The use of withdrawal of vetting clearance as a way of dismissing officers from the Metropolitan Police was declared unlawful by the High Court today.
In Di Maria v Met Police and Others, serving officer Lino Di Maria challenged the Met’s decision to withdraw his vetting clearances, and then to refer him for gross incompetence on the grounds he could no longer perform his duties. The reasons for his withdrawal of vetting clearance included allegations of sexual misconduct which had been formally withdrawn on the basis that there was no case to answer, and other allegations and complaints which had not been proved.
A Commander Harman decided that, because Di Maria no longer had any vetting clearance, he was unable to perform the duties of his role as an officer and was suitable for referral to a panel under the Met's performance regulations, on the basis of gross incompetence.
The panel dismissed him, which the High Court found was ‘inevitable’ given his vetting had been withdrawn.
Mrs Justice Lang said this use of the regulations had ‘been adopted as a mechanism to overcome the absence of any lawful statutory procedure for a vetting dismissal’.
‘I do not consider that it is fit for purpose’, the judge said. ‘As the panel has no power to re-open the vetting decision, 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.’
Mrs Justice Lang said this route was not compliant with the right to a fair trial, pointing out: ‘Where basic vetting clearance has been withdrawn, the only outcome open to the panel is dismissal.
‘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. 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.’
