Employment

Natural justice - nemo judex in sua causa - chief constable respondent to sex discrimination claim brought by one of his officers - not disqualified from conducting disciplinary proceedings against that officerR (Bennion) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police: CA (Lords Justice Henry, Judge and Hale): 4 May 2001The applicant, a chief inspector of police, brought proceedings in the employment tribunal for sex discrimination and victimisation, naming the chief constable as the respondent.

While the proceedings were pending, a new chief constable conducted disciplinary proceedings concerning allegations against the applicant of corruption and found two of the charges proved.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash those findings contending that the chief constable was disqualified from acting as a judge while being litigant and thus his findings were tainted with bias.

The judge granted the application.

The chief constable appealed.David Pannick QC and Judith Beale (instructed by the solicitor, Merseyside Police, Liverpool) for the chief constable.

James Pickup QC (instructed by Russell Jones & Walker) for the applicant.Held, allowing the appeal, that a chief constable of a police force was entrusted with the duty of hearing all disciplinary cases against officers under his command except those cases where he was interested otherwise than in his capacity as such an officer; that unlike a judge in court, who had no interest in the litigants after his judgment, the chief constable had a direct and continuing involvement in the consequences of his decisions; and that, accordingly where an officer under his command had brought such proceedings against the force naming the chief constable as the respondent in his capacity as the chief constable of his force, he was not disqualified from participating in disciplinary proceedings against the officer for any alleged misconduct.