Neil Salter v The Chief Constable of Dorset
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Maurice Kay,Lord Justice Stanley Burnton,Lord Justice Gross |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWCA Civ 1047 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2012/0017 |
| Date | 31 July 2012 |
[2012] EWCA Civ 1047
Lord Justice Maurice Kay, Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Lord Justice Stanley Burnton
and
Lord Justice Gross
Case No: C1/2012/0017
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT, QBD
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT (BURNETT J)
REF: CO/8560/2010
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Martin Westgate QC and Mr Michael Ford (instructed by Russell Jones & Walker) for the Appellant
Mr John Beggs QC and Mr James Berry (instructed by Force Solicitor, Dorset Police) for the Respondent
Hearing date : 19 June 2012
1. For 22 years Mr Neil Salter was a serving police officer. He began in the West Yorkshire Police before transferring to the Dorset Police Force in July 1991. He received commendations and in June 2008 he was promoted to sergeant. The events with which this case is concerned occurred at the end of October 2008. At all times before then, Mr Salter had had an unblemished career. Sadly, all that was brought to an end by those events. At a misconduct hearing on 27 August 2009, Mr Salter admitted a disciplinary charge that he had not behaved with honesty or integrity in relation to an investigation. The Misconduct Panel (the Panel) required him to resign. Mr Salter applied for a Chief Constable's review but on 16 November 2009 the Chief Constable decided that any lesser sanction than a requirement to resign would be wholly inadequate. Mr Salter then appealed to the Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT). By its report dated 9 July 2010 the PAT allowed the appeal and substituted a decision that Mr Salter should be reduced to the rank of constable and reinstated in that rank to the Dorset Police. In the present proceedings, the Chief Constable applied for judicial review of the decision of the PAT. That application was successful. On 14 December 2011, Burnett J quashed the decision of the PAT and substituted a decision that Mr Salter's appeal to the PAT be dismissed. However, he granted permission to appeal to this Court on the grounds that the case raises novel questions in relation to police discipline which merit the attention of the Court of Appeal.
The facts
2. The judgment of Burnett J contains the following succinct summary of the undisputed facts (at paragraph 7):
“In the early hours of Sunday 26 October 2008 PC Ian Morton was killed in a road traffic accident. No other vehicle was involved. Mr Salter was appointed as the Deputy Senior Investigating Officer under Inspector Wilcox. PC Mesher was appointed as Family Liaison Officer. It soon became apparent that PC Morton had a long-term partner but was also involved with a member of another force with whom he had spent the night before his death. His partner was unaware of the relationship. Two mobile telephones were recovered from the crashed vehicle. It became known to Mr Salter that one of those telephones contained stored text messages which evidenced the relationship. On 27 October Mr Salter met PC Mesher. He instructed him to go to the Vehicle Recovery Centre, find the telephone and destroy it. The death was the subject of a Coroner's Investigation. PC Mesher was not prepared to destroy evidence and raised the matter with senior colleagues. Other officers attended the Recovery Centre and seized the two telephones that had been in the car at the time of the crash. The matter was reported to the Professional Standards Department of the Dorset Police. Mr Salter was arrested and questioned under caution. He admitted using the words ‘Destroy the phone’ to PC Mesher. He said that he was thinking out loud. His intention was to protect PC Morton's family from discovering the other relationship. He was aware that the Coroner would require all the evidence to be produced. He said that he had been in touch with the officer with whom PC Morton had spent the night before his death and that he had spoken to her before meeting PC Mesher.”
3. Although the interview under caution did not take place until 6 November, it is right to say that, from the outset, Mr Salter reacted with candour in relation to his misconduct. On 27 October he admitted to colleagues that the decision to destroy the phone was his alone, recognised that it was a wrong and bad decision and said that PC Mesher had been right to speak out about it. In short, he accepted full responsibility.
The Misconduct Hearing on 27August 2009
4. The allegation against Mr Salter was formulated as follows:
“That your conduct on 27 October 2008 did not meet the appropriate standard as set out in Regulation 3(1), Schedule 1, Paragraph 1 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004 in that as a Police Sergeant with Dorset Police you did not behave with honesty or integrity in relation to the investigation into the death of Detective Constable Ian Morton.
Particulars
On 27 October 2008, you were the Deputy Senior Investigating Officer, in relation to the death of Detective Constable Morton. You instructed the appointed Family Liaison Officer, Constable 1845 Scott Mesher to attend the Ibsley Recovery Centre and to locate and destroy the mobile telephone belonging to the deceased officer, even though you knew it would be required as evidence at the Inquest into the officer's death.”
5. In the 2004 Regulations the duty to behave with honesty and integrity is expressed as follows:
“ Honesty and Integrity
It is of paramount importance that the public has faith in the honesty and integrity of police officers. Officers should therefore be open and truthful in their dealings; avoid being improperly beholden to any person or institution; and discharge their duties with integrity.”
6. At the misconduct hearing, Mr Salter was represented by counsel who presented evidence in mitigation. There was a statement from PC Mesher saying that he believed Mr Salter's decision had been the result of misguided loyalty towards the family of PC Morton and made to protect them from further upset. Other officers gave statements to the same effect. They confirmed that on 27 October 2008 Mr Salter had apologised for what he had done and had said that PC Mesher was correct to bring his concerns to the attention of other officers. Sergeant Quill described Mr Salter as “very dedicated, very keen to look after his troops and to do his work properly” and Sergeant Allmond described Mr Salter's good work in Traffic Division. Counsel on behalf of Mr Salter contended for the sanction of reduction in rank rather than dismissal or a requirement to resign.
7. The Panel retired for some 2 1/2 hours before rejecting that submission and requiring resignation. Its reasoning was as follows:
“In our judgment your actions amounted to a very serious breach of integrity. You are an officer with 22 years service with significant experience of road traffic collisions and their investigation. You are also an experienced Family Liaison Officer who is used to dealing with families involved in road traffic collisions. In your role as a sergeant you are expected to set high standards to those under your supervision, particularly with regard to honesty and integrity. The Panel accepts that on the balance of probability you made a decision to have the mobile phone belonging to Ian Morton removed and destroyed as you were concerned about the feelings of his family. However, the decision to remove the mobile phone had serious implications in relation to subsequent investigation of the road traffic collision. It is very clear that information that may have been held on the mobile phone could have provided important evidence in relation to the collision and therefore its removal and destruction would have had serious implications in relation to any subsequent judicial proceedings. The Panel also consider that your direction to PC Scott Mesher to remove and destroy the mobile phone is an aggravating factor and could have led to another officer compromising their integrity. PC Mesher took the courageous decision to consult another supervisor which prevented this situation from escalating any further. We acknowledge that when presented with the facts you took responsibility for your actions. We also acknowledge that the mitigation presented to the Panel highlights the fact that you have been a hardworking and competent police officer throughout your service. However, it is our judgment that your behaviour has seriously breached the values of the Force. The public expect the very highest standards of honesty and integrity from police officers. In this case your standard of behaviour has fallen well short and therefore I am requiring you to resign from the Force forthwith.”
The Panel had comprised an Assistant Chief Constable and two Superintendents from the Dorset Police.
The Chief Constable's Review
8. The Chief Constable reviewed the decision of the Panel. He conducted an oral hearing on 11 November 2009. Mr Salter was represented by his solicitor, Mr Wilson. A representative of the Police Federation also spoke on his behalf. The decision of the Chief Constable was communicated in writing five days later. He recorded that his function was one of review and that he was not concerned with substituting his own decision for that of the panel. He noted that the material placed before him did not contain an apology or a convincing expression of remorse. His conclusions were expressed as follows:
“29. Those holding the office of Constable, which carries with it not only significant responsibilities but also enormous powers, are expected to have the personal strength of character to make...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicholas Eckland v Chief Constable of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary
...v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191; [1967] 3 WLR 1666; [1967] 3 All ER 993, HL(E)Salter v Chief Constable of Dorset [2011] EWHC 3366 (Admin); [2012] EWCA Civ 1047, CASidabras v Lithuania (Applications Nos 55480/00 and 59330/00) (2004) 42 EHRR 6, ECtHRWatson v Hemingway Design Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 67;......
-
Watson (Gareth) Application for Judicial Review and in the matter of The Police Service of Northern Ireland (Conduct) Regulations 2016 and The Police Service for Northern Ireland and The PSNI Professional Standards Department
...for it in a suitable manner, that confidence will be eroded.” [48] In similar vein, in Salter v Chief Constable of Dorset Police [2012] EWCA Civ 1047 the Court of Appeal of England and Wales endorsed the opinion of Bernard J at first instance that the high standards of honesty and integrity......
-
AB v A Chief Constable
...and individual police officers is a legally recognised public interest: see R (Chief Constable of Dorset) v Police Appeals Tribunal [2012] EWCA Civ 1047, [21], per Maurice Kay LJ (see also Burnett J at first instance: [2011] EWHC 3366 (Admin), [19]–[22]). If the police are not accountable ......
-
R Darren Williams v Police Appeals Tribunal Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis (Interested Party)
...argued that both the panel and the PAT misapplied the decisions in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 (" Bolton") and Salter v Chief Constable of Dorset [2012] EWCA Civ 1047 (" Salter "), failed to give proper weight to Mr Williams' powerful personal mitigation and imposed a gro......