The High Court overturns controversial scheme that removed officers from duty, citing unlawful process and inadequate safeguards.

The Metropolitan Police have suffered a setback in their efforts to cleanse the force, as the High Court ruled that their scheme to dismiss officers by revoking their vetting clearance was unlawful. The vetting procedure, designed to remove officers deemed unsuitable for duty, had led to the dismissal of several staff members, some of whom had been accused of serious offences, including sexual assault.

This scheme was introduced following a series of scandals, notably the abduction and murder of Sarah Everard by serving officer Wayne Couzens in 2021, which deeply shook public trust in the force. However, the Met Police’s actions were challenged by the Metropolitan Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers. The Federation argued that the process violated legal protections for officers.

The court’s decision has angered Met Police Commissioner Mark Rowley, who views the vetting process as a crucial step in rooting out officers with questionable backgrounds. Following the ruling, the Met Police will now have to reinstate those who were removed after having their vetting status revoked, and they may also be entitled to back pay for the time lost.

The controversial vetting scheme worked by reviewing officers’ clearance whenever adverse information surfaced about them. Once their vetting was withdrawn, officers would face hearings for gross incompetence, which could lead to their dismissal. The Met has confirmed that over 100 officers and staff have left as a result of this process.

Rowley expressed frustration with the court’s ruling, saying it left the police force in an untenable position. He argued that the force now lacks the legal means to dismiss officers unfit for duty—specifically those who have been deemed untrustworthy to work with vulnerable individuals or women. The Commissioner called the ruling “absurd” and criticised the police federation for supporting an officer facing rape allegations.

The decision has sparked outrage among victims’ rights groups and members of the police force. London’s independent victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman, condemned the police federation for using members’ funds to reinstate an officer accused of multiple serious crimes. Waxman raised concerns that the outcome could endanger the safety of female officers, as well as the general public.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan also commented on the ruling, warning that it had significant implications for the ongoing efforts to reform the Met Police and remove unfit officers.

In the ruling, Mrs Justice Lang concluded that the police force did not have the authority to dismiss officers simply due to the withdrawal of their vetting clearance. She explained that dismissal in such cases should be addressed through specific regulations set by the Secretary of State. The court also found that the vetting procedure lacked sufficient protections for officers, including the right to a fair trial, as outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Met Police had argued that their existing performance regulations allowed them to dismiss officers who lost their vetting clearance. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the process was inadequate and failed to give officers a proper opportunity to challenge the decision.