R Ronald Philpot v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Lang |
| Judgment Date | 19 July 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 1852 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3137/2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2022] EWHC 1852 (Admin)
Mrs Justice Lang DBE
Case No: CO/3137/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Kevin Baumber (instructed by Hempsons) for the Claimant
Stephen Morley (instructed by Metropolitan Police Directorate of Legal Services) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 22 June 2022
Approved Judgment
The Claimant, who is a serving police officer in the Metropolitan Police Service, challenges the lawfulness of a restriction on contact with his wife which has been imposed upon him by the Defendant, following allegations of domestic violence and abuse against his wife and children.
The restriction (known as “Restriction 3” in these proceedings) currently requires that the Claimant is 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”.
Restriction 3 was first imposed on 20 October 2020, when the Claimant was subject to both a criminal investigation and a police misconduct investigation in regard to his treatment of his wife and children. Restriction 3 was reviewed and maintained most recently on 4 July 2021, by which time the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to take any further action in respect of the criminal allegations, but the police misconduct investigation was still ongoing. As at the date of this hearing, the investigation remained extant.
Issues
The issues in the claim may be summarised as follows.
Ground 1
i) Whether Restriction 3 was purportedly imposed under regulation 11 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020;
ii) Whether regulation 11 provides such a power;
iii) Whether it is material that regulation 11 was purportedly used (whether or not power existed elsewhere).
Ground 2
i) Whether regulation 6 of the Police Regulations 2003 (“the 2003 Regulations”) is determinative as to the question of private life restrictions that may be imposed upon police officers;
ii) Whether Restriction 3 is unlawful within regulation 6(1);
iii) Whether Restriction 3 is unlawful within regulation 6(2).
Ground 3
i) Whether Restriction 3 is ultra vires section 4(3) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (“PRSRA 2011”);
ii) Whether such a power can be read into section 4(3) PRSRA 2011, bearing in mind the principle of legality.
Ground 4
i) Whether Restriction 3 is an unlawful interference with the Claimant's rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).
Facts
The parties have agreed the facts, as follows.
On 27 July 2016 the Claimant's wife, Kim Philpot, called ‘999’ to report an incident of domestic violence and the Claimant was arrested. Ultimately Mrs Philpot did not support further action, so no further action was taken.
On or about 5 July 2017, Mrs Philpot reported that both she and her young son had been assaulted by the Claimant. 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 Claimant 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 Claimant 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. The Claimant denied all the allegations in interview.
The Claimant 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 3 rd 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 3 rd party”;
iii) “Not to go to [address of family home]”.
On 30 November 2020, Mrs Philpot provided a further statement in which she gave further information about alleged abusive behaviour by the Claimant 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, whereupon 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.
□ 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 was the first iteration of Restriction 3.
The restrictions on duties meant that the Claimant only worked in the control room, and had no contact with members of the public. Therefore he would not have contact with 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of Ronald Philpot) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
...(CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION) ADMINISTRATIVE COURT THE HON. MRS JUSTICE LANG [2022] EWHC 1852 (Admin) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Kevin Baumber (instructed by Hempsons) for the Appellant Stephen Morley (instructed by M......