Lino Di Maria, R (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Lino Di Maria, R (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

The Court of Appeal held that the Judge erred in equating findings of 'no case to answer' or 'not proved' in misconduct proceedings with the absence of reasonable grounds for suspicion in vetting reviews. The vetting test is distinct, requiring only reasonable grounds for suspicion, not proof. Vetting reviews may consider conduct previously determined in misconduct proceedings, and the two processes serve different purposes with different standards.

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 From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Police Vetting, Misconduct Proceedings, Article 6 ECHR, Procedural Safeguards, Vetting Code Interpretation
Administrative Law Employment Law Police Law Human Rights Police Vetting Misconduct Proceedings Article 6 ECHR Procedural Safeguards +1 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 21 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 From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a vetting review may find reasonable grounds for suspicion of conduct already determined as 'no case to answer' or 'not proved' in police misconduct proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the outcome of misconduct proceedings precludes consideration of the same conduct in subsequent vetting reviews, absent exceptional circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Judge erred in equating findings of 'no case to answer' or 'not proved' in misconduct proceedings with the absence of reasonable grounds for suspicion in vetting reviews. The vetting test is distinct, requiring only reasonable grounds for suspicion, not proof. Vetting reviews may consider conduct previously determined in misconduct proceedings, and the two processes serve different purposes with different standards.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed on the only live ground; the reasoning of the Judge at para 170 is overturned.
  • No order is made affecting the quashing of the Respondent's vetting removal and referral to third stage meeting, as other grounds remain.