R (on the application of Ronald Philpot) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Bean,Lady Justice Thirlwall,Lady Justice Nicola Davies |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWCA Civ 66 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CA-2022-001565 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[2023] EWCA Civ 66
Lord Justice Bean
Lady Justice Thirlwall
and
Lady Justice Nicola Davies
Case No: CA-2022-001565
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION)
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
THE HON. MRS JUSTICE LANG
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Kevin Baumber (instructed by Hempsons) for the Appellant (Claimant)
Stephen Morley (instructed by Metropolitan Police Service Directorate of Legal Services) for the Respondent (Defendant)
Hearing date: 19 January 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on [date] by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
The Appellant PC Ronald Philpot, a serving police officer in the Metropolitan Police Service, challenges the lawfulness of a restriction on contact with his wife Kim Philpot, which has been imposed upon him by the Respondent following allegations of domestic violence and abuse which are currently the subject of police misconduct proceedings. In its present form the restriction requires the Appellant to have “no direct or indirect contact with Kim Philpot, unless it is required by the family court, or for child care matters which are to be via a third party”, until the conclusion of the misconduct case.
PC Philpot applied for judicial review of the restriction. Permission was granted on the papers by Calver J. By a reserved judgment handed down on 19 July 2022, Lang J (“the judge”) found that the restriction had been imposed unlawfully in one respect but refused relief on the basis that the same restriction could have been imposed lawfully. PC Philpot appeals pursuant to permission granted by the judge herself.
The facts
Lang J set out at paragraphs 10 to 31 of her judgment a statement of agreed facts which was placed before her and which I reproduce here with only minor amendments.
On 27 July 2016 Mrs Philpot called ‘999’ to report an incident of domestic violence and the Appellant was arrested. Ultimately Mrs Philpot did not support further action, so none was taken.
On or about 5 July 2017, Mrs Philpot reported that both she and her young son had been assaulted by the Appellant. The matter was investigated by Cambridgeshire Police, but no further action taken.
On 22 September 2020, Mrs Philpot telephoned ‘101’ and reported years of domestic abuse by the Appellant to Bedfordshire Police. Mrs Philpot provided a statement on the same day, in which she described abusive behaviour in June and July 2016; an assault in July 2017; an assault on 31 March 2018 and abusive behaviour on 16 August 2020 and 21 September 2020.
On 23 September 2020, the Appellant was arrested at his mother's house by officers from Hertfordshire Police, on suspicion of committing coercive and controlling behaviour in relation to his wife; sending malicious communications to his wife; and common assault on his wife and son. He denied all the allegations in interview.
The Appellant was granted bail on 24 September 2020, and an extension was granted on 12 October 2020, until 23 December 2020. He was subject to the following bail conditions:
i) “Not to contact directly or indirectly or via 3rd party or any social media Kim PHILPOT”;
ii) “Not to contact [Kim PHILPOT] to make arrangements for child contact of Children …. save through Social Services or a responsible 3rd party”;
iii) “Not to go to [the address of the family home]”.
On 30 November 2020, Mrs Philpot provided a further statement in which she gave further information about alleged abusive behaviour by the Appellant in 2018 and 2020.
On 13 January 2021, an application to extend bail was granted only until 23 March 2021.
On 19 March 2021, the Crown Prosecution Service advised there should be no further action in relation to the criminal allegations, at which point the bail conditions expired.
Misconduct Investigation
On 2 October 2020, DC Deans was allocated as the investigating officer for the professional misconduct investigation.
On 4 October 2020, the Claimant was given statutory notice under the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 that an allegation had been made that his conduct may have amounted to a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour, sufficiently serious as to justify disciplinary action, and that he would be subject to an investigation. The terms of reference for the investigation were Mrs Philpot's allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour; malicious communications and common assault. He was notified that the misconduct investigation would be suspended pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.
In a National Police Chiefs' Council (“NPCC”) Officer's Decision dated 20 October 2020, Commander Betts decided that:
“ Options of alternatives to suspension considered
It is not considered appropriate or proportionate to suspend PC Philpot at this time. The officer can be effectively managed by their SLT by restricting their duty.
It is necessary and in the public interest to remove from normal duty because
The MPS and public expect that police officers conduct themselves with professionalism whether on or off duty. It is alleged that the behaviour of this officer has fallen below the standards expected of a serving officer.
It is not appropriate to remove the officer from normal duty because
N/A
Conditions to be imposed on the officer and rationale
PC Philpot is subject to criminal allegations of Coercive & Controlling Behaviour, Malicious Communications, and Common Assault and breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of Discreditable Conduct. Since 2016, PC Philpot is alleged to have subjected his partner and children to hostile and violent behaviour. This is alleged to have been in the form of threatening and abusive outbursts/insults towards family members, phone messages to his partner, psychological abuse concerning domestic matters, and physical assaults.
I have reviewed the circumstances of the allegations against PC Philpot. In my assessment of the risks, PC Philpot has demonstrated alleged criminal and unprofessional behaviour. I am of the opinion that these risks require management to ensure public and stakeholder confidence, and organisational confidence of officers and staff within the MPS. I consider placing PC Philpot on restricted duties ensures appropriate management of these risks.
It is directed that PC Philpot be placed on restricted duty subject to the following conditions:
• To work within the confines of a police building under supervision.
• To have no involvement in any matters concerning domestic matters or domestic violence.
• To have no direct or indirect contact with Kim Philpot. [emphasis added]
• To work in despatch only, only communicating with officers and staff via the P/R.
• No working in first contact.
…
The decision to restrict PC Philpot's duties will be reviewed on receipt of any further significant update.”
The third bullet point above, described in argument before the judge as “Restriction 3”, was the first iteration of the prohibition which is the subject of this litigation. The first, second, fourth and fifth bullet points were restrictions on PC Philpot's duties which are not challenged. They had the effect that he only worked in the control room, and had no contact with members of the public, including his wife, in the course of his duties.
The decision was accompanied by an Explanatory Note titled “Restricted Duty” which read as follows:
“This form is to be served upon any officer where authority has been granted by the Director of Professional Standards to restrict their duties while they are subject to a misconduct investigation. Further details regarding Restricted Duty in this context can be found in the “Suspension of Police Officers Toolkit — Q&As” on the MPS Intranet.
….
Restricted duty is not defined within the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, but is consistent with a ‘temporary redeployment to alternative duties or an alternative location as an alternative to suspension’ (see Regulations 11(4)(a) of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020). Restricted duty does not therefore amount to suspension. It is important to note therefore that an officer subject to restricted duties will retain both their warrant cards and the powers and duties of a constable. The restriction from certain duties will be bespoke to the situation, reflecting the MPS' concerns regarding the conduct being investigated and the need to ensure that public confidence is maintained.
Being placed on restricted duties is not a misconduct outcome nor is it a presumption of guilt or a predetermination of the outcome of an investigation.
The officer's welfare will be a consideration in the decision to restrict and the boundaries to impose. Subject to the integrity of the investigation a restricted officer will be provided with details of the restriction and its rationale, in writing (see below). A restriction may, for example, specify that the officer will be employed in some other Operational Command Unit, or branch, other than their home BCU/OCU.
The circumstances of officers placed on such restricted duties will be reviewed should there be any significant change in circumstances or where a request is made by the officer concerned or their representative. Officers will be informed of the outcomes of such reviews in writing.
The term ‘Restricted Police Duty’ can have a number of separate meanings within MPS databases; this guidance relates only to those officers whose duties are restricted following service on them of a Notice of Investigation under the Regulation 15 Police...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Restrictions On The Private Lives Of Police Officers Under Conduct Investigations
...v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2023] EWCA Civ 66 Facts In September 2020, P's wife ("W") alleged to police that P had subjected W to years of domestic abuse. P was arrested on suspicion of coercive and controlling behaviour and malicious communications against W, and common ass......