Judgment was handed down on 11 February 2025 by the Administrative Court in the case of R (Di Maria) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Ors.

The Claimant is a Police Sergeant whose vetting was reviewed and withdrawn following concerns about his behaviour that had not resulted in any misconduct findings against him. He was referred to ‘gross incompetence’ proceedings under the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 on the basis that without vetting clearance he was unable to perform his role as a police officer. Those proceedings were paused pending the Claimant’s claim for judicial review.

The Claimant’s case was considered as part of Metropolitan Police’s Operations Onyx and Assure which were designed to review the position of officers who have faced adverse information (particularly relating to sexual offending and domestic violence) and to improve compliance with national vetting standards, in response to the Baroness Casey, Dame Elish Angiolini and His Majesty’s Chief Inspectorate of Constabulary’s highly critical reports.

The Claimant brought what was described as a test case challenging the use of ‘conduct’ concerns in reviews of police vetting and the dismissal of officers for loss of vetting under the Performance Regulations. He argued that the College of Policing’s Vetting Code of Practice and APP Vetting, which stated that this was permissible, were unlawful.

Allowing the claim, Lang J found that:

• The Commissioner had the power to impose a minimum vetting requirement for police officers pursuant to his powers of direction and control, which the Claimant had disputed.
• The Commissioner did not have the power to dismiss a police officer for lack of vetting clearance; this was not provided for in any of statutory bases upon which a police officer could be dismissed.
• A police officer may not be found “grossly incompetent” or otherwise dismissed pursuant to the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020 consequent upon the withdrawal of their vetting clearance. The Commissioner had submitted (and the College of Policing’s publications state) that this provided a statutory basis upon which a police officer could be dismissed for lack of vetting clearance.
• Where a police officer has been investigated pursuant to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 and found to have “no case to answer” a subsequent vetting review may not find that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the same conduct occurred, save in exceptional circumstances.
• The Claimant’s Article 6 rights were breached by the failure to consider and determine whether he should be afforded the opportunity to call witnesses or cross-examine complainants, and by not giving him the opportunity to be legally represented,  in a vetting review process where the outcome was the removal of his minimum vetting clearance which makes it very likely that he will be dismissed and included in the Police Barred List.

The Judge did not go on to consider the Claimant’s rationality challenge to the decision to withdraw his vetting clearance.

The Commissioner will be seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

It is anticipated that the Home Secretary will create Regulations to allow for the dismissal of officers who cannot maintain minimum vetting clearance.

The case has attracted significant media interest.

John Beggs KC, James Berry and Katherine Hampshire acted for the Commissioner.

Gerry Boyle KC and Aaron Rathmell acted for the College of Policing.

James Berry was featured by The Times as ‘Lawyer of the Week’ on 23 January 2025.

James was also featured in Legal Business magazine’s list of 10 ‘names to note’ of the 105 silks to be appointed on 24 March 2025.

The inquest investigating the deaths of five people including the Chairman of Leicester City Football Club Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha has concluded it was an accident.

Rachel Spearing, instructed by Patrick Slomski, Aviation & Aerospace Team Partner at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP, represented Sloan Helicopters Limited.  The Jury found the helicopter “had all its appropriate airworthiness and maintenance certificates” and followed the directed findings of the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) with causation being due to the A169 helicopter’s tail rotor bearing seizing, which in turn caused the crash.

See coverage here.

The Senior Coroner continues to review prevention of future death issues raised by the AAIB currently under review by the Civil Aviation Authority and EASA.

David Lawson and Katherine Hampshire represented the local authority in two linked judicial review claims concerning accommodation and services under the Care Act 2014. The claims were heard over seven days from September to November 2024 by Mr Justice Fordham.

The Claimant lived in Home Office Bail accommodation with a local authority care package. The judgment considers:

(i) whether a local authority may take Home Office Bail accommodation into account when assessing and responding to care and support needs under the Care Act 2014;

(ii) the correct approach to assessing whether an individual has an accommodation-related need for care and services that might oblige a local authority to provide housing under the Care Act 2014;

(iii) whether ‘physical things’ such as an accommodation layout or shower rails can comprise an accommodation related care need.

The judgment reviews case law under the National Assistance Act 1948, the Care Act 2014 as well as its statutory guidance and supporting regulations. The judgment finds that bail accommodation is legally “residual” (like asylum accommodation) and analyses how this conclusion can be applied to the Care Act 2014. It rejects the idea that physical things can be a need for care and support.

The judgements in BLZ2 [2025] EWHC 154 (Admin) is available here and BLZ1 [2025] EWHC 153 (Admin) is available here.

We are delighted to announce that Rachel Spearing has been shortlisted for the Female Trailblazer of the Year award by the Clio Modern Law Awards 2025.

Established in 2013, the Clio Modern Law Awards is a prestigious event that celebrates excellence and innovation within the legal industry. This event brings the legal sector together to celebrate the triumphs of all legal professionals within the UK, particularly those who are making invaluable contributions to a number of areas right across the sector.

Thank you to our clients for their support and congratulations to all others shortlisted.

View more about Rachel and her practice here.

See the full list of those shortlisted here.

We are delighted to announce the forthcoming appointments of George Thomas, Rachel Spearing and James Berry as King’s Counsel. They will be sworn in during a ceremony expected to take place at Westminster Hall in March.

Congratulations from all of us at Serjeants’ Inn to George, Rachel and James and many thanks to all those who participated in the application process as referees.

This morning, the Court of Appeal overturned Mr Justice Ritchie’s judgment in Woodcock and upheld Mr Justice Martin Spencer’s judgment in HD and others.

Matthew Holdcroft and Cecily White, led by Andrew Warnock KC of Deka Chambers, represented the successful Chief Constables in both cases which concerned liability of the police for the criminal actions of a third party and alleged police failure to investigate.

This is a very significant judgment. In brief:

• A generalised risk of future ill-treatment within Article 3 does not trigger the investigatory duty.
•  A duty (under Article 3) cannot exist before it was owed.
• Foreseeability of harm is not sufficient to give rise to a duty (even a narrow one on these facts).
•  A claimant that relies on an alleged assumption of responsibility will usually require a specific representation or promise to take a particular action.
•  A claim based on an assumption of responsibility will generally also require reliance (not in the case of e.g. a vulnerable child) on the representation to be proved.

The judgment will help clarify the merits of both negligence and Article 3 claims, and resolves what many considered an anomaly created by Ritchie J.

Please click here for a copy of the judgment.