Watson v Police Service of Northern Ireland

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, a police constable in Company A, challenged a disciplinary panel’s decision that it had jurisdiction to hear misconduct charges against him relating to alleged false declarations made during his application process before attestation as a constable. The charges arose from the appellant’s failure to disclose two periods of part-time employment during the vetting questionnaire completed in April 2016, prior to his attestation in June 2017. The disciplinary panel, an emanation of Company A, refused to stay the misconduct proceedings, concluding that an attested officer has an ongoing duty to correct any false or incomplete information previously provided. The appellant sought judicial review of the panel’s decision, which was dismissed by the High Court. The appeal concerns whether the panel had jurisdiction to consider pre-attestation conduct and the validity of the ongoing duty to disclose such conduct.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the disciplinary panel had jurisdiction to hear and determine misconduct charges relating to conduct that occurred before the appellant’s attestation as a police constable.
2. Whether the Police (Conduct) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 permit disciplinary proceedings for pre-attestation conduct.
3. Whether the appellant had an ongoing duty, after attestation, to correct or disclose any false or incomplete information previously provided during vetting.
4. Whether the appellant’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were violated by the misconduct proceedings concerning pre-attestation conduct.
5. Whether the appellant’s consent to disciplinary jurisdiction over pre-attestation conduct, given by signing the vetting questionnaire, confers jurisdiction on the disciplinary panel.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The disciplinary panel lacked jurisdiction to consider misconduct relating to conduct occurring before attestation as a police officer.
• The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2016 do not apply to pre-attestation conduct.
• The judge erred in permitting the intervener to argue and the court to determine points not originally pleaded by the respondent.
• The ongoing duty to disclose pre-attestation conduct is unsupported and vague, potentially violating Article 8 ECHR rights.
• The appellant’s purported consent in the vetting questionnaire cannot confer statutory jurisdiction on the panel.

Respondent's and Interveners' Arguments

• The disciplinary panel properly had jurisdiction based on an ongoing duty of disclosure that continues after attestation.
• The 2016 Regulations apply to pre-attestation conduct as long as the individual is a serving member at the time of proceedings.
• The appellant consented to disciplinary jurisdiction over pre-attestation conduct by signing the vetting questionnaire.
• There is a public interest in ensuring police integrity by addressing false declarations made during vetting, even if pre-attestation.
• Existing mechanisms such as vetting regimes and performance regulations complement the misconduct regime and can address suitability concerns.
• The intervener’s raising of additional jurisdictional points was proper given their public interest role and the procedural context.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed statutory construction analysis of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2016, and the Code of Ethics. It concluded that the Code and Regulations apply only to individuals who are sworn police officers at the time of the conduct in question. The term “conduct of a member” naturally refers to conduct while the person is a member of the police service. The court rejected the lower court’s purposive interpretation that jurisdiction extends to pre-attestation conduct simply because the individual is a serving police officer at the time of proceedings, finding no clear legislative intention for retroactive application.

The court acknowledged the importance of maintaining public confidence and the need to address dishonesty, but emphasized that pre-attestation conduct should be addressed through robust vetting processes and complementary performance regulations rather than retrospective misconduct charges. It noted that an ongoing duty to correct false information after attestation can constitute misconduct, and this “ongoing duty point” provides a proper basis for disciplinary jurisdiction in cases like the appellant’s.

The court also considered and rejected the argument that the appellant’s consent to jurisdiction through the vetting questionnaire could confer statutory jurisdiction where none otherwise exists. Regarding Article 8 ECHR rights, the court found no violation, emphasizing the reasonableness of professional standards and the limited privacy interest given the nature of vetting.

Procedurally, the court found it was within the judge’s discretion to allow the intervener to raise additional jurisdictional points and to determine them, given their relevance and the public interest, despite the appellant’s objections. The court recognized procedural imperfections but found no unfairness to the appellant.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to ALLOW THE APPEAL IN PART and DISMISS IT IN PART.

The court set aside the lower court’s conclusion that the disciplinary panel had jurisdiction to hear misconduct charges solely because the appellant was a serving member at the time of proceedings, in respect of conduct occurring before attestation. However, it affirmed the panel’s jurisdiction on the basis of the ongoing duty to disclose or correct false information after attestation.

The decision clarifies that police misconduct proceedings under the 2016 Regulations do not extend to pre-attestation conduct per se, but may address misconduct arising from breaches of ongoing duties after attestation. The court recommended consideration of procedural improvements in vetting and misconduct processes to address pre-attestation concerns more effectively and with greater legal certainty.

No new precedent was set beyond clarifying the temporal scope of disciplinary jurisdiction, but the ruling has significant implications for police disciplinary regimes in Northern Ireland and potentially in other UK jurisdictions with similar regulations.