High Court rules Metropolitan Police cannot sack officers by removing vetting clearance

Taxpayers face paying “millions and millions of pounds” to pay officers “who are not fit to serve on the streets” to sit at home, after a High Court Judge today chose to protect the human rights of an officer accused of rape.

Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley stormed: “What about the human rights of members of the public?” as he revealed that around 300 potential “bad apple” officers will now have to be returned to the force’s payroll, although he insisted none would return to frontline policing.

Sir Mark Rowley said the ruling has “left policing in a hopeless position” adding: “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.”

But Sir Mark insisted women and girls could continue to feel safe that none of the officers under suspicion would be back on the frontline.

He added: “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.”

The ruling “has significant implications for the work the Met is now doing to clean up the force”, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan warned.

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.”

In her ruling delivered this morning Mrs Justice Lang said: “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 Metropolitan Police 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.”

Scotland Yard had warned it faced a “disastrous” future should force chiefs be left powerless to sack around 300 so-called bad apples and has now lost a judicial review being brought by an officer accused of rape.

Sergeant Lino Di Maria launched his legal challenge of the Met’s “unlawful” decision to strip him of his warrant card for failing vetting in the wake of a slew of scandals, including Sarah Everard’s murder by PC Wayne Couzens.

Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley insisted the Met has acted in an “entirely lawful” way, using powers that already existed in legislation and were backed by the College of Policing.

John Beggs KC, leading the Met’s legal team, said the case raised the “fundamental issue” of whether a chief officer is entitled to sack officers who cannot clear the basic vetting procedures.

“Vetting is crucial to the integrity of the police service, to the confidence that a chief officer of police can have in their officers, and to public confidence in the police”, he said in written arguments submitted to the court.

As well as Sgt Di Maria, among 107 others dismissed under Operation Assure so far include an officer arrested in the United States for trying groom a 13-year-old girl and PC Terry Malka who kept his job despite being convicted of performing a solo sex act in a First Class train carriage in 2018.

The Met said a legal victory for Sgt Di Maria might see “our hands tied” in a “hopeless position” and staff “with really worrying” pasts reinstated, then awarded thousands in back pay.

Sgt Di Maria was dismissed after Sir Mark launched Op Assure which pinpointed hundreds of serving officers and staff when concerns were raised about their conduct.

The force then dug deep into their full history, unearthing allegations of domestic and sexual violence, including those that were never proved in court or a gross misconduct hearing.

Sgt Di Maria – backed by the Met Police Federation in bringing the High Court case – claims his right to a fair and public trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act had been breached when “no case to answer” claims of rape and abusing an ex-partner were used to remove his vetting in September 2023.

As part of a legal challenge described as a “test case”, his barrister Kevin Baumber said the process in which officers can be dismissed in this way is unlawful.

Sgt Di Maria joined the police in 2004, passed his last vetting clearance in 2017 and remains in the force on special leave, according to written court submissions on behalf of the Yard.

A public complaint was made on August 12, 2019 accusing him of two sexual assaults and rapes in cars in public car parks on December 3 and 9, 2018.

There was also a rape and indecent exposure claim in 2015, an allegation of sending inappropriate messages to colleagues in 2019 and alleged inappropriate behaviour at work two years later.

An ex-partner made further accusations of domestic abuse in 2022, said John Beggs KC, for the Met.

A review by Baroness Casey found the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynist and homophobic after 33-year-old Ms Everard was kidnapped, raped and murdered by Couzens in March 2021.

Lady Elish Angiolini discovered a series of red flags were missed about Couzens who should never have been given a job with a history of offending dating back nearly 20 years.

Commander James Harman, who leads the Anti-Corruption and Abuse Command, added many of the officers already identified under Assure wouldn’t pass vetting standards to join the Met today or transfer to a neighbouring force.

He said: “We have seen in catastrophic cases where we’re often accused of having failed to join the dots on an officer’s conduct. This is what joining the dots looks like.

“I think the public would find it odd, and we find it unacceptable, that those officers can continue in the Met with that background.”

Cmdr Harman revealed another officer dealt with by his unit received multiple rape and sexual assault allegations from different women between 2011 to 2023 but none were prosecuted.

After he had his vetting removed, victims got the confidence to come forward. A new criminal investigation was launched and the officer charged, however, he died in circumstances Cmdr Harman did not reveal.

A policeman accused of domestic abuse, including the rape of an ex-partner, was found to have sexually assaulted colleagues in the workplace. A review discovered he’d already been reduced in rank for misusing his warrant card and should have been sacked.

And third officer was fired for maintaining a relationship with a criminal despite warnings.

The Met Police Federation previously said its “good, brave and hard-working” members “are the first to say that the very, very small minority not fit to wear the uniform should not be in the service”.

But a spokesman added: “Police officers -like all people -need to be treated within the law of the land and they have the right to representation and a fair process.”