Introduction
Recent developments in case law continue to shape the legal boundaries of police conduct, clarifying both the scope of lawful authority and the standards of accountability expected of officers in the exercise of their duties. This article provides a concise overview of key recent decisions in this ever-evolving area, highlighting the principles emerging and their practical implications for policing.
R (Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association) v Police, Fire and Rescue and Crime Commissioner for Staffordshire [2025] EWHC 3047 (Admin)
The Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (‘CPOSA’) challenged the PCC’s decision to recruit a temporary chief constable following the suspension of the force’s chief constable. The claimant argued that the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (‘PRSRA’) 2011 provided a statutory regime for the appointment of a chief constable, and that the PCC’s proposed recruitment was contrary to that regime.
The Judge ruled that despite the PCC receiving advice to the contrary by various relevant bodies, they had no power to recruit a temporary chief constable. A chief constable may only be appointed following the full statutory regime set out at s.38 and sch.8 PRSRA 2011 – there was no alternative or implied power for appointment. Pursuant to s.41 PRSRA 2011, where a chief constable is suspended, the Deputy Chief Constable becomes the acting chief constable.
This judgment will have a significant impact on the future appointment of chief constables, particularly in the instance a chief constable is suspended or unavailable to act due to incapacity.
R. (on the application of Singh) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct [2025] EWHC 2252 (Admin)
The claimant complained to Cumbria Police about the handling of their investigation into his allegations and the decision reached. An internal investigation deemed the level of service provided to be acceptable. Following this, the claimant sought review by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (‘IOPC’), who upheld the complaint and the determined the outcome was reasonable and proportionate. The claimant sought judicial review of the IOPC’s determination.
The High Court dismissed the judicial review claim where the claimant argued his complaint had been inadequately handled. The court held that the police’s internal complaints investigator is only required to examine the specific compliant raised, not conduct a wider inquiry. The role of the IOPC is to assess whether the outcome of the complaint investigation was reasonable and proportionate.
The case tested the scope of the IOPC’s review function and whether it is required to scrutinise potential deficiencies in the wider investigation or only assess whether the specific complaint had been handled reasonably and proportionately. It highlights the court’s role is not to decide whether they would reach the same determination of the complaint, instead being limited to deciding whether the IOPC’s decision was lawful. The court held the IOPC’s conclusions were not legally irrational and dismissed the judicial review claim.
R (on the application of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis) v Police Misconduct Panel & Neale [2025] EWHC 1462 (Admin)
The Commissioner succeeded in challenging a misconduct panel’s decision to dismiss misconduct allegations against the officer based on findings of no case to answer. The court concluded that the panel improperly assessed the evidence at the interim stage rather than fully considering it at the hearing’s conclusion. The Court reinforced that the application of Galbraith can involve evaluation and appreciation, and the Panel remained the primary decision maker in this regard. Misconduct panels should not weigh evidence or rule on credibility until a full hearing has taken place.
This case demonstrates the importance of procedural rigour in police disciplinary proceedings. It serves as a warning against premature dismissals of serious allegations and emphasises that procedural fairness is paramount during such proceedings. The reluctance of the court to interfere with the evaluation of the Galbraith test is evidenced, reinforcing their supervisory, not substitutionary, jurisdiction. Further, it demonstrates how the Court are unwilling to substitute their own conclusion for that of the Panel, instead choosing to remit the case for reconsideration.
R (O’Connor) v Police Misconduct Panel Chair & Mason [2025] EWCA Civ 27
DCI Mason was subject to misconduct proceedings and found by the panel to have engaged in sexual harassment towards a victim of crime. As a result, he received a final written warning. The victim brought a judicial review claim surrounding the sanction. The claim failed in the Administrative Court and the victim challenged their decision in the Court of Appeal. This challenge was successful. The appeal focused on the panel’s application of the Outcomes Guidance.
The Court of Appeal ruled that despite the fact the panel had examined aggravating and mitigating factors, there was an absence of adequate analysis and reasoning on the issue of serious, culpability and harm as mandated by the Guidance, which constituted an error of law. Consequently, the Court of Appeal quashed the panel’s decision and remitted the case for reconsideration of the appropriate sanction.
This case represents a significant development in the realm of misconduct proceedings. It examines critical issues surrounding the substantive fairness and procedural adequacy of panels when assessing and sanctioning officers accused of gross misconduct. This case also highlights the Court’s unwillingness to substitute their own conclusion for that of the panel, instead choosing to remit the case for reconsideration.
Conclusion
The cases reviewed in this update underline the courts’ ongoing role in scrutinising police conduct. While the factual contents vary, common themes emerge, particularly the Court’s reluctance to substitute the panel’s decision for that of their own. As case law in this area continues to develop, these decisions serve as a reminder that policing practices must adapt in line with judicial guidance. Close attention to emerging judgments will remain essential for ensuring compliance, managing risk, and maintaining public confidence in policing.