The Metropolitan police have been left in a “hopeless position” after they lost a high court case over whether they can oust officers and staff deemed unsuitable through enhanced vetting procedures, Met commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said.
The commissioner said it was “absurd” that officers not fit to hold vetting cannot be legally sacked, and called on the government to take action “as a matter of extreme urgency” as he tries to clean up the force.
The ruling could see more than a hundred police officers and staff who failed the new vetting scheme, which was introduced after the kidnap and murder of Sarah Everard, reinstated or remaining in their jobs.
London’s victims’ commissioner Claire Waxman warned that women’s safety has been put at risk, and the government said it will consider rushing in new laws if an appeal against the decision by the Met is unsuccesful.
A Home Office spokesperson said the government was “acting rapidly” to introduce new rules to help forces sack officers who could not hold vetting – an official system used to assess someone’s suitability to work for the police.
Rowley attacked the Met Police Federation, which represents the rank and file, for bringing the case. It accused Rowley of a misjudgment by trying to “operate outside the law.”
Scotland Yard’s vetting scheme meant that if the Met received adverse information about an officer or staff member, their vetting would be reviewed. Vetting essentially clears them to access sensitive information and work in sensitive roles.
If vetting was lost they faced a gross misconduct hearing which could sack them, as without vetting there were various key roles they could not be trusted to do, in the Met’s eyes.
The Met says the technique, which they were proud to pioneer, saw 96 officers sacked or quitting and 29 more on special vetting leave after their clearance was lost, with over 100 more officers and staff facing vetting reviews.
Rowley said those officers already ousted and those facing review would have to be placed in roles away from the public, vowed they would not be on the streets of London, and branded that a waste of money.
The scheme was launched after a series of scandals that had sapped public confidence, including the kidnap and murder of Everard by the serving Met officer Wayne Couzens in 2021.
A visibly annoyed Rowley said: “Those we have removed vetting from had a pattern of behaviour that meant if they applied to work in policing today, we’d never let them in.
“But today’s ruling on the law has left policing in a hopeless position.
“We now have no mechanism to rid the Met of officers who are not fit to hold vetting – those who cannot be trusted to work with women, or enter the homes of vulnerable people.
“It is absurd that we cannot lawfully sack them …”
Several factors are driving the anger of the Met’s leadership, sources say.
There is shock the force lost the case so comprehensively: they were convinced the high court judges would back them. There is also anger at the federation for picking a case involving an officer alleged – but not proven – to be a sexual danger to women.
Sgt Lino Di Maria is a Met officer who has faced allegations of rape, and improper conduct towards women. The Met said “in light of the significant pattern of adverse information against him, his vetting was removed.” He denies the allegations.
Rowley attacked the federation, labelling their decision to bring this case – on behalf of an officer facing allegations of rape – as “perverse”.
He also confirmed that affected officers will remain on vetting special leave, describing the position as a “ridiculous waste of money” but the “least bad option”.
Claire Waxman, said: “The Metropolitan Police Federation has failed in its duty to represent all its members. Police officers and staff – particularly women – have rightly expressed outrage that their fees have been used to reinstate a man accused of rape, domestic abuse and indecent exposure, and it is frankly shameful that the federation has chosen to support him.
“I am concerned this outcome will put female officers’ safety at risk, as well as that of their colleagues and the public.”
In the ruling, Mrs Justice Lang said the Met had been breaching article 6 of the European convention on human rights that guarantees a fair hearing and did not have the power to dismiss officers.
“Dismissal is a matter which should be provided for in regulations made by the secretary of state. This results in an anomalous situation where officers who do not have basic vetting clearance cannot be dismissed by the defendant,” Lang said.
“In my view, that anomaly could and should be resolved by regulations.”
“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 which is not Article 6 compliant. Where basic vetting clearance has been withdrawn, the only outcome open to the panel is dismissal.”
Matt Cane, General Secretary of the Met Fed, said obvious flaws in the scheme had being ignored by the Commissioner and his lawyers: “I remain curious as to why those in Scotland Yard thought they could operate outside the law when it comes to police officers.
“As far back as early 2023 I wrote to the Metropolitan police raising our concerns around the legality … I made it clear from the outset that where an individual is dismissed, unlawfully, this will not go unchallenged.”
