R (on the application of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis) v Police Misconduct Panel [2025] EWHC 1462 (Admin)
Case Update
Executive Summary
The Commissioner succeeded in challenging a misconduct panel’s (the ‘Panel’) decision to reach a conclusion of no case to answer before the hearing had reached conventional completion. The High Court’s decision reinforces that a finding of no case to answer must be applied strictly, and an open mind should be kept until all evidence has been heard and tested. Misconduct panels should not weigh evidence or rule on credibility until a full hearing has taken place.
Background
PC Neale faced gross misconduct allegations relating to inappropriate sexual conduct towards a colleague.
The Panel listed a three-day hearing, but on the second day concluded that there was no case to answer and dismissed all three allegations. This decision came following conclusion of the Appropriate Authority’s (‘AA’) evidence.
Judicial Review
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, acting as Appropriate Authority, sought judicial review of the Panel’s decision. The grounds for judicial review raised two issues in relation to each of the allegations:
- Did the Panel properly apply the Galbraith test?
- Was the Panel’s conclusion that there was no case to answer unreasonable?
The Galbraith test
The Galbraith test, in misconduct proceedings, requires evaluation of whether the AA’s evidence, when taken at it’s highest, is such that no reasonable and properly directed panel could make a finding of misconduct.
Decision
The court held that the claim failed on issue one – whether the Galbraith test was properly applied – stating it is not the court’s role to substitute its own application of the test. Rather, the application of Galbraith can involve evaluation and appreciation, and the Panel remained the primary decision maker in this regard.
The claim succeeded on issue two. The court held the Panel had erred in law by dismissing the case before the culmination of the hearing. The conclusion of no case to answer was deemed to be unreasonable in that the case should have proceeded to conventional completion, hearing evidence from both sides, before the Panel addressed its preferred view of the evidence.
The Panel’s findings of no case to answer were quashed and the case remitted for fresh consideration by a differently constituted panel.
This insight is authored by Trainee Solicitor, by Molly Fletcher. molly.fletcher@weightmans.com