R (Chief Police Officers' Staff Association) v Police, Fire and Rescue and Crime Commissioner for Staffordshire

Hearing date: 24 th October 2025

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on Wednesday 19th November 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction

On 1 August 2025, the current Chief Constable of Staffordshire was suspended from duty pending an inquiry in respect of 5 allegations of misconduct which had been referred by the defendant Police and Crime Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (“IOPC”). The allegations related to the Chief Constable's private life and matters that had occurred before he was appointed to his role in Staffordshire in 2021.

In a document headed “Rationale for selection of TCC”, the Commissioner set out the priorities that he had considered “In considering the options available to the Commissioner in selecting a Temporary Chief Constable (TCC)”. He identified 2 options which, in short, were (a) to appoint the Deputy Chief Constable (“DCC”) as the TCC or (b) to run a TCC recruitment process. The Commissioner concluded that he preferred option (b) and, in the meantime, would ask the DCC, who is DCC Rebecca Riggs, to “act up” as the Chief Constable for a short period of time while the recruitment process was developed. An advertisement for this post of TCC was published on 22 August 2025.

In the course of August and September, the claimant questioned the proposed appointment of a TCC rather than the DCC “acting up”. A Pre-Action Protocol letter was sent on 5 September 2025 and responded to by the Commissioner. In the Commissioner's solicitors' letter dated 22 September 2025 it was conceded that ground 1 (as set out below) was arguable. These proceedings were commenced on 19 September 2025 and included an application for expedition.

Four grounds were advanced:

(1) That the Commissioner had no express or implied power to appoint a temporary chief constable;

(2) That the Commissioner had failed to take into account all relevant matters, had taken account of irrelevant matters and reached a decision that was unreasonable;

(3) That the Commissioner's decision to remove the acting chief constable (ie the DCC) from that role was premature; other than in accordance with the statutory requirements; and procedurally unfair; and

(4) That the recruitment of a TCC was effectively the de facto recruitment of a permanent chief constable.

On 24 September Bourne J considered the application for permission on the papers. He granted permission on ground 1 with an expedited hearing. He directed that, if time permitted, the court should also consider permission for the further grounds at this hearing.

Summary of arguments on ground 1

So far as ground 1 is concerned, Mr Gold, for the claimant, encapsulated the issue as whether Parliament by the Police, Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (“the Act”) had impliedly authorised a Police and Crime Commissioner (“PCC”) to appoint a temporary chief constable where there was no express power to do so and in a manner that was not prescribed by statute. The claimant's case in broad summary is that the operative and governing relevant legislation, that is the Act, established the role of Police and Crime Commissioner and amongst other things provided a statutory process for the appointment of a chief constable by the PCC at the conclusion of the process. What the Commissioner proposed to do in this case was completely contrary to that statutory scheme.

Further, there is express provision in the Act (section 41) enabling the DCC to perform any or all of the powers of the chief constable when the chief constable is unable to perform those functions, being a period when the chief constable is absent, incapacitated or suspended from duty or when the office is vacant. The claimant's case is that the only lawful option is for the DCC to act as the “acting chief constable”. This is the term expressly used in section 41(10). Further, the claimant submits, the fact that Parliament has made this express provision for the Chief Constable's absence militates against the Commissioner's case that he is entitled to appoint a TCC.

The defendant accepts that there is no express reference in the Act to a temporary chief constable but contends that there is power to appoint someone to such a role under Schedule 1, paragraph 14 of the Act (set out in full below) which provides that the Commissioner “may do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of the functions of the Commissioner.”

The defendant's case can be summarised as being (i) that he faces extraordinary circumstances in leadership of Staffordshire Police engaging his statutory duty to secure an efficient and effective police force; (ii) that he has sought to adopt the conventional process of appointment to appoint a TCC; (iii) that he has power to do so because that is calculated to facilitate or is conducive to the exercise of his functions; (iv) that he has consulted stakeholders and sought to follow their guidance; and (v) that he intends to submit his preferred candidate to the scrutiny of those stakeholders including the Police, Fire and Crime Panel. It was submitted that it was only because the Commissioner faced extraordinary circumstances that he sought to exercise his power under Schedule 1, paragraph 14 to fulfil his core function of securing an effective and efficient police force.

The potential PII application

The defendant's Acknowledgment of Service was filed on 3 October and included an application for permission to file a claim for public interest immunity (“PII”). Directions were requested which related to dates for filing any claim, any supporting evidence, the letter required by the Administrative Court Guide at paragraph 19.2.7.1, and any request for directions. I subsequently made those directions which, as I understand it, were complied with.

For the avoidance of doubt, prior to the commencement of this hearing, this application was the only document relating to the PII application that I had looked at. The reason for that was that the claimant objected to my looking at anything relating to the PII application as a result of which objection I said that I would not look at anything until I had heard argument about that.

The Commissioner, Ben Adams, also provided a witness statement dated 10 October 2025 in which he set out the circumstances that he faced, what he had done and what he intended to do. In that statement, he set out, to put it relatively neutrally, challenges which faced Staffordshire Police. Against that background, he stated that he had concerns about DCC Riggs exercising the powers of the Chief Constable for a “lengthy and indefinite” period. He set out his concerns about the pace of decision making of the IOPC. He said that the IOPC's “target range” for their investigations was 6–9 months but he was aware that investigations could take substantially longer and be followed by a regulatory decision making process and potential legal proceedings. He concluded: “This may take years to resolve”.

The Commissioner's first concern in relation to DCC Riggs was her limited experience in the role of DCC and Chief Constable. I should make it clear that I recite only what the Commissioner expressed as his concern and I do not express any view as to whether that concern was justified. The court was given some detail as to DCC Riggs' experience and the claimant undoubtedly has reasons for disputing the Commissioner's assessment or the validity of his concern. This concern was expressed in the context of what, in argument, was described as operational and/or command resilience in that, at present, there is no other DCC and there are only 2 assistant chief constables both of whom were recently appointed and only one of whom has completed the Executive Leaders Programme.

The Commissioner expressed further concerns which were redacted in the open version of the statement.

He then explained the steps he had taken before coming to the conclusion that he should advertise the post of TCC. Following his provisional view that he should identify a TCC, these steps, which are also addressed more fully below, included discussions he or his Chief Executive, Louise Clayton, had with relevant persons of bodies and seeking advice from them on the possibility of appointing a TCC and the process for doing so. This included discussions with a Mr Cordy of the Integrity Unit at the Home Office; Ms MacKinlay, Deputy Head of the Police Workforce & Professionalism Unit at the Home Office; Sir Andy Marsh from the College of Policing; Gavin Stephens, Chair of the National Police Chiefs' Council; and Sir Andy Cooke of His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. Further advice was also provided in writing by Helen Slimmon, the College of Policing's Interim Head of Occupational Psychology.

The gist of the Commissioner's evidence was that he...