John Bassett appeared for the Claimant in R(on the application of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis) v Police Appeal Tribunal [2011] EWHC 3421.

This matter concerned the relatively new system for dealing with police misconduct. The Claimant asserted that the Police Appeal Tribunal had wrongly applied the Police Appeals Rules 2008 when reviewing an appellant’s case (under rule 11) to decide whether it should proceed to a full hearing or be dismissed. Unusually the court concluded that it was appropriate to judicially review the decision of the tribunal, and that the Chairman of the tribunal had made an unlawful decision.

The appellant to the tribunal, Mr Peart, was a serving police officer until he was convicted of common assault on 17th September 2009. On 25th November 2009 he was informed that an allegation of gross misconduct had been made about him in relation to this incident.

Mr Peart had appealed the decision of the magistrates and requested an adjournment of the disciplinary hearing pending the outcome of the appeal. This request was refused. Mr Peart was then dismissed for gross misconduct following a hearing on 7th January 2010.

On 29th January 2010 the appeal against conviction was successful. This prompted Mr Peart, who had already begun an appeal against the result of the misconduct hearing, in July 2010 to file additional grounds of appeal. The tribunal Chairman gave a reasoned decision that Mr Peart could not rely on the amended grounds as there was no excuse for their having been served late.

Mr Peart sought permission to apply for judicial review of the decision not to admit his amended grounds. Following an oral hearing before Owen J he was unsuccessful.

Mr Peart then sent the tribunal the transcript of the Crown Court appeal and suggested that he would apply to rely on it in relation to his original grounds of appeal under rules 4(4)(a) and (c). The Chairman of the tribunal replied that he had carried out a review under rules 11 and 12, and that the appeal would not be dismissed but would proceed to a hearing. In reaching this decision the Chairman appeared to focus on rule 4(4)(b), even though the Mr Peart had never relied on that rule.

The Claimant then sent the tribunal a pre-action letter threatening to apply for judicial review in respect of the Chairman’s decision. The Chairman purported to withdraw his decision and instead, dismissing the appeal, held under rule 11 that: i) the misconduct panel’s finding and the disciplinary action it imposed were reasonable; ii) there were no compelling grounds for a hearing; and iii) in any event Mr Peart’s notice of appeal disclosed no legitimate grounds for a hearing under the 2008 Rules. Mr Peart contended the Chairman’s first decision under rule 11 was valid and the latter decision valid. Accordingly the Claimant applied for judicial review.

In considering these events Frances Patterson QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) concluded that the tribunal Chairman had acted unlawfully in purporting to reach a decision based on a rule that the Appellant had not actually relied upon. Perhaps most importantly she also concluded that, whilst judicial review of the Police Appeal Tribunal was exceptional before a full hearing had taken place, it was appropriate in circumstances like this where "matters have developed outside the ordinary run of such cases".

John Bassett has extensive experience in all areas of police law.