This case related to the statements made by an officer during an internal interview process.  The officer in question supervised a team of four and applied for another supervisory role. There was an internal interview for that role.   During that interview she was asked how she had dealt with a decision which affected a group of people.  The response was that she had members of her team that were making discriminatory remarks to another officer on the basis they were transgender.   She outlined how she had managed this situation.

The officer was unsuccessful in the supervisory role.   As part of that answer the panellists became concerned that the incident had not been escalated.   Greater detail was then sought by the inspector both from the officer as well as the transgender officer.   When asked the officer suggested that the incident was very recent and that there was no reason to escalate it before later admitting that it had not occurred at all.   As a result, the matter was referred to the professional standards department.

The officer accepted that her behaviour breached some of the key standards of professional behaviour such as authority, respect and courtesy, as well as honesty and integrity.  However, she did not accept that the false account had been planned prior to the interview. At the disciplinary hearing the authority stated that the sanction should be dismissal without notice due to gross misconduct.  The panel examined the professional standards that had been noted against the officer.  They stated that there was no breach in relation to equality and diversity as merely mentioning an individual with a characteristic is insufficient.  The panel also found that there were only minor breaches of some other standards such as that relating to authority and respect.  They did accept that there were serious issues with honesty and integrity making an overall finding that there had been no actual harm done and that a final written warning would be appropriate in the circumstances.  The applicant, the Chief Constable, argued that the panel had erred in law or was irrational in its finding.

The High Court dismissed the application.  It found that the panel was able to determine the extent to which there had been a lack of respect to colleagues.  Additionally, the fact the conduct may have breached multiple professional standards did not instantly lead to it being of greater gravity.  As a result, there was no public law error in the finding based upon the examination of professional standards.  In terms of the sanction, the High Court found that the panel chose the sanction they felt was most appropriate and outlined that where there was gross misconduct it did not instantly require dismissal.   Therefore, there was no public law error in terms of the decision.

Practical Lessons:

Although this cases arises from judicial review proceedings it does provide some interesting points from an employment law context.  Most notably, is the fact that the High Court finds that where gross misconduct is found it does not instantly lead to a situation where a dismissal must be found.  There is latitude to be given to a panel to appropriately weigh up the evidence before coming to a conclusion which they feel is appropriate in the circumstances.  Bearing in mind that there was no actual harm caused in this situation there was a decision to issue a final written warning and there were no errors in public law in making that finding.