The constable was disciplined. The Police Appeals Tribunal ordered his re-instatement. The Chief constable complained that the tribunal had acted beyond its powers in not limiting itself to a review.
Held: The task of the tribunal was to review the misconduct decision, and they could intervene only if the tribunal decision was Wednesbury unreasonable. The constable had broken procedural guidelines in associations with informants. The tribunal operated under the section, and the guidance given by the Home Secretary was not binding on it. The rules specifically provided for the admission of oral evidence. It was an expert tribunal, which could consider all matters before it and make substitute sanctions.
Judges:
Collins J
Citations:
Times 11-Feb-2004, [2004] EWHC 220 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Police Act 1996 85(1), Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 (1999 No 730)
Citing:
Cited – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Cited – Lothbury Investment Corporation Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1979
The taxpayer company was a non-trading company owing shareholders substantial sums. Rather than pay dividends it waived dividends it held in a public company, and the shareholder waived interest on the loans. The IR apportioned the income of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police
Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.193466