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The Claimant is a Police Sergeant whose vetting was reviewed and withdrawn following concerns about his behaviour that had not resulted in any misconduct findings against him.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.