Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police v Police Misconduct Panel [2017] EWHC 923 (Admin) (04 May 2017)

Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police v Police Misconduct Panel [2017] EWHC 923 (Admin) (04 May 2017)

The Panel's decision that PC White's conduct amounted to misconduct but not gross misconduct was not irrational; the Panel's findings and reasoning were open to it on the evidence. The Chief Constable has capacity to bring a judicial review challenge against the Panel as it is sufficiently independent.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 923 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police; Defendant: Police Misconduct Panel; Interested Party: PC5671 Mark White
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Disciplinary Decisions, Police Misconduct, Standards of Professional Behaviour, Capacity to Challenge Disciplinary Panels
Administrative Law Police Law Employment Law Judicial Review of Disciplinary Decisions Police Misconduct Standards of Professional Behaviour Capacity to Challenge Disciplinary Panels

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

Claimant

Police Misconduct Panel

Defendant

PC5671 Mark White

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Panel's decision that the breaches amounted only to misconduct was irrational
  2. 2 Whether the Chief Constable has capacity to bring a judicial review challenge against the Panel

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel's decision that PC White's conduct amounted to misconduct but not gross misconduct was not irrational; the Panel's findings and reasoning were open to it on the evidence. The Chief Constable has capacity to bring a judicial review challenge against the Panel as it is sufficiently independent.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review refused
  • No order as to costs specified