PETITION OF R AND OTHERS FOR JUDCIAL REVIEW AGAINST CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE POLICE SERVICE OF SCOTLAND AND OTHERS [2021] ScotCS CSOH_73 (16 July 2021)

PETITION OF R AND OTHERS FOR JUDCIAL REVIEW AGAINST CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE POLICE SERVICE OF SCOTLAND AND OTHERS [2021] ScotCS CSOH_73 (16 July 2021)

The decision to hold separate misconduct hearings was procedurally unfair and irrational because it was based on a mistaken understanding that the petitioners, through an unauthorised representative, had requested separate hearings. The decision departed from the published Guidance without sound reason, and the reasons given were misconceived and inadequate. No effective alternative remedy was available to the petitioners within the regulatory framework.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSOH_73
Parties
First Petitioner: R; Second Petitioner: A; Third Petitioner: D; Respondents: Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Opinion (final Judgment)
Outcome
Petition granted (declarator and reduction of the impugned decision)
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Police Misconduct Proceedings, Legitimate Expectation, Judicial Review, Decision Making Process
Administrative Law Police Law Employment Law Procedural Fairness Police Misconduct Proceedings Legitimate Expectation Judicial Review Decision Making Process

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

First Petitioner

A

Second Petitioner

D

Third Petitioner

Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Opinion (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to hold separate misconduct hearings for the petitioners was procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether the decision was irrational or inadequately reasoned
  3. 3 Whether the petitioners had an effective alternative remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to hold separate misconduct hearings was procedurally unfair and irrational because it was based on a mistaken understanding that the petitioners, through an unauthorised representative, had requested separate hearings. The decision departed from the published Guidance without sound reason, and the reasons given were misconceived and inadequate. No effective alternative remedy was available to the petitioners within the regulatory framework.

Court Disposition

Petition granted (declarator and reduction of the impugned decision)

Orders

  • Declarator that the decision to hold separate misconduct hearings was unlawful
  • Reduction (quashing) of the decision to hold separate hearings