Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
As part of the application process for joining the PSNI, the applicant was required to complete a security check. This included giving the details of the previous five years of employment. This was accompanied by a declaration which he had signed. The issue arising is after he had become a police officer it was discovered that the applicant failed to disclose two periods of employment. In both of those employments there were disciplinary matters.
The PSNI brought a misconduct charge against the applicant under the Police (Conduct) Regulations (NI) 2016. The applicant challenged this citing that the panel did not have jurisdiction for matters which arose before his attestation as an officer. The panel refused this application leading to judicial review proceedings being brought. The applicant relied upon Regulation 5 which related to the conduct of ‘members’ which he suggested did not include actions before becoming a member.
The High Court refused the applicant’s application. This was on the basis that the jurisdiction given to the panel came by reason of being an officer rather than it being linked to the time in which the alleged misconduct took place. Therefore, as long as the applicant remained a police officer and a member under Regulation 5 then he would be subject to the jurisdiction of the panel acting under those Regulations. There was no temporal prohibition on an investigation taking place. The High Court also noted the declaration that the applicant made during the application process to become an officer citing that it was self-evident that it related to maintaining public confidence in the police service and its members.
Practical Lessons
The focus of this judicial review was the interpretation of the 2016 Regulations and whether a panel could be convened for misconduct arising before becoming an officer. The High Court took the sensible view of linking the jurisdiction to the membership rather than the time at which the alleged misconduct had arisen. This is important, especially in a job of public service, to ensure that the respondent has the mechanisms by which it can hold officers to account for previous acts of misconduct and to ensure public confidence in the policing system.
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
