Removal of police vetting from a probationer is reasonable

R (on the application of Joseph Quirke) -v- Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary 2024

Executive summary

The police’s decision to remove a probationer’s vetting was reasonable. There were no demonstrable flaws in the police’s decision-making and, the decision was not outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the police.

Background

On 21 November 2014, a 14-year-old girl disclosed that she had sent photographs via Snapchat to Q of herself in bra and pants, she was “not fully nude”. Q was 17 at the time and lived in a different area.

The victim subsequently told the police that she also sent a photograph to Q of the top part of her vagina after being persuaded to by him. The victim said three other girls had done the same. Three girls were spoken to and said they had not sent any nude or sexual images to Q.

Q was arrested on suspicion of possessing an indecent photograph of a child. Electronic devices were seized and he was interviewed under caution, where he answered some questions but replied ‘no comment’ to all questions relating to the victim and the other girls, to Snapchat and his mobile telephone.

The police requested the victim’s telephone for analysis, but she had thrown it away.

The police’s investigation was filed as no further action.

In 2020, Q joined the police as a constable. Recruitment vetting was originally refused but overturned on appeal. In 2022, Q’s vetting came to be reviewed and was revoked. Q appealed to the Appeal Panel who refused the appeal, reasoning (amongst other matters) that:

1. Q was arrested on suspicion of being in possession of indecent images of a child.
2. That allegation was of a very serious nature, linked to sexual offences against children.
3. There is no irrefutable evidence that the allegation was false or malicious.
4. Eight years have since passed. Vetting has been discussed in between that time with the same concerns being raised.
5. Mitigating actions were considered but, given the nature of the alleged offence, supervision or regular checks would not assist.
6. The public would expect the police to remove officers who are subject to allegations of this nature, which poses a risk to public confidence.

The appeal

Q submitted that the police’s refusal to allow his appeal was unreasonable because:

• By focusing on the arrest, the police failed to consider the subsequent relevant issues from the criminal investigation – i.e. the lack of corroborating accounts, the lack of telephone evidence and the conflict between the victim’s description of the photographs. There was also nothing incriminating found on Q’s electronic devices.
• For the same reasons as (i), the police failed to address the credibility of the allegation.
• There were mistakes in the vetting revocation decision.

Law

The Vetting Code of Practice makes clear vetting is an integral part of a police force’s framework of ethics and professional standards. This Code is supported by the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice on vetting. At paragraph 8.37.4, the APP offers the following two-stage test when assessing information and intelligence as part of the vetting process:

1. Are there reasonable grounds for suspecting that the applicant, a family member or other relevant associate: [i] is or has been involved in criminal activity; [ii] has financial vulnerabilities; [iii] is, or has been, subjected to any adverse information.
2. If so, is it appropriate, in all the circumstances, to refuse vetting clearance?

In the context of judicial review, a public law decision will be unreasonable if; (a) the decision is outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker; and (b) there was a demonstrable flaw in the reasoning process.

When determining if a decision was unreasonable, the court will always recognise the latitude of the public authority, as the primary decision-maker as to questions of judgment, evaluation, and appreciation.

Decision

Q’s application was refused. The police’s decision to remove vetting was reasonable because:

• The allegation by the victim was credible despite the matters raised by Q. Applying A v Chief Constable of C [2014], there were “facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the individual may have committed the offence”.
• There was no demonstrable flaw in the police’s reasoning process. There were no obviously relevant matters overlooked, nor was there any error of materiality.
• The mistakes in the vetting review decision were not repeated in the police’s final decision.

At the heart of the police’s decision was the belief that they were dealing with an allegation of a very serious matter concerning sexual offences committed against children. That characterisation was reasonably open to the police.

Comment

This is a welcome decision for police forces who should have the confidence that, if they make justified and reasoned decisions on vetting reviews, the court will be slow to interfere with the police’s decision-making. As the judgment makes clear, “this is a classic evaluation entrusted to a primary decision-making authority, with specialist experience and insight about the police force with its framework of ethics and professional standards, about individuals who are unsuitable to work within the police service, or to have access to police assets; about unsuitability by reference to criminal activity or as posing a risk to the public; and about helping ensure public trust and confidence in those working in policing.”