Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant, a police officer, was assaulted in 2010 and developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In 2011 she was arrested following an incident she attributed to her PTSD. A misconduct investigation under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 ensued. At the resulting panel hearing she admitted most allegations, relied on her record and medical condition in mitigation, but was dismissed without notice on 12 November 2012.
The Appellant appealed to the Police Appeals Tribunal, which ultimately declined to proceed with the appeal on 11 June 2013. Parallel proceedings were commenced in an Employment Tribunal against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, alleging disability discrimination, harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. The Commissioner argued that the misconduct panel’s decision was protected by judicial immunity. The Employment Tribunal struck out the claim; the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal dismissed subsequent appeals, relying on Heath v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The present appeal is to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether judicial immunity bars police officers from enforcing directly effective EU equal-treatment rights before an Employment Tribunal when the alleged discrimination arises from the decision of a police misconduct panel.
- Whether section 42(1) of the Equality Act 2010 should be interpreted, in conformity with EU law, to treat acts of misconduct panels as acts of the chief officer for discrimination claims.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The right to equal treatment under Council Directive 2000/78/EC is directly effective and must be enforceable before national courts.
- Employment Tribunals are the appropriate forum under the principles of effectiveness and equivalence; denying access violates EU law and Article 47 of the EU Charter.
- Section 42(1) of the Equality Act must be read conformably with the Directive so that misconduct panel decisions are attributable to the chief officer, defeating any judicial-immunity bar.
Defendant's Arguments
- The misconduct panel is a judicial body whose decisions and conduct attract common-law judicial immunity, precluding Employment Tribunal jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeal decision in Heath remains binding and dispositive.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|
| Heath v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2004] EWCA Civ 943; [2005] ICR 329 |
Judicial immunity bars employment claims arising from police disciplinary proceedings |
Supreme Court held the EU-law reasoning in Heath to be unsound and declined to follow it |
| Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority (No 2) (Case C-271/91) [1994] QB 126 |
EU remedies must be effective, proportionate and not capped inconsistently with EU law |
Referenced by lower court; Supreme Court distinguished procedural bars from remedy-limiting rules |
| Köbler v Austria (Case C-224/01) [2004] QB 848 |
National rules, including judicial immunity, must yield to EU law where inconsistent |
Used to illustrate supremacy of EU law over conflicting national immunities |
| Commission v Italy (Case C-379/10) [2011] ECR I-180 |
Member States cannot rely on domestic rules to defeat EU rights |
Cited in support of overriding EU obligations |
| Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA (Case C-106/89) [1990] ECR I-4135 |
Duty of conforming interpretation of national legislation with EU directives |
Formed basis for reading words into section 42(1) of the Equality Act 2010 |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began with EU law, emphasising that Council Directive 2000/78/EC gives police officers a directly effective right to equal treatment in employment, including dismissal. Article 9(1) requires Member States to provide judicial procedures for enforcing that right, and Article 17 demands effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.
Applying the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, the court found that limiting police officers to appeals before the Police Appeals Tribunal—an organ lacking discrimination expertise and remedial powers—would breach EU law. Employment Tribunals are the specialist forum for analogous domestic claims and must therefore be available.
Common-law judicial immunity cannot override EU rights; any national rule conflicting with EU law must give way. Consequently, Heath was wrongly decided insofar as it denied tribunal access on immunity grounds.
Turning to domestic legislation, the court observed that Parliament intended section 42(1) of the Equality Act 2010 to secure tribunal access for police officers. However, because disciplinary powers are exercised by independent panels, those acts are not literally acts of the chief officer or responsible authority. To give full effect to EU law and legislative intent, the court applied the doctrine of conforming interpretation (Marleasing) and read section 42(1) as if it covered “acts of persons conducting a misconduct meeting or misconduct hearing.” This construction preserves tribunal jurisdiction and statutorily overrides any judicial-immunity bar.
Judge Hughes concurred, adding that while judicial immunity serves valuable purposes, EU-mandated discrimination remedies necessitate this statutory interpretation, despite potential for parallel proceedings.
Holding and Implications
Appeal ALLOWED. The case is remitted to the Employment Tribunal for determination on the merits.
Implications: The decision disapproves Heath, confirms that police officers may pursue discrimination claims before Employment Tribunals notwithstanding judicial immunity, and establishes that section 42(1) of the Equality Act 2010 must be construed to attribute misconduct-panel acts to the chief officer. This ensures the United Kingdom’s compliance with EU equal-treatment obligations and may lead to revisions in disciplinary and appellate mechanisms for police misconduct.