In a significant ruling handed down on 26 January 2026, the High Court has upheld all grounds of challenge brought by former Metropolitan Police Federation Chair Richard Prior, represented by Elliot Gold, in judicial review proceedings against the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW). On 18 February 2026, the High Court refused PFEW permission to appeal. On 11 March 2026, PFEW confirmed there would be no further application to the Court of Appeal.

Background to the case
Mr Prior, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation, was said to have faced multiple complaints following public comments he gave during a GB News interview in October 2024. The PFEW CEO immediately suspended him, initiated an investigation, and subsequently expanded the scope of that investigation.

The claim challenged the decision to suspend Mr Prior, to dismiss his appeal against suspension, to review and maintain his suspension, the terms of reference of the investigation into him, and the subsequent expansion of the terms’ scope.

The High Court heard the case alongside a related challenge by the chair of the West Midlands Police Federation, Richard Cooke.

The court’s decision
The Court found in favour of Mr Prior on every one of his pleaded grounds holding that the Federation’s decisions were ultra vires, procedurally unfair, irrational, disproportionate, and in breach of article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Key findings include:

1. Suspension was unlawful.

The Court held that the CEO had no power under Appendix 9 to suspend Mr Prior. That power rested exclusively with the National Secretary and could only be delegated in exceptional circumstances, which were neither identified nor recorded.

2. Appeal process was unfair

The Appeal Panel relied on undisclosed, inaccurate, and prejudicial material—including assertions about complainants and commentary about Mr Prior and the broadcaster to which he gave the interview, denying Mr Prior a fair opportunity to respond.

3. Investigation and the terms of references were unlawful

The PFEW unlawfully escalated the matter to a formal investigation, and expanded the scope of the inquiry to include issues never raised in any complaint. The court held that Appendix 9 was a closed, complaint‑led process that did not permit the PFEW to introduce new allegations of its own motion.

4. Failure to consider less intrusive measures

The court found that the PFEW consistently failed to consider obvious alternatives to suspension, such as undertakings or limited restrictions, which was an essential requirement where elected office and political speech were concerned.

5. Unlawful interference with freedom of expression

The court held that the PFEW’s restrictions on Mr Prior’s engagement with news media were not “prescribed by law” and amounted to an unjustified and disproportionate interference with his article 10 rights.

The High Court held at paragraph 168:

168. The errors… were not peripheral but fundamental. They include:

(i) an ultra vires suspension, contrary to Appendix 9 which vests the power exclusively in the National Secretary;

(ii) procedural unfairness arising from non-disclosure, curated appeal materials, and involvement of the original decision-maker;

(iii) misdirection in treating suspension as a “neutral act” and failure to conduct a genuine de novo review;

(iv) unlawful conditions restricting press and social media engagement in Mr Prior’s capacity as a PFEW representative, not “prescribed by law” and disproportionate to the elected role;

(v) escalation to a formal investigation without structured assessment of the “ serious breach” threshold; and

(vi) unlawful expansion of scope beyond the written complaint.

Significance of the decision
The judgment has major implications for Police Federation governance, internal disciplinary procedures, the rights of elected representatives, and the treatment of freedom of expression.

It further confirms that the Police Federation’s exercise of internal ‘Appendix 9’ suspension and investigation powers for elected Police Federation office holders have sufficient public character to bring them within the purview of public law and to be subject to judicial review.

Elliot practises in all areas of police law, including police pay, pensions, powers, policy and misconduct. He is a contributing author to the annual Blackstone’s Police Manual.

The judgment is here and here.

The order refusing permission to appeal is here.

News articles are here, here and here.

Chambers is delighted to announce that Emily Campbell will be working with the Crown Law Office in New Zealand after being awarded a Pegasus Scholarship. Crown Law provides legal advice and representation services to the government in matters affecting the executive government.

The Pegasus Trust aims to forge links between common law lawyers around the world, and enables barristers to learn about the practical workings of the common law system in countries other than their own.

While working with Crown Law, Emily will be based in the Constitutional and Human Rights team for 2.5 months.

She will return to full-time practice in June 2026.

Emily practises in Inquests and Inquiries, Court of Protection, Public Law and Clinical Negligence.

Edward Pleeth is instructed as Counsel to the Inquest on behalf of the Chief Coroner, Her Honour Judge Alexia Durran, in The Inquests into the Deaths Arising from the Heaton Park Congregation Terrorist Attack on 2 October 2025. The Solicitors to the Inquests are Tim Suter and Laura Taylor of Fieldfisher LLP.

Pre-Inquest Review hearings took place on 26 and 27 February 2026. The substantive inquests are planned for Spring 2027.

Edward is a leading practitioner in public inquiries and inquests and has appeared in many of the most significant cases of recent years. He is currently instructed as Junior Counsel to the Inquiry in the Omagh Bombing Inquiry and for the Ministry of Defence in the Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan.

Pippa joins our Court of Protection team, bringing considerable experience in complex welfare, medical treatment and capacity matters. She remains based in Leeds, continuing to work closely with her established client base across the region while strengthening Chambers’ Court of Protection offering in London and nationally.

Philip joins Chambers with a developing and varied practice across our core public and medical law fields and is a member of the Government Legal Department Junior–Junior Scheme. He has a particular interest in police law, inquests and employment cases.

To read more about Pippa and Philip’s practices, please visit their website profiles:
Pippa Pudney
Philip Matthews

The Nottingham Inquiry, chaired by HH Deborah Taylor, opened today at Mary Ward House in London.

On 13 June 2023 Valdo Calocane (VC), who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and had previous interactions with health services and the police, killed three people and seriously injured three other people in Nottingham city centre.

On 22 April 2025 the then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, announced the Nottingham Inquiry.

The purpose of the Inquiry is to build a clear understanding of the events, acts and omissions that led up to VC carrying out these brutal attacks. The Inquiry will provide a Report and recommendations so that lessons can be learned to prevent similar attacks. Its terms of reference are here.

The Inquiry is the subject of widespread ongoing media coverage.

John Beggs KC and Oliver Williamson act for Nottinghamshire Police.

James Berry KC and Joanne Kane act for Leicestershire Police.

Angus Moon KC is Lawyer of the Week today in The Times following his successful appeal to the Supreme Court in Lewis-Ranwell v G4S & Others. The Supreme Court held that a killer of 3 elderly men who was later found not guilty by reason of insanity was barred from bringing a claim in negligence due to the operation of the illegality defence in the law of tort.

Angus appeared for the first appellant, G4S Healthcare, having not appeared below. The case has widespread ramifications for the NHS, police forces, and other public authorities.

Angus’ feature in The Times is available here.

The judgment is available here.

A copy of the Q&A can be accessed here.

On 11 December 2025 the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) amended its declarable associations policy to require members of hierarchical associations to declare their membership confidentially. The one example of a hierarchical organisation given in the policy was Freemasonry. The policy does not prohibit membership of Freemasonry.

At close of business on Christmas Eve, the United Grand Lodge of England, two organisations representing women’s Freemasonry, and a police officer served the MPS with a claim for judicial review of the policy, together with an urgent application for interim relief in the form of an injunction suspending the operation of the policy.

Working with MPS solicitors over the Christmas period, James Berry KC and Aaron Rathmell responded to the urgent injunction application on behalf of the MPS.

On 2 January 2026 Chamberlian J considered the application on the papers and decided that an urgent injunction was not required.

On 11 February 2026 the matter came before Chamberlain J for a hearing of the injunction application as well as the application for permission to claim judicial review. By this time, another officer had been added as a fifth claimant.

On 17 February 2026 Chamberlain J gave judgment, refusing permission to claim judicial review and recorded that, even if he had granted permission, the balance of convenience would have fallen decisively against the grant of interim relief.

The claimants had argued that the policy was ultra vires the Police Regulations 2003, in breach of Articles 8, 10 and 11 ECHR, amounted to direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of belief under the Equality Act 2010, breached the UK-GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, and followed inadequate consultation.

James Berry KC and Aaron Rathmell represented the MPS, both making submissions at the hearing. They have considerable experience of judicial review claims, including those relying on human rights grounds.

For the judgment, see here.

For media examples see here and here.