Met Police ends bid to fire officer over child abuse video

HAYSIE

as bosses accept appeal court ruling against her sacking



Supt Robyn Williams, 57, (pictured) was put on the sex offenders register after her sister sent her a video of a girl of five being abused. She could now win a six-figure payout in damages.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11527447/Met-Police-ends-bid-fire-officer-child-abuse-video-bosses-accept-appeal-court-ruling.html

Essexphil

They had no choice but to accept the decision.

They had sought leave to appeal. That was denied by the Court of Appeal. In order for it to get that far, this would already have been considered by 2 sets of Judges-at the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Which would likely have cost six figures in legal fees.

Therefore their options were very limited. Seeking a Judicial Review would have been prohibitively expensive, and would likely have increased the Damages considerably.

Police Officers are subject to the same rules as everyone else. It disturbs me that people within the Force want different rules. That way leads to a tinpot dictatorship. Because the Employment Tribunal and the Law will decide what is or is not fair-not Bas Javid, or an individual employer.

And if he does not realise that, then it is he that needs to be educated. Or dismissed.

Essexphil

Just read up on this.

It seems that, since I took early retirement, the Rules have changed.

Police Officers who are Summarily Dismissed for "Gross Misconduct" go to the "Police Appeals Tribunal" (set up in about 2020).

That Tribunal is supposed to have the final say for an appeal-it is, much like an Employment Tribunal, comprised of a legally-qualified Chair, and 2 other "Judges" (for want of a better word). There is usually only 1 automatic right of appeal-and it seems that these 2020 Regs provide restrictions from appealing. To get a 2nd, you need permission of the appeal court/tribunal. or to seek approval from a higher court. If that is refused (as here) that is the end. There is no other permissible appeal.

That Tribunal said this fell short of Gross Misconduct, and the Dismissal should be replaced with a Final Written Warning. Which the Met refused-deciding instead to spend our money trying to prove they know more about Employment Law than Employment Lawyers. And lost. Again. That was a Court of Appeal Judicial Review.

1 thing that desperately needs changing is this. In every other profession or job, someone is innocent until proved otherwise. So allegations are not made public until proved. Whether that is disciplinary proceedings, or Tribunal proceedings (unless the Tribunal okays it). Different for policemen.

Which is just plain wrong.

PS. In an interesting twist, the Met suffered in the Civil case in exactly the same manner as the Officer. She had appealed against her conviction, and was similarly refused by the Court of Appeal in the Criminal matter.

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

Just read up on this.

It seems that, since I took early retirement, the Rules have changed.

Police Officers who are Summarily Dismissed for "Gross Misconduct" go to the "Police Appeals Tribunal" (set up in about 2020).

That Tribunal is supposed to have the final say for an appeal-it is, much like an Employment Tribunal, comprised of a legally-qualified Chair, and 2 other "Judges" (for want of a better word). There is usually only 1 automatic right of appeal-and it seems that these 2020 Regs provide restrictions from appealing. To get a 2nd, you need permission of the appeal court/tribunal. or to seek approval from a higher court. If that is refused (as here) that is the end. There is no other permissible appeal.

That Tribunal said this fell short of Gross Misconduct, and the Dismissal should be replaced with a Final Written Warning. Which the Met refused-deciding instead to spend our money trying to prove they know more about Employment Law than Employment Lawyers. And lost. Again. That was a Court of Appeal Judicial Review.

1 thing that desperately needs changing is this. In every other profession or job, someone is innocent until proved otherwise. So allegations are not made public until proved. Whether that is disciplinary proceedings, or Tribunal proceedings (unless the Tribunal okays it). Different for policemen.

Which is just plain wrong.

PS. In an interesting twist, the Met suffered in the Civil case in exactly the same manner as the Officer. She had appealed against her conviction, and was similarly refused by the Court of Appeal in the Criminal matter.

I cant pretend to fully understand the legal niceties of the story, but it does pose some serious questions.
Shouldnt we expect the police to fully understand the letter of the law, and that any steps they take would be within the law?
Isnt possession of this material a criminal offence?
Did she arrest her sister?

If we are so clever in this country how would it be possible to allow a police officer, in possession of child ****, who is now on the sex offenders register, to keep her job, and probably end up with a 6 figure compensation package?
How do we end up with social workers that are prepared to distribute child ****?
Does anyone believe that she didnt open the message?

Essexphil

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

Just read up on this.

It seems that, since I took early retirement, the Rules have changed.

Police Officers who are Summarily Dismissed for "Gross Misconduct" go to the "Police Appeals Tribunal" (set up in about 2020).

That Tribunal is supposed to have the final say for an appeal-it is, much like an Employment Tribunal, comprised of a legally-qualified Chair, and 2 other "Judges" (for want of a better word). There is usually only 1 automatic right of appeal-and it seems that these 2020 Regs provide restrictions from appealing. To get a 2nd, you need permission of the appeal court/tribunal. or to seek approval from a higher court. If that is refused (as here) that is the end. There is no other permissible appeal.

That Tribunal said this fell short of Gross Misconduct, and the Dismissal should be replaced with a Final Written Warning. Which the Met refused-deciding instead to spend our money trying to prove they know more about Employment Law than Employment Lawyers. And lost. Again. That was a Court of Appeal Judicial Review.

1 thing that desperately needs changing is this. In every other profession or job, someone is innocent until proved otherwise. So allegations are not made public until proved. Whether that is disciplinary proceedings, or Tribunal proceedings (unless the Tribunal okays it). Different for policemen.

Which is just plain wrong.

PS. In an interesting twist, the Met suffered in the Civil case in exactly the same manner as the Officer. She had appealed against her conviction, and was similarly refused by the Court of Appeal in the Criminal matter.

I cant pretend to fully understand the legal niceties of the story, but it does pose some serious questions.
Shouldnt we expect the police to fully understand the letter of the law, and that any steps they take would be within the law?
Isnt possession of this material a criminal offence?
Did she arrest her sister?

If we are so clever in this country how would it be possible to allow a police officer, in possession of child ****, who is now on the sex offenders register, to keep her job, and probably end up with a 6 figure compensation package?
How do we end up with social workers that are prepared to distribute child ****?
Does anyone believe that she didnt open the message?

The first thing to mention is the differing standards of proof between the various standards of proof. Typically, for Criminal matters, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. For Civil matters, on a balance of probabilities-more likely than not.

It is not possible to expect every police officer to know every law. There are tens of thousands of them, and many change every single day.

I don't know the exact law relating to possession of such material-but it can't be as simple as that, or the Prosecution would have committed a criminal offence.

It's not as simple as "on sex offenders register, dismissal". For a start, there are thousands of jobs in the police that never go anywhere near child exploitation. Particularly when you reach the Rank of Superintendant after 35 years' service. It would be necessary to show that this particular issue was Gross Misconduct-the Tribunal looked at all the facts, and said it fell short. Not by a long way, but nevertheless short. At which point she should have been reinstated, saving an awful lot of money.

6 figure compensation package? It's not difficult. She would have been earning about £75k per year for the last 3 years.

The social worker? They were convicted, they did distribute, etc. Different case. And probably different outcome.