R (on the application of Chief Constable of Thames Valley) v Police Appeals Tribunal [2015] EWHC 3358
The High Court granted judicial review of a decision reached by the Police Appeals Tribunal that a Detective Inspector was guilty of gross misconduct. The case provides interesting observations on hearsay evidence, its admission in disciplinary proceedings, and how both first instance and appeal tribunals should address the weight it should be given.
The background to the matter concerns the conduct of a Detective Inspector working for Thames Valley Police, specifically allegations of sexual harassment and bullying made by a Civilian Investigator. There was a further allegation that he had installed a CCTV camera in the police station without authorisation. An investigation into the complaint led to a decision that there was a case to answer and a referral was made to the disciplinary panel for a misconduct hearing, which took place in April and May 2014.
The panel had allowed a Detective Sergeant to give hearsay evidence regarding other complaints received from female officers concerning the Detective Inspector’s conduct, before the other officers had given evidence themselves. The panel decided that the Detective Sergeant’s hearsay evidence was admissible. The panel found the Detective Inspector guilty of gross misconduct in respect of the sexual harassment allegations and misconduct for the second allegation relating to the CCTV. The sanction for the first allegation was immediate dismissal and management advice for the second.
The panel’s decision was appealed by the Detective Inspector in February 2015. The appeal was allowed in relation to the first allegation on the ground that it was unfair of the panel to allow hearsay evidence to be admitted before the witnesses had given evidence themselves. It was argued that the panel had been influenced and had reached a biased conclusion. The appeal against the second allegation about the installation of a CCTV camera was dismissed.
The appeal tribunal found that it was unfair to admit hearsay evidence at all and especially before the evidence of the witnesses, that there was an element of unconscious bias by the panel following their decision to allow the hearsay evidence to be admitted and that the findings were unreasonable. The appeal tribunal regarded the panel’s approach on hearsay evidence to have been an error which left them tainted. The finding of gross misconduct was therefore quashed together with the sanction of immediate dismissal, which meant the only sanction which remained was the management advice for the second allegation. The appeal tribunal’s decision was subsequently challenged by the Chief Constable for Thames Valley Police by way of judicial review in the admin court. The Detective Inspector in question also appealed against the sanction of immediate dismissal for the gross misconduct.
In general, disciplinary panels do have wide discretionary powers on the issues of admissibility and hearsay evidence. The important question in this case was why the Detective Sergeant’s evidence was considered to be necessary when the individuals were able to give evidence in person and why it was heard first. Interestingly, when the officers came to give their own evidence they did not support the account of the Detective Sergeant and the panel did not in fact consider it fair to place reliance on her evidence. As a result, much of the Detective Sergeant’s evidence was disregarded.
Mr Justice Mitting found that the appeal tribunal’s conclusions were ‘flimsy and illogical’ and the Chief Constable’s challenge to their findings was upheld. The panel was found to have provided a ‘clearly stated and well-reasoned conclusion’ which made clear that they had discounted most of the hearsay evidence when assessing the strength of the case. Overall, the panel had preferred the evidence of the Civilian Investigator over the evidence given by the accused Detective Inspector. The Panel had explained that they found her account to be both compelling and consistent. The Court concluded that the Appeal Tribunal’s approach in relation to hearsay evidence and their finding of bias was wrong and should not have been used to undermine the account of the Civilian Investigator.
The appeal tribunal’s conclusions were not supported by evidence and the decision was quashed. Mr Justice Mitting found the Detective Inspector’s conduct to clearly amount to gross misconduct and it would be perverse to find otherwise. The case was remitted back to the same panel to consider the appeal by the Detective Inspector with regard to the sanction.