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).

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.