Police Chief Took Own Officers To High Court Over Misconduct Sanctions

Derbyshire’s former Chief Constable took two of her own officers to the High Court after a misconduct panel spared them dismissal – with both officers opposing her attempt to overturn the decision.

Rachel Swann, who has since retired as Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary, launched the court challenge after PC Jack Large and PC James Barker were allowed to remain in policing with two-year final written warnings.

The panel found both officers had committed gross misconduct.

Swann had argued at the misconduct hearing that both officers should be dismissed without notice.

When the panel decided otherwise, she took the case to the High Court.

Large and Barker opposed the challenge.

The unusual legal battle ended with a judge ruling in Swann’s favor on the key issue of the sanctions, quashing the final written warnings and ordering the panel to reconsider what should happen to the officers.

The case stemmed from events in April 2023 involving a domestic abuse suspect, referred to in court as JJ.

Large and Barker took him to the home of a woman he had previously assaulted despite having received advice from a supervising sergeant to make enquiries about alternative accommodation.

The woman, referred to as MB, was assaulted by JJ after the officers left him at her home.

JJ was later given a custodial sentence for that assault.

Large and Barker faced a five-day misconduct hearing in March 2025.

The panel found breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to Duties and Responsibilities and Discreditable Conduct against both officers and determined that their conduct amounted to gross misconduct.

It assessed their culpability as medium and the harm as high.

In particularly stark language, the panel said the public had a right to expect police officers “to protect women from behaviour such as this, not to facilitate it”.

But it decided against dismissal.

The panel described what happened as “a case of mistake, not of malice and or idleness”.

It concluded the public would be better served by Large and Barker continuing as police officers.

Both were given final written warnings lasting two years.

Swann did not accept the outcome.

Her position at the misconduct hearing had been that both officers should be dismissed without notice.

She subsequently launched a judicial review of the panel’s decision.

The misconduct panel was named as the defendant in the High Court case but took no active part in the proceedings.

Large and Barker were named as interested parties – and both opposed Swann’s challenge.

The case was heard at the Administrative Court in Birmingham on February 9.

Swann’s challenge was based on five grounds and went further than simply arguing that the sanctions were too lenient.

Three grounds concerned findings the panel had made about telephone calls between Large and MB before JJ was taken to her home.

Swann challenged the panel’s decision not to uphold parts of the case concerning allegations that Large had placed pressure on MB.

On that part of the case, she lost.

The judge decided the panel had been entitled to reach the conclusions it did about the calls.

But the remaining two grounds went to the heart of the decision to allow Large and Barker to remain in policing.

And on those, Swann won.

Central to the challenge was the panel’s description of what the officers had done as a “mistake”.

The same panel had found that Large and Barker failed to follow advice given by Temporary Police Sergeant French.

That advice included making enquiries about alternative accommodation for JJ because of the outstanding domestic assault involving MB.

The panel itself described the officers’ actions as a “significant deviation from instructions”.

The advice had been given only around an hour before the officers took JJ to MB’s home.

HHJ Emma Kelly, sitting as a judge of the High Court, said the panel had not adequately explained how its description of the officers’ actions as a mistake fitted with its other findings.

The panel had also determined that the case involved high harm.

College of Policing guidance said that where gross misconduct had caused – or could have caused – serious harm to individuals, the community or public confidence in policing, dismissal was likely to follow.

That did not mean Large and Barker automatically had to lose their jobs.

But if the panel decided not to dismiss them, it needed to properly explain why.

The High Court found it had failed to do so.

The judge ruled there was an apparent inconsistency between describing the officers’ actions as a mistake and the finding that they had failed to follow their sergeant’s advice.

She also found there was no adequate explanation for departing from guidance which indicated dismissal was likely in a high-harm gross misconduct case.

Swann therefore succeeded on the two grounds challenging the outcome.

The final written warnings were quashed and the question of what sanction should be imposed was sent back to the misconduct panel to be considered again.

The High Court did not order Large or Barker to be dismissed.

The judge specifically made clear that she was not ruling that dismissal without notice was the only possible outcome.

The panel could reach a different conclusion when reconsidering the case – but it would have to properly explain its decision.

The ruling meant the original decision which allowed Large and Barker to remain in policing with final written warnings, could no longer stand.

Swann has since retired as Derbyshire’s Chief Constable.

The current status of Large and Barker, and whether their sanctions have since been reconsidered, has not yet been confirmed.