The High Court has quashed the sanction imposed by a police misconduct panel on the basis of unlawfulness and, in relation to one of the officers, irrationality (see judgment).

Two firearms officers were found to have been dishonest with respect to their reclassification shoots; the panel ordered a final written warning in relation to both officers.

The Metropolitan Police Service successfully argued that the sanction decision was unlawful. Mostyn J found that the panel erred in law by considering testimonials when assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, and thereby not complying with the Outcomes Guidance: [57].[1]

In relation to one of the officers (who falsified an instructor’s signature), the Court found that the panel’s decision was Wednesbury unreasonable. In doing so Mostyn J stated, [71]:

The decision does not grapple with the consequences of the finding of dishonesty, having regard to the policy of the disciplinary regime. It does not attempt to calibrate this particular class of dishonesty (i.e. on-duty, non-operational) by reference to the Outcomes Guidance.

The Court remitted the matter to a fresh panel to consider sanctions afresh for both officers.

The case is authority for the proposition that it is permissible, under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 for a differently constituted panel to consider sanctions than the panel that considered findings/breach: [87] and [88].

It also provides useful guidance on the factors to be considered when determining whether a matter should be remitted to a new panel: [89] to [92].

Frances McClenaghan was instructed by Mark Knowles, solicitor in the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Legal Services.

[1] 2017 version in place at the time, the updated Outcomes Guidance can be found here.

We’re delighted to announce the recruitment of Scott Matthewson, described by The Legal 500 as “an engaging advocate” who “easily builds trust and a good rapport with clients”, following the arrival of five other barristers Joanne Kane, Benjamin Harrison, Jake Rylatt, Olivia Kirkbride and Emily Campbell. This will further enhance the service we are able to provide to you, significantly consolidating our expertise in all our core fields.

For more information about our barristers’ practices or to discuss how we might assist, please contact our clerking or client care teams: 020 7427 5000.

Jake Rylatt, led by Philip Rule of No5 Barristers’ Chambers, appears for Mr Pearce. The Supreme Court will consider the Parole Board’s “Guidance on Allegations”, which was declared to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal below [2022] EWCA Civ 4

The hearing is listed to commence at 10:30 today (9 November 2022), and can be viewed here

Further information as to the issues in the case can be found here

Congratulations to Mark Harries KC and Tom O’Connor for winning Pro Bono KC of the Year and Pro Bono Chambers’ Professional of the Year respectively.

Advocate noted that:

• “Mark’s practice stands out for the importance, impact and range of pro bono cases he undertakes… his enthusiasm in even the most challenging situation is inspiring”; and
• “Tom’s approach plays a crucial part in driving a pro bono ethos in Chambers which supports and steers clients through what sadly is often the crisis of their lives… his commitment to helping vulnerable people shapes everything he does.”

It was also announced that Olivia Kirkbride is down to the final four, from an original shortlist of nine, for the Young Pro Bono Barrister of the Year Award, which is to be announced at the Annual Bar and Young Bar Conference at the end of the month. She was commended as “highly accomplished and remarkable in her professionalism, diligence and care”.

Serjeants’ Inn was also one of four finalists in the Set of the Year category as testament to what the judges described as an “impressive commitment” to pro bono work on the part of members of Chambers and the staff team.

For more information about our barristers’ practices or to discuss how we might assist, please contact our clerking or client care teams: 020 7427 5000.

The Court is to consider issuing new guidance after criticism of closed hearings in the Court of Protection. Michael Mylonas QC discusses the rare circumstances in which closed hearings are used and whether new guidance would help Judges in these complex cases in future.

To listen to the programme on BBC Sounds, please click here.