Di Maria: 5 Members of Chambers in the Court of Appeal
27th January 2026
The Court of Appeal (Lady Carr CJ, Singh and Whipple LJJ) today handed down judgment in R (Di Maria) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWCA Civ 28.
At first instance, Kevin Baumber for PS Di Maria persuaded Lang J that the police’s system for reviewing officers’ vetting and withdrawing it, then dismissing them for lack of vetting was unlawful on several grounds.
The Commissioner, represented by John Beggs KC, James Berry KC and Katherine Hampshire appealed. By the time of the hearing, the Police (Vetting) Regulations 2025 had come into force, setting out a process for review and withdrawal of vetting which met most of Lang J’s concerns.
The appeal was therefore limited to whether Lang J was correct to find that a matter could not be taken into account in a vetting review (on the basis that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that it was true) if the same matter had been found to have no case to answer, or had not been found proved, in misconduct proceedings (save in exceptional circumstances). This was an important question because many vetting reviews concern officers who have faced misconduct investigations or proceedings which have not resulted in their dismissal.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Court accepted the Commissioner’s argument, supported by the College of Policing represented by Aaron Rathmell, that vetting involves a multifactorial assessment of risk which may include consideration of matters notwithstanding the fact that they have previously been considered in misconduct processes.
The judgment will have significant implications for vetting reviews and withdrawal assessments. For the judgment, please see here.
John, James, Kevin, Aaron and Katherine are experts in police (and non-police) vetting and judicial challenges to vetting decisions.
Back to index