On 11 February 2025, the High Court ruled that the Metropolitan Police Service (‘MPS’) cannot dismiss officers by removing their vetting clearance.

This case involved Sergeant Lino Di Maria, who was accused of rape, domestic abuse and indecent exposure, amongst other allegations of concerning conduct towards women - allegations which he denied.

Di Maria, supported by the Metropolitan Police Federation, successfully mounted a challenge to MPS’ decision to remove his vetting over the allegations and refer him to gross incompetence proceedings. His challenge was on the basis that in the absence of proof of the allegations, having his vetting removed was a breach of his right to a fair trial as the allegations were not able to be tested or denied as should be guaranteed by due process.

The Court held that the MPS’ process of dismissing officers through the withdrawal of vetting clearance was unlawful, as it deprived the officer of any meaningful opportunity to challenge a finding of gross incompetence (i.e. that their inability to hold vetting clearance has rendered them incompetent to hold a role).

At present, the procedure dictates that where basic vetting clearance has been withdrawn, a panel at a subsequent gross incompetence hearing is left with the sole option to dismiss the officer. Mrs Justice Lang considered that this was not Article 6-compliant. Instead, she insisted on the need for an ‘effective and fair hearing’ for relevant evidence to be considered, witnesses called, regard given for any mitigation or references advanced, to enable the panel to determine if gross incompetence has been established.

Vetting

In accordance with the ‘Vetting Code of Practice’, the process which determines an individual’s suitability to work for the Met includes:

• A series of background checks to identify the person’s vulnerability, and possible risks of corruption, criminality or behaviours capable of damaging trust and confidence within the force. This can encompass checking details of any previous convictions, finances and close associates.
• Thereafter, checking this information against criminal, intelligence and national security records.
• Cases are decided on their own merit, taking all relevant information into account.
• Officers are vetted upon arrival to the force, and the vetting is renewed every 7-10 years, and upon the arising of ‘adverse information’ relating to the officer.
• When determining vetting decisions, the decision-maker must consider whether there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the applicant is / has some involvement in criminal activity, financial vulnerability or has been subjected to adverse information; consequentially, it must be appropriate in the circumstances to refuse vetting clearance.

If an officer failed to pass the approval, they were formerly allowed to be dismissed from the force. However, the High Court’s ruling now states otherwise. In addition, this ruling has significant implications, as it raises the possibility of over 100 officers, previously dismissed under similar circumstances, being reinstated.

Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley’s assertion that that ruling has “left policing in a hopeless position” is well-founded. As the mechanism for expunging the force of officers unfit to hold vetting has been deemed unlawful, the potential ramifications are far-reaching and hugely concerning.

Without strengthened police vetting regulations, officers who have fallen below the rightfully expected high standards may continue to serve. In light of the Court’s decision, there is the potential for dangerous officers accused of heinous crimes to be able to remain in the force. This is a significant blow in the current climate; in the wake of significant cases such as Wayne Couzens and David Carrick, public trust has been eroded in the policing system. It is essential that vetting processes are effective in identifying those who pose potential risks to others or who are otherwise unsuitable for serving, in order to promote an ethical environment and uphold the standards of professional behaviour.

The Met are seeking leave to appeal the judgement. London Victims’ Commissioner Claire Waxman has stated that it is “imperative that the Home Secretary swiftly draw up new police regulations that ensure the public and officers are safe from predators. Failure to do this will hamper this Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls”.

A Home Office spokesperson assured that the government was “acting rapidly to introduce new, strengthened rules that will help forces dismiss officers who cannot maintain vetting clearance”.

We at Saunders Law have an experienced Actions Against the Police Team. You can contact our solicitors for independent legal advice via our website or on 020 7632 4300