The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Tribunal

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Tribunal

The Tribunal did not err in law or act irrationally in its findings or sanction, as the case on discriminatory language was not put to it in the manner now argued, and its approach to seriousness, mitigation, and sanction was within its discretion and consistent with applicable guidance.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Defendant: Police Misconduct Tribunal; Interested Party: PS Paul Hollis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Police Misconduct, Equality and Diversity, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judicial Review, Gross Misconduct, Sanctions in Police Discipline
Administrative Law Employment Law Police Law Police Misconduct Equality and Diversity Disciplinary Proceedings Judicial Review Gross Misconduct +1 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Claimant

Police Misconduct Tribunal

Defendant

PS Paul Hollis

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law or acted irrationally in finding no breach of the Equality and Diversity Standard by PS Hollis
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's decision to impose a final written warning rather than dismissal was unlawful or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law or act irrationally in its findings or sanction, as the case on discriminatory language was not put to it in the manner now argued, and its approach to seriousness, mitigation, and sanction was within its discretion and consistent with applicable guidance.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed