.png)
4 hours ago
1
The Metropolitan police have lost a high court case over whether they can oust officers and staff deemed unsuitable through enhanced vetting procedures.
Scotland Yard had used the scheme, which in effect dismisses officers by removing their vetting clearance, to get rid of scores of staff, some of whom had faced allegations of sexual assault.
It was launched after a series of scandals that had sapped public confidence, including the kidnap and murder of Sarah Everard by the serving Met officer Wayne Couzens in 2021.
But judges have ruled against the force after a challenge by the Metropolitan Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers.
The Met commissioner, Mark Rowley, who has publicly vowed to clean up the force, has been left furious by the judgment and will consider an appeal. Rowley believes the process is a vital part of the effort to root out bad or suspect officers.
The Met now has to reinstate those removed from the force after their vetting status was withdrawn, and those who left could be eligible for back pay.
Under the scheme, if the Met received adverse information about an officer or staff member, their vetting would be reviewed. Vetting essentially clears them to access sensitive information and work in sensitive roles.
If vetting approval is withdrawn, the staff member attends a gross incompetence hearing and can be dismissed.
The Met says more than 100 officers and staff have left the force after their vetting was called into question.
Rowley said the ruling has “left policing in a hopeless position”.
He added: “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.”
And he hit out at the federation, labelling their decision to bring this case – on behalf of an officer facing allegations of rape – as “perverse”.
He also confirmed that affected officers will remain on vetting special leave, describing the position as a “ridiculous waste of money” but the “least bad option”.
London’s independent victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman, said: “The Metropolitan Police Federation has failed in its duty to represent all its members. Police officers and staff – particularly women – have rightly expressed outrage that their fees have been used to reinstate a man accused of rape, domestic abuse, and indecent exposure, and it is frankly shameful that the federation has chosen to support him.
“I am concerned this outcome will put female officers’ safety at risk, as well as that of their colleagues and the public.”
Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, said in a statement: “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.”
In a ruling on Tuesday, 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, 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.”
