W80, R. (on the application of Officer) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct & Ors [2023] UKSC 24
Citation:W80, R. (on the application of Officer) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct & Ors [2023] UKSC 24
Rule of thumb:How do you accuse & prove a misconduct allegation against a Police Officer? Police are expected to follow the Police training manuals by the letter as a general rule, and it will only be exceptional cases that departing from them will not be considered misconduct. If you can prove that a Police Officer did not follow their training manual, then this is a ground for accusing & proving police misconduct, but if they have followed the manual by the letter, then it will be virtually impossible to make this argument.
Background facts:The facts of this case were that there was a man who was suspected of being involved in serious organised crime. The Police apprehended the suspect, and asked him to put his hands in the air. The suspect did not do and went into the bag he was carrying. A Police Officer shot the suspect and he later died from his injuries. A fake gun was found in the suspect’s bag. The Police Officer was brought before an officer misconduct internal disciplinary hearing.
Parties argued:There was a dispute over the test to be set for police officer disciplinary. The officer argued that the test was ‘honest belief’ – namely, that the reason the officer acted as they did was genuine. The Police Disciplinary person argued that the test was ‘honest & reasonable’ – meaning that all Police Officers must follow a set course on how to handle and if they did not do so then it was misconduct.
Court held:The Court upheld the arguments of the Police Disciplinary Body. They affirmed that ‘honest’ belief was not the test for police officer misconduct, and that ‘honest and reasonable’ belief was the test, meaning that if Police Protocols for how to handle situations were not followed then it required the Officer to be disciplined.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘Under the civil law test of self-defence, the necessity, proportionality and reasonableness of the officer’s conduct will be assessed having regard to his honest and reasonable belief as to the situation which confronted him. His conduct must be assessed on the basis of the information of which he was aware at the time. To employ Lord Hope’s expression, the application of the test does not require the tribunal to look beyond what is in the mind of the officer. An officer acting on the basis of defective intelligence would not necessarily be acting unreasonably in doing so provided he had no reason to suspect that the information was unreliable. Thus, for example, if it were subsequently established that the intelligence was false and its source thoroughly unreliable, this would not have any bearing on the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct unless he had reason to doubt its reliability at the time of acting. Professional standards within police forces depend on the ability of officers to rely on properly communicated intelligence, save in circumstances, which are likely to be most exceptional, where they have reason to doubt its reliability…. Urgent need for clarity: Finally, we express our concern at the proliferation of legislation and guidance in relation to the use of force by police officers which has resulted in unnecessary complexity and in obscuring the fundamental principles which must be applied. This is an area of the law of vital importance to the public and to the police. It is essential that the public and the police should be informed in straightforward terms of the law which applies. We hope that it will now be possible to recast legislation and guidance so as to achieve this result’, Lord Lloyd-Jones at 118-119.
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.