The importance of adequate reasoning in misconduct panel decisions

R (on the application of Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct) v Police Misconduct Panel [2024] EWHC 2796 (Admin)

Key takeaway - Police misconduct panels must provide clear and detailed reasoning behind their decisions, especially regarding sanctions. Failure to do so can render their decisions unlawful.

Case summary

The High Court allowed the IOPC’s judicial review application which challenged a misconduct panel’s failure to provide adequate reasons for their sanction decision. The High Court found that the failure to provide adequate reasoning meant that the sanction decision was unlawful. They did not however, substitute their own decision for that of the panel and instead remitted the case back to the misconduct panel for reconsideration.

Background

Detective Constable B from Cambridgeshire Constabulary faced allegations of:

• Misusing his police warrant card to enter and remain in a nightclub.
• Using racist language toward a doorman.

The panel concluded that B’s actions constituted gross misconduct and issued a two-year final written warning.

Guidance on sanctions

The College of Policing Guidance (August 2023) outlines four key factors for deciding sanctions:

1. Culpability: The officer’s responsibility for the misconduct.
2. Harm: The impact of the misconduct.
3. Aggravating Factors: Elements that increase the severity of the misconduct.
4. Mitigating Factors: Circumstances that may lessen the severity.

While this guidance is not legally binding under the Police Act 1996, it is a critical reference for panels when making decisions.

Legal standard

Under common law, decision-making bodies must provide reasons that are:

• Intelligible: Clear enough to be understood.
• Adequate: Explaining how conclusions were reached (South Bucks District Council v Porter [2004] UKHL 33).

Judicial review findings

1. Did the panel provide adequate reasons? No. The panel’s decision lacked explanations on how it applied the four factors in the guidance, falling below the required standard of reasoning.
2. Was dismissal the only rational outcome? No. While the IOPC argued for dismissal, the court determined other outcomes could also be reasonable.

Outcome

The High Court declared the decision unlawful due to inadequate reasoning but declined to impose its own sanction. Instead, it remitted the case back to the panel for further consideration.

Commentary

This case underscores the importance of detailed reasoning in police misconduct proceedings. It also demonstrates the court’s reluctance to interfere with panel decisions, preferring to send cases back for proper re-evaluation. Clear and structured reasoning ensures transparency and accountability, safeguarding both public confidence and procedural fairness.