R Darren Williams v Police Appeals Tribunal Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis (Interested Party)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Holroyde |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 2708 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1774/2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 02 November 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 2708 (QB)
Mr Justice Holroyde
Case No: CO/1774/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
John Beggs QC & Elliot Gold (instructed by LHS Solicitors) for the Claimant
Anne Studd QC (instructed by Mayor's Office of Policing & Crime) for the Defendant
Stephen Morley (instructed by Directorate of Legal Services Metropolitan Police) for the Interested Party
Hearing dates: 14 th October 2016
For some 27 years, the claimant Mr Williams served as a police officer with the Metropolitan Police Service ("MPS"). He attained the high rank of Detective Chief Superintendent, and in January 2012 was appointed Borough Commander of Merton. He was very highly regarded, and the many witnesses who have provided testimonials on his behalf have praised his industry, enthusiasm and effectiveness. But on 30 th April 2015, at a hearing before a misconduct panel, he admitted 5 incidents of misconduct which the panel found to be gross misconduct. The panel concluded that the appropriate sanction was that he be dismissed without notice. On 15 th February 2016 the Police Appeals Tribunal ("PAT"), to which he had appealed, concluded that the decision and sanction of the panel were not unreasonable, and so dismissed his appeal. Thus Mr Williams left the police force which he had loved, and he and his family suffered the humiliation and distress of being dismissed in such circumstances. He also lost valuable pension rights, a particularly heavy blow because he was very close to retirement at the time of his dismissal. On any view, it was a very sad end to a distinguished career of public service.
On Mr Williams' behalf, Mr Beggs QC and Mr Gold argue that his career was ended by an unlawful decision. No challenge is made to the findings of gross misconduct made by the panel and the PAT, but it is submitted that the decision as to sanction was unlawful. In particular it is 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 grossly disproportionate sanction. So these judicial review proceedings have been brought. They are resisted by Miss Studd QC on behalf of the PAT and by Mr Morley on behalf of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who has been joined to the proceedings as an Interested Party.
I refer to Bolton and Salter in more detail below. It is however convenient to note at this stage the essence of the issue between the parties in relation to those cases. Mr Beggs accepts that they establish a principle that in cases of gross misconduct by a police officer which involves dishonesty or lack of integrity, personal mitigation can only carry limited weight. But, he submits, that principle should be confined to cases involving dishonesty or lack of integrity, and does not extend to cases involving other forms of misconduct. Miss Studd and Mr Morley submit that the principle is of wider application, and that the maintenance of public confidence in, and respect for, the police service is so important that it will outweigh personal mitigation whatever the nature of the gross misconduct.
The statutory framework and the Standards
I begin by outlining the material parts of the statutory framework which governs police disciplinary proceedings. Section 50 of the Police Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State for the Home Office the power to make regulations providing for, amongst other things, procedures for the taking of disciplinary proceedings in respect of the conduct, efficiency and effectiveness of members of police forces. Section 85 of the same Act enables the Secretary of State to make rules providing for appeals to a PAT. Pursuant to those powers, the Secretary of State has made the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 ("P(C)R") and the Police Appeals Tribunal Rules 2012.
The Standards of Professional Behaviour which a police officer must observe ("the Standards") are set out in Schedule 2 to the P(C)R. They are expressed, not in the form of prohibitions, but rather in the form of statements as to how a police officer is expected and required to behave:
" Honesty and Integrity
Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.
Authority, Respect and Courtesy
Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy. Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals.
Equality and Diversity
Police officers act with fairness and impartiality. They do not discriminate unlawfully or unfairly.
Use of Force
Police officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances.
Orders and Instructions
Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions. Police officers abide by police regulations, force policies and lawful orders.
Duties and Responsibilities
Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities.
Confidentiality
Police officers treat information with respect and access or disclose it only in the proper course of police duties.
Fitness for Duty
Police officers when on duty or presenting themselves for duty are fit to carry out their responsibilities.
Discreditable Conduct
Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty. Police officers report any action taken against them for a criminal offence, any conditions imposed upon them by a court or the receipt of any penalty notice.
Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct
Police officers report, challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues which has fallen below the Standards of Professional Behaviour."
By reg 3 of the P(C)R, "misconduct" is defined as "a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour", and "gross misconduct" is defined as a breach of those Standards "so serious that dismissal would be justified".
It is unnecessary for present purposes to set out the procedure by which an allegation reaches a misconduct hearing: there is no suggestion that the appropriate steps were not taken in this case. Procedure at the hearing is regulated by reg 33, which provides in part as follows:
"(13) The person or persons conducting the misconduct proceedings shall review the facts of the case and decide whether the conduct of the officer concerned amounts –
…
(b) … to misconduct, gross misconduct or neither.
(14) The person or persons conducting the misconduct proceedings shall not find that the conduct of the officer concerned amounts to misconduct or gross misconduct unless – (a) he is or they are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this is the case; or
(b) the officer concerned admits it is the case."
When a finding is made against the officer concerned at a misconduct hearing, the disciplinary action which may be taken is set out in reg 35(3)(b):
"(i) management advice;
(ii) written warning;
(iii) final written warning;
(iv) dismissal with notice; or
(v) dismissal without notice."
It is relevant to note that that list of possible sanctions does not include suspension from duty.
The effect of reg 35(5) is that in the event of a finding of misconduct but not gross misconduct, the officer may not be dismissed (with or without notice) unless he or she was already subject to a final written warning. That restriction does not apply where there is a finding of gross misconduct; and in such a case, if the panel decides that the disciplinary action shall be dismissal, then "the dismissal shall be without notice": reg 35(10). Reg 35(11) provides that where the question of disciplinary action is being considered, the panel "shall have regard to the record of police service of the officer concerned as shown in his personal record", may receive evidence from any witness whose evidence would in their opinion assist them in determining the question, and shall give the officer's lawyer an opportunity to make oral or written representations before the question is determined.
In the circumstances of this case, rule 4 of the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2012 gives Mr Williams a right of appeal against the sanction imposed. His sole ground of appeal, pursuant to rule 4(4)(a), is that the disciplinary action imposed was unreasonable.
The facts
As a young man, Mr Williams served for a time in the military police before joining the MPS. When his military service is taken into account, he was dismissed only some four months short of completing 30 years' pensionable service. The period of 30 years is particularly significant in assessing his pension entitlement.
By the beginning of 2012, Mr Williams was serving as a Police Superintendent in Bexley. He was then transferred, at very short notice, to the Borough of Merton. He replaced a Borough Commander who had been abruptly removed from his post as a result of grave concerns about police performance in that Borough. He was promoted to Chief Superintendent and became Borough Commander. The evidence before the panel included a statement of the former Territorial Police Commander for South East London, who described the position of Borough Commander as "a very pressurised role", with responsibilities for the reduction of crime, the increasing of detection rates, the building of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R the Chief Constable of Cleveland Constabulary v Police Appeals Tribunal Lee Rukin (Interested Party)
...20. This was a decision of the Divisional Court. The second case to which extensive references have been made is R (Williams) v PAT 2016 EWHC 2708 (admin). I have also been referred fleetingly to other cases. 53 I do not intend to quote from either Cooper or Williams at more length than I t......
-
R (on the Application of the Chief Constable of Dyfed Powys Police) v Police Misconduct Tribunal
...will necessarily be limited, particularly where serious misconduct has been proven. Per Holroyde J in Williams v Police Appeals Tribunal [2017] ICR 235 [67]: ‘… the importance of maintaining public confidence in and respect for the police service is constant, regardless of the nature of the......
-
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v PAT & Gutty
...in Salter: Maurice Kay LJ at para 25. 19 In R (Williams) v Police Appeals Tribunal & Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2016] EWHC 2708 (Admin), [2017] ICR 235 (“ Williams”), Holroyde J (as he then was) rejected the submission that this approach to personal mitigation was confined ......
-
The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police v A Police Misconduct Panel
...limited in a serious case (at paras 21 and 23). 56 There are helpful dicta to similar effect in Williams v Police Appeals Tribunal [2016] EWHC 2708 (Admin), per Holroyde J, as he then was, at paras 66 and 67: “66. …the importance of maintaining public confidence in and respect for the poli......