Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, R (on the application of) v A Legally Qualified Chair

Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, R (on the application of) v A Legally Qualified Chair

The disciplinary panel has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for breach of the ongoing duty to disclose information relevant to vetting, even if the underlying conduct occurred before attestation; the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 do not apply to conduct before a person becomes a police officer, but the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police; Defendant: A Legally Qualified Chair; Interested Party: C; Intervener: Police Federation of England and Wales
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision of the defendant quashed
Legal Topics
Police Misconduct, Statutory Interpretation, Vetting Procedures, Disciplinary Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Misconduct Panels
Administrative Law Police Law Employment Law Police Misconduct Statutory Interpretation Vetting Procedures Disciplinary Proceedings Jurisdiction of Misconduct Panels

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

Claimant

A Legally Qualified Chair

Defendant

C

Interested Party

Police Federation of England and Wales

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 apply to conduct before a person becomes a police officer?
  2. 2 Is there an ongoing duty for police officers to disclose information previously sought by a police force?
  3. 3 Can disciplinary proceedings be brought for failure to disclose pre-attestation conduct?

Ratio Decidendi

The disciplinary panel has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for breach of the ongoing duty to disclose information relevant to vetting, even if the underlying conduct occurred before attestation; the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 do not apply to conduct before a person becomes a police officer, but the ongoing duty to disclose post-attestation is capable of amounting to misconduct.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision of the defendant quashed

Orders

  • The defendant’s decision to decline jurisdiction is quashed.
  • Disciplinary proceedings in relation to C must be determined by a differently constituted panel.