Di Maria, R (On the Application Of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2026] EWCA Civ 28 (27 January 2026)

Di Maria, R (On the Application Of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2026] EWCA Civ 28 (27 January 2026)

The Court of Appeal held that the vetting test in the Vetting Code requires only reasonable grounds for suspicion and is not equated with findings of 'no case to answer' or 'not proved' in misconduct proceedings. The two regimes are distinct: misconduct proceedings determine facts on the balance of probabilities,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 28
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Lino Di Maria; Defendant/appellant: Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis; First Interested Party: The College of Policing; Second Interested Party: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) – Appeal From High Court Administrative Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed on the live ground; Judge's reasoning on Ground 3 overturned; order quashing vetting withdrawal and referral to third stage meeting remains unaffected.
Legal Topics
Police Vetting, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Article 6 ECHR, Dismissal of Police Officers, Vetting Code Interpretation, Misconduct Proceedings, Standard of Proof, Risk Assessment
Administrative Law Police Law Employment Law Human Rights Police Vetting Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Article 6 ECHR +5 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lino Di Maria

Claimant/respondent

Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Defendant/appellant

The College of Policing

First Interested Party

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) – Appeal From High Court Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a police vetting review may find reasonable grounds for suspicion regarding conduct already determined as 'no case to answer' or 'not proved' in misconduct proceedings, absent exceptional circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether the vetting regime may lawfully result in dismissal where misconduct proceedings have not.
  3. 3 Whether the vetting test in the Vetting Code requires deference to findings in misconduct proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the vetting test in the Vetting Code requires only reasonable grounds for suspicion and is not equated with findings of 'no case to answer' or 'not proved' in misconduct proceedings. The two regimes are distinct: misconduct proceedings determine facts on the balance of probabilities, while vetting reviews assess risk based on suspicion. Therefore, a vetting review may find reasonable grounds for suspicion even where misconduct proceedings have not resulted in findings against the officer, and the Judge erred in holding otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed on the live ground; Judge's reasoning on Ground 3 overturned; order quashing vetting withdrawal and referral to third stage meeting remains unaffected.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Judge erred in law in her interpretation of the Vetting Code as set out in para 170 of her judgment.
  • No change to the quashing of the Defendant's decisions to remove the Claimant's minimum vetting clearance and to refer him to a third stage meeting.