Austin Stoton represents officer cleared in Police gross misconduct proceedings

Austin Stoton, instructed by Milly Blunt of JMW Solicitors, acted for a serving police officer in gross misconduct proceedings that have now concluded with all allegations dismissed.

The proceedings were brought under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 and concerned allegations of dishonesty and improper financial gain arising from overtime, rest day, and public holiday rostering arrangements within a specialist operational unit. It was alleged that the officer had manipulated internal systems in order to obtain enhanced payments.

Prior to the opening of the case, and following detailed legal submissions on behalf of the officer, the Appropriate Authority invited the tribunal to dismiss the proceedings. The tribunal accepted that invitation and dismissed the case in its entirety.

The matter was notable not only for its outcome, but for the fundamental issues of natural justice and procedural fairness that it raised. The evidential picture demonstrated that the working arrangements relied upon by the Appropriate Authority were transparently recorded on force systems, were subject to a two-stage authorisation process involving both line management and senior managerial approval, and reflected established and tolerated practice within the unit over a sustained period.

Against that background, the tribunal was required to consider whether it was fair or sustainable to characterise the officer’s conduct as dishonest in circumstances where the practices in question had been repeatedly authorised by supervisors and senior officers, where there had been no contemporaneous objection, instruction, or corrective intervention, where training on complex pay and rostering systems was limited or absent, and where relevant policies were either unclear, inconsistently applied, or not properly disseminated.

A central feature of the defence submissions concerned the requirements of natural justice. Allegations of dishonesty carry grave professional and reputational consequences and engage the highest standards of procedural fairness. The case underscored well-established principles, including that disciplinary allegations must be properly particularised, that individuals must be judged by reference to the rules, guidance, and practices that applied at the material time rather than through the lens of hindsight, and that responsibility cannot be displaced downwards where conduct has been shaped, authorised, or permitted by managerial decision-making.

The invitation by the Appropriate Authority to dismiss the case following defence submissions reflects an important and principled recognition that disciplinary proceedings cannot be used to remedy institutional ambiguity or governance failures by recasting authorised practice as individual dishonesty.

The case serves as a reminder that the legitimacy of any disciplinary or regulatory regime depends not only on outcomes, but on process. Natural justice, proportionality, and accountability following authority are not procedural formalities; they are essential safeguards that protect both individuals and institutions.

Although arising in a policing context, the issues engaged are of wider relevance across regulated professions in which complex rules, layered supervision, and operational discretion intersect.

Chambers continues to act in high-stakes police misconduct and regulatory proceedings, particularly where questions of fairness, governance, proportionality, and natural justice lie at the heart of the case.