An inspector was stopped travelling in first class on a train out of London Victoria on 25 January 2010 as he was not entitled to the travel and lied about both his reasons for being in first class and his destination. A was under severe stress at the time mainly because his son was suffering from a rare genetic disorder. The court later heard submissions that A had been crying at work shortly prior to the incident. Misconduct proceedings were brought against A and A was dismissed without notice by a Misconduct Hearing Panel. A appealed the decision and the Police Appeals Tribunal allowed the appeal as to the disciplinary action taken so A was reinstated and given a final written warning to last 18months. The Appeals Tribunal also decided A’s costs should be paid by the Police Authority (B).

The Commissioner challenged the decisions made by the Appeals Tribunal on the grounds that (1) it was irrational to reinstate A when he had been so dishonest, (2) to order A should have his pay from the date of reinstatement on the ground that Appeals Tribunal decision was made after it had ceased to have jurisdiction and the Commissioner had not been asked to consider the issue of back pay and that (3) the starting point for costs should be that B, as regulatory body for police offices, ought not to have to pay costs. A resisted the challenge on the grounds that (1) he was entitled to be reinstated as the original Misconduct Hearing panel failed to consider his stressful personal circumstances at the time, (2) the Appeals Tribunal had jurisdiction to make an order relating to back pay and the Commissioner should have raised the issue at the hearing and (3) the order for costs was proper and just, as reasoned by the Tribunal. The court dismissed the Commissioners challenge to the decision to reinstate A and gave A a written warning to last for 18 months.

However the court decided to quash the decisions to order back pay and costs and remitted these matters to the Police Appeals Tribunal. It was held that the Appeals Tribunal applied the correct legal test when deciding whether to allow A’s appeal against the sanction. The court agreed that maintenance of public confidence in the police force was vital and dishonesty could undermine this confidence. However it was held that A was not protected on account of his policy position. Although the fact he was in a policy position was a relevant factor, it was not a critical in the reasoning of the Appeals Tribunal.

It was held the Appeals Tribunal was entitled to consider A’s mental state as partly responsible for his error in judgement and dishonesty and the approach of the Appeals Tribunal was therefore deemed reasonable and rationale. On the issue of the order on back pay, the court agreed the Appeal Tribunal did have jurisdiction to make such an order and acknowledged that the issue was not raised by either party at the hearing. However the court noted that the rules of natural justice required the Commissioner to be invited to address the point and as he was not, the order on pay back was quashed.

Finally, the court held that the reasoning of the Appeals Tribunal did not consider the principle that a costs order should not be brought against a regulator unless there is good reason to do so. This is due to the public interest in encouraging public bodies to exercise their duties without fear of facing financial penalties. For this reason, the order for costs was quashed and remitted to the Police Appeals Tribunal. http://bit.ly/124qimg