Lino Di Maria, R (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Lang |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 2025 |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 275 (Admin) |
| Date | 11 February 2025 |
| Year | 2025 |
| Counsel | Kevin Baumber,Rosa Bennathan,John Beggs Kc,James Berry,Katherine Hampshire,Gerard Boyle Kc,Aaron Rathmell |
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 275 (Admin)
Case No: AC-2024-LON-001436
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 11 February 2025
Before :
MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
THE KING
on the application of
LINO DI MARIA
Claimant
- and -
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
OF THE METROPOLIS
Defendant
(1) COLLEGE OF POLICING
(2) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE
HOME DEPARTMENT
Interested Parties
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kevin Baumber and Rosa Bennathan (instructed by Reynolds Dawson) for the Claimant
John Beggs KC, James Berry and Katherine Hampshire (instructed by the Directorate of
Legal Services) for the Defendant
Gerard Boyle KC and Aaron Rathmell (instructed by the Government Legal Department)
for the First Interested Party
The Second Interested Party did not appear and was not represented
Hearing dates: 15 & 16 January 2025
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 11 am on 11 February 2025 by circulation to the
parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
R(Di Maria) v Met Police and Ors
Mrs Justice Lang :
1. The Claimant seeks judicial review of the Defendant’s decision to withdraw his vetting
clearances, and then to refer him for gross incompetence under regulation 32 of the
Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 (“the Performance Regulations”), on the
grounds that he can no longer perform his duties without vetting clearance.
2. The Claimant is a serving police officer in the Metropolitan Police Service (“MPS”).
The Defendant has direction and control over officers and staff in the MPS, pursuant to
section 4(3) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (“PRSRA 2011”).
3. The First Interested Party (“the College of Policing”) is an operationally independent,
arm’s length body of the Home Office, which provides professional guidance to police
forces, including the Vetting Code of Practice 2023 (“the Code of Practice”) and the
Authorised Professional Practice on Vetting 2021
1
(“the APP”). The Second Interested
Party (“the Secretary of State”) decided not to participate in these proceedings.
4. The decision to withdraw the Claimant’s vetting clearance was made on 15 September
2023, and then upheld on appeal on 15 February 2024, whereupon the Claimant was
placed on paid Vetting Special Leave. The reasons for the removal included allegations
of sexual misconduct which had been formally withdrawn under the Police (Conduct)
Regulations 2020 (“the Conduct Regulations”), on the basis that there was no case to
answer, and other allegations and complaints which had not been proved. On 1 March
2024, he was referred to a third stage meeting under the Performance Regulations,
which has been postponed pending the determination of this claim.
5. At a third stage meeting under the Performance Regulations, the panel must make a
finding on the allegation of gross incompetence, but it does not have the power to re-
open or review the vetting decision, and so the reason for the allegation of gross
incompetence cannot be investigated. Regulation 46 makes provision for a range of
outcomes. However, unless some level of vetting clearance is reinstated, dismissal is
inevitable. The Claimant may appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal, but the Tribunal
also has no power to re-open or review the vetting decision. Dismissal will result in
inclusion on the Police Barred List which effectively prevents the barred person from
obtaining service or employment with any police force for a specified period.
2
6. In May 2024, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department conducted a
consultation on draft regulations which were intended inter alia to place vetting on a
statutory footing. There was a hiatus when the general election was called and a new
Secretary of State appointed. The current Secretary of State informed the Court by letter
that no decision had yet been made as to whether such regulations should be made, and
if so, in what form, and the outcome of the litigation was likely to inform such
consideration. Revised draft regulations were issued for consultation by the Secretary
of State on 15 January 2025, the first day of the hearing in this case. None of the parties
invited me to adjourn, as it was not clear when or if any regulations might be made,
and if so, whether they would apply retrospectively to the Claimant.
1
APP 2021 was in force at the time of the decision in this case but it has since been replaced by APP 2024.
2
Section 88A Police Act 1996 and the Police Barred List and Police Advisory List Regulations 2 017.
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
R(Di Maria) v Met Police and Ors
7. Permission was unopposed by the Defendant, and granted on the papers by Foster J. on
29 July 2024.
Summary of Claimant’s Grounds of Challenge
8. The Claimant’s Grounds of Challenge may be summarised as follows:
i) Ground 1. Withdrawal of vetting is not a lawful basis for dismissal by the
Defendant.
ii) Ground 2. The vetting regime is a statutorily unregulated process that does not
comply with Article 6 ECHR, with the implication that the Code of Practice and
the APP are unlawful.
iii) Ground 3. Vetting dismissal for misconduct, to the exclusion and frustration
of the statutory scheme under the Conduct Regulations, is unlawful.
iv) Ground 4.
a) Withdrawal of vetting is outside the scope of the Performance
Regulations.
b) Referral of vetting withdrawals to a third stage meeting under the
Performance Regulations frustrates the operation of the Performance
Regulations by stripping them of their content and efficacy, including
procedural safeguards, and depriving the officer of any meaningful
opportunity to challenge the allegation of gross incompetence.
v) Ground 5. The decision to withdraw the Claimant’s vetting was irrational.
History
9. The Claimant joined the Metropolitan Police Service in February 2004. He was
promoted to Sergeant on 25 July 2022. Until the removal of his vetting clearance, he
managed a team in Forensic Services.
10. The Claimant was vetted when he was initially recruited. His vetting clearance was
successfully renewed on a date in 2014/2015, at the level of Recruitment Vetting and
Counter-Terrorist Check. In 2017, he applied for a new role which required a higher
vetting level. On 17 August 2017, following an interview by vetting officers, he was
granted Management Vetting and Security Check vetting clearance. That was due to
expire in August 2024. In March 2023, his line manager confirmed that he no longer
required vetting at this enhanced level and that Recruitment Vetting and Counter-
Terrorist Check clearance would be sufficient for his role.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting