Re-defining 'Held in Reserve': The Impact of Prior & Ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on AFH Allowance for RASP Officers

1. Introduction

The case of Prior & Ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Rev1) ([2023] EWCA Civ 32) examines the entitlement of Royalty and Specialist Protection (RASP) officers to certain allowances under the Police Regulations 2003. The appellants, comprising approximately 397 specialized police officers from the Metropolitan Police Service, appealed against the dismissal of their claims for the Away from Home (AFH) allowance and Hardship allowance. The core issue revolves around whether these officers are "held in reserve" as defined in Annex U of the Police Regulations, thereby qualifying them for the aforementioned allowances.

2. Summary of the Judgment

After an 11-day trial, Kerr J concluded that RASP officers do not meet the criteria of being "held in reserve" and thus are ineligible for the AFH allowance and Hardship allowance. The appellants challenged this decision on four grounds, primarily focusing on the interpretation of "normal place of duty" and "routine enquiries." The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original judgment, and affirmed that the existing interpretations of Annex U correctly excluded RASP officers from the allowances based on their roles and duties.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key documents and regulatory frameworks, including:

The Police Regulations 2003
Annex U of the Police Regulations
Winsor Report Part 1 (2011)
Police Arbitration Tribunal Award (January 2012)
Home Office Circulars (e.g., 006/2012, 007/13, 010/2012)
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Joiner [1975] 1 WLR 1701

The case builds upon previous regulatory determinations and arbitration awards, particularly those stemming from the Winsor reviews, which sought to modernize police pay and conditions.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning focused on the objective construction of Annex U, specifically paragraph 11, which defines the conditions under which AFH allowance is payable. The key considerations included:

Interpretation of "Normal Place of Duty": The court held that for RASP officers, the "normal place of duty" is inherently mobile, shifting with their deployment alongside principals or during their operational duties.
Definition of "Held in Reserve": RASP officers were found not to be "held in reserve" because their deployments are integral to their roles rather than being temporary or optional.
"Routine Enquiries" Exclusion: The exception in paragraph 11(c) was interpreted to exclude AFH allowance for activities that are part of the officers' normal duties, reinforcing their ineligibility for the allowance.
Annex U Amendments: The 2015 amendments to Annex U clarified the definitions but did not alter the fundamental exclusion of RASP officers from AFH allowances based on their operational roles.

The judge emphasized that the terms must be read objectively and consistently, applying the same definitions across all police officers, including those in specialized units like RASP.

3.3 Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent by clarifying the eligibility criteria for AFH and Hardship allowances under the Police Regulations 2003. Key impacts include:

Clarification of "Held in Reserve": Establishes that roles requiring inherent mobility as part of their duties do not qualify officers as being "held in reserve."
Exclusion of Specialized Roles: Reinforces the exclusion of specialized units like RASP from certain allowances, emphasizing the nature of their operational requirements.
Guidance for Future Claims: Provides a clear framework for assessing future claims related to AFH and Hardship allowances, ensuring consistency in application across different police units.
Policy Implications: May influence the development of future regulations and allowances, highlighting the need for clear definitions and role-specific considerations.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Normal Place of Duty

This term refers to the primary location where a police officer performs their duties. For regular officers, this is typically a fixed police station. However, for RASP officers, their duties are mobile, shifting based on their assignments alongside principals or specific protection tasks.

4.2 Held in Reserve

Being "held in reserve" means that an officer is stationed away from their normal place of duty and is required to remain at a specific location, ready for immediate deployment. This status qualifies the officer for additional allowances.

4.3 Routine Enquiries

These are standard, everyday activities that form part of an officer's normal duties, such as regular meetings or crime prevention activities. Activities deemed "routine enquiries" exclude officers from qualifying for allowances like AFH, as they are considered integral to their roles.

5. Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Prior & Ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis reaffirms the interpretation of the Police Regulations 2003 regarding allowances for police officers. By establishing that RASP officers are not "held in reserve" due to the inherent mobility required by their roles, the judgment clarifies the boundaries of entitlement to AFH and Hardship allowances. This decision underscores the necessity for precise regulatory definitions and acknowledges the distinct operational demands of specialized police units. Moving forward, this precedent will guide both administrative bodies and officers in understanding and navigating the criteria for various service-related allowances.