High Court Rejects Metropolitan Police Challenge on Officer Misconduct Ruling

The Metropolitan Police has been unsuccessful in its High Court challenge against a disciplinary panel’s decision that an officer did not commit misconduct after accessing confidential files related to the murder of Sarah Everard. Detective Constable Tyrone Ward was investigated for accessing sensitive case files, despite not being involved in the investigation itself.

A police misconduct panel initially dismissed the allegations against DC Ward in November 2024. The Metropolitan Police subsequently took the case to the High Court, arguing that the panel had not adequately considered the evidence or provided sufficient reasoning for its decision. Lawyers for the police force presented their case at a hearing in December of last year.

Judge Upholds Panel’s Decision

Mr Justice Murray dismissed the Metropolitan Police’s claim on Tuesday, stating that the force had failed to demonstrate any public law error in the panel’s reasoning. The judge confirmed that the panel had sufficiently engaged with the evidence and provided adequate justifications for its decision.

In a detailed 26-page ruling, Mr Justice Murray noted that DC Ward was among seven officers identified as having accessed files pertaining to Wayne Couzens and Sarah Everard without a clear policing purpose. An audit revealed that DC Ward accessed two police systems on March 10 and March 11, reportedly in connection with the detention of Wayne Couzens.

Officer’s Defense and Panel’s Findings

DC Ward maintained that he accessed the files for legitimate professional reasons, asserting it was part of his duties to review records of individuals detained in specific custody suites to determine if his team needed to investigate them. He received a misconduct notice in December 2023, but the case was ultimately dismissed. The panel concluded that DC Ward had a valid reason for accessing the files and described him as a “productive and conscientious officer.”

The Metropolitan Police had sought to have the panel’s decision overturned and replaced with a finding of gross misconduct, or to have the case re-examined by a different disciplinary panel. However, Mr Justice Murray clarified that while DC Ward did not have a specific “duty” to review the custody records of Couzens and other prisoners, this did not preclude him from proactively monitoring them.

Broader Misconduct Findings

The panel also cleared two other officers of misconduct related to accessing the files, finding no breach of professional s. Conversely, three other officers were found to have committed misconduct. One of these officers was dismissed, another received a final written warning, and the third would have faced dismissal had they not already left the force.