Restrictions On The Private Lives Of Police Officers Under Conduct Investigations

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Law Firm: Weightmans
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Criminal Law, Court Procedure, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Crime
• Author: Jack Horlock
• Published date: 16 March 2023

R (Philpot) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2023] EWCA Civ 66

Facts

In September 2020, P's wife ("W") alleged to police that P had subjected W to years of domestic abuse. P was arrested on suspicion of coercive and controlling behaviour and malicious communications against W, and common assault against W and their son. P was bailed with conditions, including not to contact W. Ultimately, in March 2021, the CPS advised there should be no further actions in relation to the criminal allegations. Consequently, the bail conditions expired.

In October 2020, P was served notice that he was subject to a misconduct investigation in respect of the allegations for which he was arrested. The misconduct investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.

P was not suspended from duty, but he was removed from normal duty with restrictions placed on his duties. One of the restrictions (which came to be known in the proceedings as "Restriction 3") was: "to have no direct or indirect contact with [W]".

On 26 November 2020, Restriction 3 was varied to read: "to have no direct or indirect contact with [W] unless it is required by the family court".

On 25 March 2021 (when the bail conditions had expired), W told the misconduct investigating officer that there was no need for P to contact her, and she wished for Restriction 3 to remain in place.

Restriction 3 was reviewed in April and June 2021 - the latter review resulted in an amendment of Restriction 3 to "to have no direct or indirect contact with [W], unless it is required by the family court, or for child care matters which are to be via a third party".

P applied to amend Restriction 3 on 22 June 2021, which was refused because "[W] was the main witness in the ongoing misconduct investigation and if that investigation ended in a misconduct hearing [W] would be required to give evidence at the hearing against [P]".

At the time of the Court of Appeal hearing in this matter, the misconduct investigation found that P did have a case to answer in respect of the alleged conduct.

The law

Regulation 11 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 provides that:

"(1) The appropriate authority may, subject to the provisions of this regulation, suspend the officer concerned from the office of constable and ..... membership of the force.

(2) An officer who is suspended under this regulation remains a police officer for the purpose of these Regulations.

(3) The appropriate authority may not suspend...