Weight placed on personal mitigation when considering reduction in rank following a finding of gross misconduct

R. (on the application of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis) -v- Police Misconduct Panel [2025] EWHC 93 (Admin)

Case Update

Executive Summary

The High Court allowed the Commissioner’s judicial review application, challenging a misconduct panel’s (the “Panel”) decision to reduce the officer’s rank from sergeant to constable following a finding of gross misconduct. The High Court found a significant error had been made by the Panel in allowing personal mitigation to justify a lesser sanction along with stating the fact the conduct took place at a time when sexism may have gone unchallenged was a mitigating factor in the case. The court did not substitute their own decision for the Panel and instead remitted the case back to the Panel for a fresh decision.

Background

Daniel Fletcher (DF), a former Metropolitan Police Sergeant, was subject to gross misconduct proceedings following an allegation that he had inappropriately touched a female colleague between her buttocks during a team-building event in 2017. DF was the complainant’s line manager at the time of the incident. 

The Panel found the allegations to be proven, and that DF’s actions amounted to gross misconduct. They demoted him in rank from Sergeant to Constable as a result, as the Panel felt there were different standards in place in 2017, causing this to be a mitigating factor preventing his dismissal. DF later resigned in July 2024. 

Judicial Review

The police applied for judicial review of the Panel’s decision on sanction. They stated that the only sanction appropriate in the circumstances would have been immediate dismissal of DF.  

Decision

1. Was the fact that DF had resigned relevant to the judicial review decision?
   No. As DF had resigned, rather than been dismissed, he was still open to re-apply to any police force. Therefore, any decision was not academic and would affect whether he would be placed on the barred list.
2. Had the Panel failed to follow the correct approach in determining sanction by considering character evidence?
   Yes. The court held that the Panel had made a significant error. They stated that when misconduct is so serious that nothing other than immediate dismissal would be sufficient to uphold public confidence in policing, personal mitigation should not justify any sanction below this.
3. Had the Panel made an error in finding a mitigating factor in the potentially different standards in place in 2017 in terms of sexism and bullying?
   Yes. The court found it to be “entirely irrational” to state that different standards applied in 2017 than 2024, in terms of a male officer putting his hands down a female’s trousers. The judge found that it was “quite wrong to elide a culture in which inappropriate conduct could go unchallenged with the idea that wholly inappropriate conduct may have been acceptable at the time”.
4. Was the decision to reduce DF’s rank rather than dismiss him irrational
   Yes. The Home Office Guidance (issued under Section 87(1) of the Police Act 1996) was clear that, in order for a reduction in rank to be appropriate, the conduct questions should be linked to leadership. In this case, the conduct undermined DF’s suitability to serve as a police officer at all, therefore the decision to reduce him in rank was an irrational one. 

Comment 

This case demonstrates the importance of upholding public confidence in policing, and the weight that this should be given when Panels are making decision as to appropriate sanctions. It also shows how the court are generally unwilling to substitute their own decision for that of a misconduct panel and instead will refer back the case back for reconsideration.

This insight is authored by Paralegal, Kayleigh Red. kayleigh.red@weightmans.com