Background: 

The claimant applied to join the PSNI in 2016.  He completed a questionnaire as part of the security vetting procedure and he began training in 2017 formally attesting as a constable in June 2017. 

As part of the questionnaire the claimant failed to disclose two part-time jobs at retailers.   The reason why it is significant is that he was given a warning for gross misconduct in one job and was alleged to have made unauthorised payments to himself in the second job.   The claimant stated that these were ‘Saturday’ jobs and he was zero hours in the second job.  When this came to light, a misconduct charge was brought against the claimant on the basis of a ‘false declaration’.    

The panel met and the claimant argued that it should be stayed as the panel lacked jurisdiction considering that the complaint arose from conduct which pre-dated his attestation as a constable.  The panel refused the application to stay. 

Outcome: 

The Panel’s reason was that an attested officer is not absolved from correcting or completing that disclosure immediately or certainly as soon as practicably possible upon attestation. It is an ongoing career long obligation. 

The claimant brought a judicial review vis-à-vis the panel’s decision not to stay the proceedings.   The judicial review was dismissed and this was appealed to the Court of Appeal.   The Court of Appeal held that considering the number of high-profile cases of a disturbing nature and the need for the need to ensure trust in the police there was a need to ensure that those not fit could be excluded or removed. 

The Court of Appeal found that the Panel did have jurisdiction to hear the alleged misconduct on the basis that there was an ongoing duty upon the claimant to disclose that information and that traversed into the point at which he had attested.  The Court of Appeal did allow a slight appeal from the initial judicial review.  The Judicial Review had stated that the panel had jurisdiction merely from the fact that the claimant was a serving member at the time of the misconduct proceedings.  This was not correct and that there had to be some basis during the period of the claimant being a constable.  

Practical Guidance for Employers: 

A case that is neatly aligned to particular issues facing the police but one which does provide some insight into how acts from a past life can have an effect onexisting employment.  The Court of Appeal made it clear that where there was a duty to disclose particular things (such as employment here) and it was not done then there will be a continuing duty to rectify that issue which will continue until it is righted.  This opens the door for the panel to hear the misconduct allegation.   It did stop short of just doing away with this gateway to the Panel having jurisdiction citing that it did not arise merely because the claimant was a serving police officer.              

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website: 
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/