AC-2025-MAN-000040 - [2025] EWHC 3018 (Admin)

The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police (“the Chief Constable”) challenges a decision of the Police Misconduct Panel (“the Panel”) made on 4 November 2024. The decision followed a hearing that took place on 30 and 31 October 2024. The misconduct proceedings concerned the conduct of Inspector Alex Taylor (who is the Interested Party to these proceedings). The Panel concluded that Inspector Taylor had acted in a way that amounted to gross misconduct. The Panel decided to impose a final written warning, to remain on Inspector Taylor’s record for 4 years. In these proceedings the Chief Constable challenges that latter conclusion as unlawful. He contends that Inspector Taylor should have been dismissed. I have heard submissions on behalf of the Chief Constable and on behalf of Inspector Taylor. As is often the case in claims such as this one, the Panel has not appeared or otherwise participated in the proceedings.

The conduct that led to the disciplinary proceedings occurred in the early months of 2020. The notice given to Inspector Taylor under regulation 30 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (“the Regulation 30 notice” and “the 2020 Regulations”, respectively) when the matter was referred to a misconduct hearing described the misconduct as follows:

“In January 2020 you were a uniformed Inspector on the ... Neighbourhood Team based in Cheadle Heath police station. You had line management responsibility for 3 sergeants, 11 PCs and 16 PCSOs. ...

Around January/February 2020 you joined a work WhatsApp group. From that group you and [the PCSO] began to message each other privately. The messages began as jokey and friendly but very quickly progressed to being flirty and then overtly sexual. This continued for several weeks.

On Monday 20 April 2020, you worked an 0700-1600 shift. You arrived at ... police station and booked on at 0701 and you exchanged further messages with [the PCSO] who was off duty, but at ... Police Post. Whilst on duty you agreed to meet her at [the Police Post]. You drove there ... and she let you in, whereupon you had sex on the sofa in the police premises. You left and ... carried on your shift as normal.

Following this sexual encounter you decided to end your liaison with [the PCSO]. She was upset and unhappy about this. Over the next few weeks and months she confided in colleagues about what had happened. She was distressed and emotional which caused problems in the wider team.

On 1 May 2020 [the PCSO] confided in PS Lowe and on 2 May 2020 you too told PS Lowe you had “fucked up royal” in messaging [the PCSO], although you denied any sexual encounter. PS Lowe had to act as mediator and support you and [the PCSO] as he tried to manage the fallout from your liaison.

In July 2020 PS Lowe reported the matter to CI Smith. You admitted to her you had had a liaison with [the PCSO], but you did not disclose you had had sex on police premises or that it took place whilst you were on duty. You also told your welfare officer the liaison was confined to “foolish messaging”. Only once the matter was referred to PSB did you admit the sexual encounter. To date you continue to deny that the sexual encounter took place whilst you were on duty.”

Thus, as the Regulation 30 notice explained, Inspector Taylor and a PCSO had an affair which led to one sexual encounter, but then came to a rapid end. In this judgment I will not refer to the PCSO by name since it is not necessary to do so in order to decide any of the issues raised in the proceedings. The PCSO was part of a neighbourhood policing team. That team was managed by a police sergeant who was one of three who reported to Inspector Taylor. The Regulation 30 notice then continued as follows:

“Your conduct as described above is a breach of the following standards:

Authority, Respect and Courtesy

You failed to act with self-control or professionalism in pursuing an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate colleague for several weeks through sexual messaging and a sexual encounter that was both on police premises and took place whilst you were on duty. [the PCSO] was junior to you in rank and was under your line management and therefore vulnerable to an abuse of power. You ignored those risks and pursued the liaison for your own sexual gratification.

Duties and Responsibilities

You failed to fulfil your professional duties and responsibilities by ignoring professional standards and guidance and having sex on police premises. Furthermore, by having sex whilst you were on duty you also failed to carry out your duties and obligations to the best of your ability.

You did not take responsibility for your actions, failing to report the liaison, even when it became clear to you that it was known to junior colleagues and was causing problems in the workplace.

You further failed to live up to the leadership and managerial responsibilities expected of an officer of your rank, leaving a junior colleague to manage [the PCSO’s] turmoil and the impact of your own actions.

Discreditable Conduct

If known to the public, the fact that an inspector pursued an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate colleague through sexual messaging and a sexual encounter on police premises would undoubtedly bring discredit on the police service and undermine public confidence in policing.

It is particularly discreditable that this sexual encounter took place whilst you were on duty and should have been serving the public. Furthermore, that an officer in a leadership role acted in this way which then caused a toxic working environment for junior colleagues that was only addressed when a junior colleague reported the issue.

Your conduct as described above is so serious that dismissal would be justified for it, and it has been assessed as gross misconduct.”

The “standards” referred to are the Standards of Professional Behaviour referred to at regulation 5 of the 2020 Regulations and set out in Schedule 2 to the 2020 Regulations.

Under the 2020 Regulations when a regulation 30 notice has been served, the officer concerned is required to reply (see regulation 31). In this case, Inspector Taylor replied as follows:

“1.

Inspector Taylor admits to having sex with [the PCSO] on one occasion in 2020. Neither were on duty at the time, but it took place on police premises. On that basis, the officer accepts that be breached the standards as alleged and accepts misconduct.

2.

For the avoidance of doubt, he does not accept that the sex took place on Monday 20^th April 2020. Nor does he accept that the account given by [the PCSO] is a truthful account of his interactions with her. As such, her credibility is in issue and specific disclosure is sought of any material that would assist the Inspector.

3.

The AA is invited to confirm whether they rely on [the PCSO] as a witness of truth and whether she has confirmed her attendance at the hearing or willingness to participate in it.

4.

As is perhaps clear from the bundle, the officer will rely on his poor mental health at the material time. Combined with problems he was experiencing with medication, he will assert that he acted impulsively and out of character.

5.

There appears on the face of the papers a significant delay in this otherwise simple case. In order to consider the officer’s options, we ask for a chronology of the investigation and decision-making process.

6.

A pre-hearing would be beneficial in this case in order to consider the issues raised in this response. The officer invites the

LQC to order [the PCSO’s] attendance at the final hearing.”

The misconduct hearing was conducted by the Panel pursuant to the provisions of the 2020 Regulations. By the time the misconduct hearing took place, Inspector Taylor’s position on some of the allegations had changed. By this time, he accepted that he and the PCSO had had sex on 20 April 2020, and he accepted that he had been on duty at the time.

The Panel’s written decision recorded the following findings of fact.

“The panel accept the admissions as framed and find these matters proved on the balance of probabilities.

Breaches of the standards of professional behaviour

In relation to these allegations, the AA says the officer’s behaviour has breached the standards of professional behaviour in relation to the following:

Authority, respect and courtesy

On the balance of probabilities, the panel do find that the officer has breached this standard, and they accept his admission.

This is because they failed to act with self-control by pursuing an inappropriate relationship with a junior colleague and by having sex on police premises.

The officer has abused his position of authority in relation to his and [the PCSO’s] rank and failed to treat [the PCSO] with courtesy and respect.

We do however find as a matter of fact that the messaging and engagement between the officer and [the PCSO] was mutual and there is no evidence of manipulation of [the PCSO] by the officer.

Duties and Responsibilities

On the balance of probabilities, the panel do find that the officer has breached this standard, and they accept his admission.

This is because, he has not been diligent in the exercise of his duties and responsibilities because he engaged in sexual activity when he should have been attending to his duties.

He has failed to notify his line manager that he was engaging in sexualised conduct with [the PCSO].

He has failed to comply with his leadership and managerial responsibilities and has caused problems for his colleagues who had to deal with the ‘fall out’ from his relationship with [the PCSO].

Conduct

On the balance of probabilities, the panel do find that the officer has breached this standard, and they accept his admission.

This is because, his conduct is likely to undermine public confidence and the reputation of the police.”

By regulation 41(15) the Panel was required to decide whether the conduct found to have occurred amounted to misconduct, gross misconduct, or neither. By reference to paragraph 29 of Schedule 3 to the 2020 Act a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour amounts to “misconduct”, and “gross misconduct” means a breach of those standards “that is so serious as to justify dismissal”.

When the Panel considered the level of misconduct in this case it noted that Inspector Taylor had admitted that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct. The Panel’s decision then continued as follows:

“Level of Misconduct

It is alleged by the Appropriate Authority that the breaches amount to gross misconduct. The officer admits that his conduct amounts to gross misconduct.

Gross misconduct means a breach of the standards of professional behaviour which is so serious that dismissal would be justified.

Misconduct means a breach of the standards of professional behaviour.

Having regard to the above and all the matters we have heard and considered we do find that this is a matter that falls within the definition gross misconduct, due to the impact and potential impact on public confidence and on the reputation of policing. The officer was aware of his duties as a senior police officer.

This finding does fulfil the purpose of the misconduct regime.”

The Panel then considered the “Outcome”, the penalty that should be imposed in consequence of the misconduct found to have occurred. For this purpose, the Panel was required to act in accordance with regulation 42 of the 2020 Regulations. So far as material (and at the material time), that regulation provides:

“42.— Outcome of misconduct proceedings

(1)

The person conducting or chairing misconduct proceedings may, subject to the provisions of this regulation—

(a)

impose any disciplinary action mentioned in paragraph (2) or (3) as appropriate;

(b)

where they find the conduct amounts to neither gross misconduct nor misconduct, direct that the matter is referred to be dealt with under the reflective practice review process.

...

(3)

The disciplinary action available at a misconduct hearing is—

...

(b)

where the person conducting or chairing the misconduct proceedings decides the conduct of the officer concerned amounts to gross misconduct, in accordance with regulation 41(15)—

(i)

a final written warning;

(ii)

reduction in rank;

(iii)

dismissal without notice.

...

(10)

Where a final written warning is given under paragraph (3), the period in paragraph (9)(b) may be extended, by the persons considering the question of disciplinary action, to a maximum period of 5 years.

...

(14)

Where the question of disciplinary action is being considered, the person or persons considering it—

(a)

must have regard to the record of police service of the officer concerned as shown on the officer's personal record;

(b)

may receive evidence from any witness whose evidence would, in their opinion, assist them in determining the question, including evidence of mitigating circumstances disclosed prior to the hearing to—

(i)

a police force;

(ii)

a registered medical practitioner, or

(iii)

a staff association;

(c)

must give—

(i)

the officer;

(ii)

if the officer is legally represented, the officer's relevant lawyer or, if the officer is not legally represented, the officer's police friend;

(iii)

the appropriate authority or, as the case may be, the originating authority or the person appointed to represent such authority in accordance with regulation 8(5), and

(iv)

the Director General or the Director General's relevant lawyer, where the Director General made a decision under regulation 24(1) to present the case,

an opportunity to make oral or written representations before any such question is determined, including on the appropriate level of disciplinary action, and

(d)

where representations are received in relation to mitigating circumstances—

(i)

must consider whether those circumstances have been mentioned at an earlier stage in the proceedings and, if they have not been so mentioned, whether the officer could reasonably have been expected to so mention them, and

(ii)

in the light of their conclusions under paragraph (i), may determine that it is appropriate to place less weight on those circumstances.

...”

Further, the Panel was required to “have regard” to certain matters. By section 87(3) of the Police Act 1996. (“the 1996 Act”) the Panel was required to have regard to guidance issued by the College of Policing under section 87(1B) of the 1996 Act. In 2023 the College of Policing published its “Guidance on outcomes in police misconduct proceedings” (“the Outcomes Guidance”). By section 87A(2) the College of Policing may, with the approval of the Home Secretary, issue guidance on matters of conduct, and by section 87A(3) it is the “duty of every person to whom any guidance is issued to have regard to that guidance”. For present purposes it is common ground that the guidance referred to in section 87A(2) includes a document issued by the College of Policing in 2019, “Appropriate personal relationships and behaviour in the workplace” (“the Relationships Guidance”).

For the purposes of this judgment it is necessary to set out the part of the Panel’s decision on outcome and penalty, in full. For ease of reference later in this judgment, in the passage set out below I have added a letter to identify each paragraph.

“Judgment on outcome Inspector Taylor

...

[A]

We have also considered our purpose within the misconduct regime which is:

1.

to maintain public confidence and the reputation of the police service

2.

to uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct

3.

to protect the public.

[B]

We firstly need to determine whether the mental health issues were to such an extent that they are mitigation in relation to the misconduct.

[C]

In relation to this matter, we have several relevant pieces of information. We have the report by Sgt Lowe prior to the 20^th of April which concerned erratic behaviour by Inspector Taylor. We have a couple of examples of erratic behaviour from Inspector Taylor himself, firstly a message on the WhatsApp group enquiring about porn and secondly the meeting he attended online whilst pretending to be a plant.

[D]

In addition, it is clear on the balance of probabilities, from the evidence before us that Inspector Taylor came off his medication in early January 2020, following the funeral of one of his best friends. This is supported by two entries in the GP records, the medical report from Mr Rogerson and is also referred to by one of his supervisors. Ms A also confirmed in her interview that the officer was off his medication. His own evidence is clear as to the reason he stopped taking his medication after the funeral and we accept his evidence on this point.

[E]

Finally, we do find on the balance of probabilities that he was spoken to about his performance during the relevant period. Superintendent Noden says the following, in relation to an email enquiry during the investigation, “Prior to the incident for which he is under investigation for, there was the odd occasion when his performance in the workplace (eg TTCG meeting updates for his team) wasn’t at the standard expected of an Inspector and I do recall him telling me on a few occasions about how he’d both changed his medication levels, and at one time stopped taking his medication all together.”

[F]

In conclusion, we do find that mental health is a matter that can properly be considered in relation to the seriousness of the misconduct.

[G]

In assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, we have considered:

1.

The officer’s culpability.

In this matter, the allegations that we have found proven all concerned the direct conduct of the officer in choosing to engage in a relationship and sexual activity with a colleague. It was however as per our findings a mutual relationship as evidenced by the incident itself and the messages between the parties. This is not an abuse of a position of trust or authority as envisaged by the guidance.

We do therefore find that culpability is within the medium range of seriousness.

[H]

2.

The harm caused (and the risk of harm).

There is a risk of reputational harm as the public would see this behaviour as unprofessional. There was also clearly some upset caused to Ms A, the officer’s colleagues and the officer himself.

The harm we find falls within the medium to high range of seriousness.

[I]

3.

The aggravating factors.

There are multiple proven breaches of the standards in this case. There is an expectation for an Inspector to act as a role model. There was deviation from instructions and orders.

He did initially conceal that sexual activity had taken place.

The messaging took place over several weeks.

[J]

4.

Mitigating factors.

The misconduct was confined to a single episode in relation to the sexual encounter itself.

There were some admissions by the officer.

The officer has not sought to blame others for his actions.

The officer was dealing with diagnosed mental health conditions and his decision making at the time was impaired.

There is evidence of genuine remorse and insight.

[K]

In conclusion, the panel do find that culpability is at the medium level and the harm and risk of harm is at the medium to high level.

Together with the aggravating and mitigating factors, the seriousness overall is at the medium level of seriousness.

There are no previous relevant allegations of misconduct brought to the panel’s attention at this stage.

Personal mitigation was considered together with the officer’s service record.

In line with case law, it is less important than the interests of the profession and the protection of the public.

We also considered the impact of delay in this case.

[L]

Outcome

The Appropriate Authority says that only a finding that the officer is dismissed, will fulfil the purposes of the disciplinary process. Counsel for the officer says that a final written warning is sufficient.

[M]

Having considered all the above matters and the available outcomes, the panel considered the appropriate sanction. We confirm we directed ourselves as to the purpose of the misconduct regime as set out above and that the purpose of misconduct proceedings is not to punish the officer.

[N]

The panel acknowledge that everyone including police officers can make mistakes. However, there is a point where matters stop being a mistake and become a habit or course of conduct. This is not the case in this particular matter where the misconduct is a one-off incident in respect of the sexual encounter, which was impacted by the impairment of the officer’s decision making at the time. The police are in a privileged position of trust and the public expect them to exercise their position appropriately.

[O]

This matter concerns multiple breaches of the standards and clearly could have an impact on public confidence in policing.

[P]

Sanction

The panel firstly considered whether a Final Written Warning would be appropriate in this case. The panel took into account the mitigating and aggravating factors identified above and the character references in support of the officer.

[Q]

Having considered the matter very carefully, we found the following features of this case which we considered to be exceptional:

This is not a case of sexual predation or of an abuse of power for sexual purposes and is, based upon the evidence the panel have seen, a mutual interaction between the parties.

[R]

Having considered the unique features in this case, the panel found a Final Written Warning to be the appropriate outcome in this case.

[S]

We then turned our mind to the length of the final written warning as per paragraph 3.16 of the guidance on outcomes.

Given the factors to be considered which are dealt with above, we consider that the final written warning should be for a period of 4 years.

The panel considered that a member of the public knowing the full facts of this case including the mental health issues that impaired the officer’s decision making, would see this decision as fulfilling the purpose of the misconduct regime.

The officer has acted inappropriately but the mitigation outweighs the need for a more severe sanction.

The panel take no personal pleasure in making findings of this type and do have empathy for any officer who finds themselves facing misconduct. This unfortunately cannot lead us to make a finding that does not fulfil the purpose of the misconduct regime.

[T]

We hope as no doubt the AA does, that the officer will learn from this and move forward and be a dedicated servant of the community he serves.”

The submissions for the Chief Constable in these proceedings may be summarised as follows. The overall contention is that the decision to impose a final written warning rather than dismissal was Wednesbury unreasonable. That overall contention rests on the following submissions. First, there was no evidence, or sufficient evidence, to support the conclusion that Inspector Taylor’s “mental health issues” were relevant to culpability and diminished the seriousness of his misconduct. Second, the Panel’s conclusion that Inspector Taylor’s culpability fell into “the medium range of seriousness” was contrary to the evidence. Third, the conclusion that the harm caused was within the “medium range” was contrary to proper consideration of the Outcome Guidance and rested on a serious misevaluation of the consequences of the relationship between Inspector Taylor and the PCSO on other police officers, and how the misconduct would likely be perceived by the public. Fourth, the Panel failed to evaluate sufficiently or at all the matters identified as aggravating factors and mitigating factors. Fifth, the Panel’s choice of a final written warning rather than dismissal lacked a proper factual foundation because (a) it rested on matters the Panel described as “exceptional” but which were not exceptional at all; and (b) it was irrational because the Panel had incorrectly assessed the seriousness of the misconduct. Sixth, the decision failed to follow the process set out in the Outcomes Guidance.