respondent
John Beggs KC and Aaron Rathmell (instructed by PSNI Legal Services Branch) for the
first intervener, the PSNI Professional Standards Department
Paul McLaughlin KC (instructed by WP Tweed & Co, Solicitors) for the second
intervener, the Scottish Police Federation
Hugh Davies KC and Kevin Baumber (instructed by O’Hare Solicitors) for the third to
sixth interveners, a number of England & Wales Police Staff Associations
___________
Before: Keegan LCJ, Treacy LJ and Scoffield J
___________
SCOFFIELD J (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against a decision of Colton J ([2022] NIQB 59) by which he
dismissed the appellant’s application for judicial review. The appellant was a
constable in the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). He challenged a decision
of a disciplinary panel (“the Panel”) which concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear
and determine misconduct charges which had been brought against him. The PSNI,
of which the disciplinary panel was an emanation, was the respondent to the
application for judicial review and is the respondent to this appeal. However, the
2
PSNI’s Professional Standards Department (PSD), the prosecuting body before the
Panel, was an intervener in the court below and has made most of the running in
opposition to the appeal in this court in its capacity as first intervener in the appeal.
[2] The central issue in the proceedings is the extent to which, if at all, a police
constable can be disciplined for misconduct where the relevant misbehaviour took
place before his or her attestation as a constable. This is an issue of some importance
both to those responsible for, and those subject to, police misconduct proceedings.
For this reason, the appellant’s appeal has been supported by the Police Federation
of Northern Ireland (“the NI Federation”), even though the outcome of the appeal
will now have no practical significance for the appellant. In addition, a number of
staff organisations which represent police constables in England and Wales applied
to intervene in the proceedings (namely, the Police Federation of England and
Wales, the Civil Nuclear Police Federation, the Ministry of Defence Police Federation
and the British Transport Police Federation, collectively “the English Federations”).
In like manner, the Scottish Police Federation (“the Scottish Federation”) also
applied for, and was granted, intervener status.
[3] Mr Skelt KC and Mr Egan appeared for the appellant; Mr Robinson KC and
Mr McEvoy appeared for the respondent; Mr Beggs KC and Mr Rathmell appeared
for the PSD; Mr Davies KC and Mr Baumber appeared for the English Federations;
and Mr McLaughlin KC appeared for the Scottish Federation. We are grateful to all
counsel for their comprehensive written submissions and well-marshalled and
focused oral submissions.
Factual background
[4] The factual background to these proceedings is helpfully and succinctly
described by Colton J in paras [1]-[10] of his judgment. We gratefully adopt the
summary which he has there set out. For present purposes, only the key elements of
that background bear repetition.
[5] In April 2016 the appellant was applying to join the PSNI. In the course of
that process he completed a questionnaire which was part of the security vetting
procedure. He began his police training in January 2017 and was formally attested
as a constable in June 2017. However, it later became clear that he had answered a
particular section of the questionnaire in a manner which was not full and accurate.
Having been asked to disclose details of any full-time or part-time employment
which he had held within the last five years, he failed to disclose two periods of
part-time employment. The first of these was a period of employment as a sales
assistant with Matalan from October 2011 to July 2014; and the second was a period
of employment with a menswear retailer (Statement) between January 2015 and
October 2016. The reason why this was considered especially significant is because
the appellant was given a warning for gross misconduct when employed by
Matalan; and was alleged to have made unauthorised payments to himself (on some
ten occasions, to a total tune of £1,675) in the course of his employment with
To continue reading
Request your trial