A High Court ruling that the Metropolitan Police cannot dismiss officers by removing their vetting clearance was today blasted by the commissioner as ‘absolutely absurd’.
Sergeant Lino Di Maria successfully mounted a legal challenge, supported by the Metropolitan Police Federation, after having his vetting removed over sexual assault allegations, which he denies.
He was found to have no case to answer in respect of misconduct allegations, and argued that having his vetting removed without the accusations being proved is a breach of his right to a fair trial.
The Met maintained that it would be left in a ‘hopeless position’ if it could not dismiss officers after removing their vetting clearance because of allegations of sexual or domestic abuse.
Reacting to the ruling, Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told reporters outside New Scotland Yard in London this morning: ‘Today’s ruling on the law has left policing in a hopeless position.
‘We now have no mechanism to rid the Met of officers who were not fit to hold vetting – those who cannot be trusted to work with women, or those who cannot be trusted to enter the homes of vulnerable people.
‘It is absolutely absurd that we cannot lawfully sack them. This would not be the case in other sectors where staff have nothing like the powers comparable to police officers.’
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley arrives to make a statement outside New Scotland Yard in Central London this morning following the High Court ruling
It comes after Mrs Justice Lang ruled: ‘In my judgment, the defendant’s powers do not extend to the dismissal of a police officer by reason of withdrawal of vetting clearance.
‘Dismissal is a matter which should be provided for in regulations made by the Secretary of State. This results in an anomalous situation where officers who do not have basic vetting clearance cannot be dismissed by the defendant.
‘In my view, that anomaly could and should be resolved by regulations.’
Lawyers for the Met had previously told the court that a procedure under current performance regulations allowed officers to be dismissed if clearance was withdrawn.
However, Mrs Justice Lang said she did not consider this ‘fit for purpose’, adding: ‘The process deprives the officer of any meaningful opportunity to challenge a finding of gross incompetence.
‘The panel merely confirms a decision that has already been made, by an internal vetting regime which is not Article 6 (right to a fair trial) compliant. Where basic vetting clearance has been withdrawn, the only outcome open to the panel is dismissal.’
Mrs Justice Lang continued: ‘Under this process, the normal safeguards afforded… are ineffective.
‘These safeguards include a full hearing, where evidence will be considered and witnesses may be called, in which the panel will determine whether or not gross incompetence has been established.
‘If a finding of gross incompetence is made, before an outcome is determined, the panel must have regard to the officer’s personal record and any mitigation or references he may put forward, but this is meaningless if the only available outcome is dismissal.’
The judge concluded: ‘In my view, dismissal without notice for gross incompetence will be a serious stain on a police officer’s record when seeking alternative employment, in addition to the loss of vetting clearance.
‘It ought not to be imposed without an effective and fair hearing.’
Sir Mark later confirmed the Met would be seeking leave to appeal, telling reporters: ‘We are seeking leave to appeal the judgment, not just for the Met, but for law enforcement nationally, due to the profoundly damaging implications.
‘The judge has identified a clear gap in the law, one that we have done our best to bridge, but as the judge has said, the answer lies in strengthened police vetting regulations.
‘So in repeating the same request for two-and-a-half years, one echoed by the Casey and Angiolini reviews, I am once again calling on Government today to introduce new regulations as a matter of extreme urgency.’
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley arrives to make a statement outside New Scotland Yard in Central London this morning following the High Court ruling
Sir Mark also said officers such as Sergeant Di Maria will remain on vetting special leave – describing the position as a ‘ridiculous waste of money’ but the ‘least bad option’.
He told reporters: ‘Finally, regardless of the current legal framework, the public of London have my assurance, and that of my colleagues, that Di Maria and those like him will not be policing the streets or working alongside other officers.
‘They will remain on vetting special leave – a ridiculous waste of money, but the least bad option until regulations are repaired.’
Sir Mark also said the Metropolitan Police Federation were ‘perverse’ for choosing Sergeant Di Maria’s case to mount the legal challenge.
He told reporters: ‘To me, it seems perverse that the federation have chosen a case such as this.
‘Di Maria, who had allegations of rape, sexual assault and harassment against him, that they want to see someone like him stay in policing.
‘I know many, many colleagues within the organisation – and particularly women colleagues who’ve spoken publicly about this, are outraged that they are spending their subscriptions fighting cases like this.’
New Scotland Yard, the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police Service in London (file photo)
Following the ruling, London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan said: ‘This decision has significant implications for the work the Met is now doing to clean up the force, raise standards and rid the police of all those unfit to serve.
‘I have long been clear that there can be no hiding place for those who abuse their position of trust and authority within the police. Working alongside the Met Commissioner, I want no let-up in the vital work being carried out to raise standards and rebuild public confidence in the Met.
‘No-one who has failed vetting should continue to serve in the force and we will work closely with the Commissioner, the Home Office and partners to assess the implications of this ruling.’
And a Home Office spokesperson said: ‘It is essential for public confidence in policing that the strictest standards are upheld and maintained. Individuals who fall below the high standards the public expects should not be police officers.
‘That’s why this government is acting rapidly to introduce new, strengthened rules that will help forces dismiss officers who cannot maintain vetting clearance.
‘There are clear processes already in place for forces to deal with any officer found facing allegations of misconduct, and it is critical that they use these to remove personnel who clearly fall short of the standards that we and the public expect.’
