Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2009] All ER (D) 181 (Aug)
Neutral Citation: [2009] EWHC 2133 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (Manchester)

Judge Pelling QC sitting as a judge of the High Court

Representation Stephen Hardy (instructed by Russell Jones & Walker) for the claimant.
  Paul Ozin (instructed by the Force Solicitors Unit, Merseyside Police) for the defendants.
Judgment Dates: 14 August 2009


Police - Discipline - Procedure at disciplinary hearing - Choice - Claimant police constable made subject of disciplinary proceedings - Defendants being asked to consider whether to proceed under 'standard procedure' or 'fast track procedure' - Defendants deciding to proceed under fast track procedure despite claimant's submission that such procedure not appropriate given state of evidence - Whether defendants' decision perverse or illegal - Test to be applied where issue arising as to procedure to be invoked - Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008, SI 2008/2864, regs 3, 42.

The Case

Police Discipline. Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (Manchester): The court gave a ruling on, inter alia, the test to be applied where an issue arose as to whether Pt4 or Pt5 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008, SI2008-2864 - the 'standard procedure' and the 'fast track procedure' respectively - should be invoked for the purposes of dealing with a police officer subject to disciplinary proceedings.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.