In a significant ruling handed down on 26 January 2026, the High Court has upheld all grounds of challenge brought by former Metropolitan Police Federation Chair Richard Prior, represented by Elliot Gold, in judicial review proceedings against the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW).

Background to the case

Mr Prior, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation, was said to have faced multiple complaints following public comments he gave during a GB News interview in October 2024. The PFEW CEO immediately suspended him, initiated an investigation, and subsequently expanded the scope of that investigation.

The claim challenged the decision to suspend Mr Prior, to dismiss his appeal against suspension, to review and maintain his suspension, the terms of reference of the investigation into him, and the subsequent expansion of the terms’ scope.

The High Court heard the case alongside a related challenge by the chair of the West Midlands Police Federation, Richard Cooke.

The court’s decision

The Court found in favour of Mr Prior on every one of his pleaded grounds holding that the Federation’s decisions were ultra vires, procedurally unfair, irrational, disproportionate, and in breach of article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Key findings include:

1. Suspension was unlawful.

The Court held that the CEO had no power under Appendix 9 to suspend Mr Prior. That power rested exclusively with the National Secretary and could only be delegated in exceptional circumstances, which were neither identified nor recorded.

2. Appeal process was unfair

The Appeal Panel relied on undisclosed, inaccurate, and prejudicial material—including assertions about complainants and commentary about Mr Prior and the broadcaster to which he gave the interview, denying Mr Prior a fair opportunity to respond.

3. Investigation and the terms of references were unlawful

The PFEW unlawfully escalated the matter to a formal investigation, and expanded the scope of the inquiry to include issues never raised in any complaint. The court held that Appendix 9 was a closed, complaint‑led process that did not permit the PFEW to introduce new allegations of its own motion.

4. Failure to consider less intrusive measures

The court found that the PFEW consistently failed to consider obvious alternatives to suspension, such as undertakings or limited restrictions, which was an essential requirement where elected office and political speech were concerned.

5. Unlawful interference with freedom of expression

The court held that the PFEW’s restrictions on Mr Prior’s engagement with news media were not “prescribed by law” and amounted to an unjustified and disproportionate interference with his article 10 rights.

The High Court held at paragraph 168:

168. The errors… were not peripheral but fundamental. They include:

(i) an ultra vires suspension, contrary to Appendix 9 which vests the power exclusively in the National Secretary;

(ii) procedural unfairness arising from non-disclosure, curated appeal materials, and involvement of the original decision-maker;

(iii) misdirection in treating suspension as a “neutral act” and failure to conduct a genuine de novo review;

(iv) unlawful conditions restricting press and social media engagement in Mr Prior’s capacity as a PFEW representative, not “prescribed by law” and disproportionate to the elected role;

(v) escalation to a formal investigation without structured assessment of the “ serious breach” threshold; and

(vi) unlawful expansion of scope beyond the written complaint.

Significance of the decision

The judgment has major implications for Police Federation governance, internal disciplinary procedures, the rights of elected representatives, and the treatment of freedom of expression.

It further confirms that the Police Federation’s exercise of internal ‘Appendix 9’ suspension and investigation powers for elected Police Federation office holders have sufficient public character to bring them within the purview of public law and to be subject to judicial review.

Elliot practises in all areas of police law, including police pay, pensions, powers, policy and misconduct. He is a contributing author to the annual Blackstone’s Police Manual.

The judgment is here.

General Dental Council v FA (22_nd January 2026):

Mark Harries KC represented a dentist accused of dishonesty in misconduct proceedings brought by the GDC. The dentist was alleged to have fabricated patient records to reflect appointments and treatments that did not take place in order to inflate falsely the number of Units of Dental Activity that his practice had undertaken, thereby seeking to diminish the contractual clawback by the NHS triggered by the practice’s underperformance.

In a 2 week hearing, the defence focus was to present to the Committee other potential candidates for the undoubtedly falsified records, notwithstanding the GDC’s evidence suggesting that the records were falsified using the dentist’s log in credentials and created in between appointment times shown in his Daily Activity Log. The Committee found all charges not proven.

Mark was instructed by Alistair Hewitt at Weightmans LLP.

For more on Mark’s practice, please see here.

On 30 January 2026, the Administrative Court handed down judgment in R (CHO) v Lonsdale School, Hertfordshire County Council and Secretary of State for Education [2026] EWHC 166 (Admin).

In May 2025, the school decided to close at 1.30pm on Fridays for the Autumn Term of 2025 (“the Decision”). The Decision followed two earlier decisions to close at this time on Fridays for the Spring and Summer Terms of 2025. In August 2025, the claimant applied for permission to judicially review the decision. He argued that: (i) the Local Authority had only authorised reduced hours at schools serving exclusively disabled children (and not at mainstream schools), and therefore engaged in direct or indirect disability discrimination; (ii) the school and Local Authority breached the Secretary of State for Education’s non-statutory guidance on the length of the school week without good reason, and / or took into account the legally immaterial consideration of cutting costs; (iii) if the guidance did permit reductions in hours for the purpose of cutting costs in special schools but not in mainstream schools, then the guidance itself was discriminatory; and (iv) the school’s decision breached the requirement under the guidance and / or the Education (School Day and School Year) (England) Regulations 1999 to provide enough education of a sufficient quality.

The court dismissed the claim on all grounds. As a preliminary point, it found that the Decision was not academic in light of the school’s recent return to ordinary school hours; the claimant still had an interest in obtaining declaratory relief. On the substantive issues, the court first concluded that, under the Education Act 2002, the Decision was for the school to make, not the Local Authority, and that the decision was in fact made by the school with advice and guidance from the Local Authority. Secondly, the Decision was not made in order to cut costs but to deal with exceptional staffing challenges. It followed that the Decision did not amount to direct or indirect disability discrimination, nor was there any breach of the non-statutory guidance on the length of the school week. The non-statutory guidance itself was not discriminatory, nor was the school’s decision in breach of the Education (School Day and School Year) (England) Regulations 1999.

David Lawson acted for the First Defendant (instructed by Wendy Li and Cleopatra-Louise Coleman of Hertfordshire County Council Legal Services Department), while Anna Tkaczynska and Jake Rylatt acted for the Second Defendant (instructed by Saul Gavin of Hertfordshire County Council Legal Services Department). Please click here to read the full judgment of the court.

In Curwen v Chief Constable of Cumbria Constabulary [2026] EWHC 115 (KB), the High Court heard claims of false imprisonment and battery brought against the chief constable following an incident in which a claimant sustained serious injuries during police officers’ attempt to detain him.

Three police officers, two of whom were equipped with Tasers, had responded to reports of a male carrying a knife and behaving erratically. A struggle ensued as officers attempted to restrain the male, leading to multiple discharges of Taser and the use of PAVA spray.

The court held that a generalised impression of something having gone wrong and of things having got out of hand was not sufficient for the claim to succeed. Although it might have been possible for the officers to defuse matters had there been the opportunity for a considered assessment, each officer, acting individually, used no more force than they honestly and reasonably believed to be necessary in a fast-paced and escalating situation.

The claim was therefore dismissed.

Elliot practises in all areas of police law, including police pay, pensions, powers, policy and misconduct. He is a contributing author to the annual Blackstone’s Police Manual.

See the judgment here.

The Court of Appeal (Lady Carr CJ, Singh and Whipple LJJ) today handed down judgment in R (Di Maria) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2026] EWCA Civ 28.

At first instance, Kevin Baumber for PS Di Maria persuaded Lang J that the police’s system for reviewing officers’ vetting and withdrawing it, then dismissing them for lack of vetting was unlawful on several grounds.

The Commissioner, represented by John Beggs KC, James Berry KC and Katherine Hampshire appealed. By the time of the hearing, the Police (Vetting) Regulations 2025 had come into force, setting out a process for review and withdrawal of vetting which met most of Lang J’s concerns.

The appeal was therefore limited to whether Lang J was correct to find that a matter could not be taken into account in a vetting review (on the basis that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that it was true) if the same matter had been found to have no case to answer, or had not been found proved, in misconduct proceedings (save in exceptional circumstances). This was an important question because many vetting reviews concern officers who have faced misconduct investigations or proceedings which have not resulted in their dismissal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Court accepted the Commissioner’s argument, supported by the College of Policing represented by Aaron Rathmell, that vetting involves a multifactorial assessment of risk which may include consideration of matters notwithstanding the fact that they have previously been considered in misconduct processes.

The judgment will have significant implications for vetting reviews and withdrawal assessments. For the judgment, please see here.

John, James, Kevin, Aaron and Katherine are experts in police (and non-police) vetting and judicial challenges to vetting decisions.

We’re delighted to announce the forthcoming appointment of Michael Walsh, Alexander dos Santos and Elliot Gold as King’s Counsel.

Michael specialises in Clinical Negligence, Inquests and Inquiries, and Human Rights Act claims; with particular expertise in high-value and complex civil claims, healthcare-related Article 2 and jury inquests arising from deaths in detention, and Judicial Review. Clients cited by the directories describe him as “a wonderful barrister who is an expert in his field and handles the most complex and sensitive cases with ease”.

Alexander practises in Regulatory and Financial Crime, Extradition, Public Law, Professional Discipline, and Commercial Law. He is noted by the directories as being “hard-working, user-friendly and very bright. A great team player who will do his utmost to support you and get results.”

Elliot is instructed regularly in cases spanning the full range of Police Law including Civil Actions, Misconduct, Inquests, Judicial Review and Discrimination. Recent directory editorial describes him as “an intellect that is beyond any level. He’s incredibly committed and fights for clients.”

Congratulations to Michael, Alexander and Elliot and many thanks to all those who participated in the application process as referees. These appointments will bring our silk team to 31 (from 9 a decade ago) including 9 women, consolidating the expertise we are able to offer to our clients.

Angus Moon KC has won an appeal to the Supreme Court in a judgment handed down on 21st January 2026. Angus was instructed for the first appellant in Lewis-Ranwell v G4S & ors. The case involved a clinical negligence claim by the killer of 3 elderly men who was later found not guilty by reason of insanity. The appellants argued that his claim in negligence was barred by the doctrine of illegality.

The Claimant, Mr Lewis-Ranwell, defeated the argument of illegality at first instance and in the Court of Appeal. Angus was brought in for the appeal to the Supreme Court, having not appeared below. The appeal to the Supreme Court has been successful.

The case has widespread ramifications for the NHS, police forces and other public authorities sued by killers.

For a copy of the judgment, please click here.

Kevin Baumber acts for officer acquitted of GBH following taser deployment

Metropolitan Police Service officer PC Newman was unanimously acquitted by a jury of an allegation of s.20 grievous bodily harm arising from the use of a taser during the arrest of a burglary suspect, following a foot chase in Woodford in the early hours of the morning.

The complainant fell from a height during the incident and suffered tetraplegia as a secondary injury. The trial involved detailed consideration of body-worn video footage, eyewitness accounts, and expert evidence on tasers and their use.

Kevin Baumber acted as defence counsel. For further information on Kevin’s practice, please see his website profile here.

For press coverage from the BBC, please click here.