Hundreds of Metropolitan Police officers who failed a new vetting scheme implemented after the murder of Sarah Everard could be able to remain in their jobs after the force lost a landmark court case.
Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Met, said it was “absurd” that officers who had not passed vetting could not be lawfully sacked following a High Court ruling.
Sergeant Lino Di Maria brought a judicial review claiming that stripping him of his warrant card over allegations of rape breached his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
On Tuesday Mrs Justice Lang ruled that he was unfairly dismissed, leading the Met to warn that the decision paved the way for about 300 officers and staff flagged for vetting in similar circumstances to continue in the force.
It is thought that hundreds of officers from forces across the country will also be affected and could now qualify for reinstatement.
Di Maria argued that having his warrant card removed without the accusations being proved was a breach of his right to a fair trial under article 6 and 8 of the ECHR.
He was accused of raping a woman twice in public car parks, touching a fellow police officer’s leg, indecent exposure, domestic abuse, inappropriate behaviour in the workplace and sending inappropriate messages to a member of police staff. He denied all the accusations, claiming the interactions were consensual, and the rape allegations were withdrawn. He was not charged and no findings were ever made against him.
However, as a result of the allegations he failed a new vetting process under Operation Assure, which was set up after scandals including the murder of Sarah Everard by PC Wayne Couzens.
The process identifies patterns of accusations and resulted in Di Maria being flagged, and facing the sack.
But Lang said the process was unlawful as those suspected of wrongdoing were denied an opportunity to defend themselves at disciplinary proceedings.
The Met said that more than 300 officers and staff had been referred to Operation Assure so far. Of those, 107 failed vetting and await a gross misconduct hearing and 96 have left the force. The others are still going through the process.
Rowley said police were in a hopeless position with no mechanism to remove officers who had failed vetting, including “those who cannot be trusted to work with women, or those who cannot be trusted to enter the homes of vulnerable people”.
He added: “It is absolutely absurd that we cannot lawfully sack them. This would not be the case in other sectors where staff have nothing like the powers comparable to police officers.”
He called on the government to take urgent action to change the rules around officers’ vetting.
Rowley took aim at the Metropolitan Police Federation, a staff association representing 30,000 officers from constables to chief inspectors, for backing the case.
He said: “It seems perverse that the federation has chosen a case such as this … they want to see someone like him stay in policing. I know many colleagues within the organisation, and particularly women colleagues who’ve spoken publicly about this, are outraged they are spending their subscriptions fighting cases like this.”
It is thought that keeping officers and staff on special vetting leave will cost at least £2 million per year.
Di Maria appeared at the High Court last month to challenge the Met’s decision on a number of grounds, including his right to a fair trial.
Last week the force’s Network of Women published an open letter criticising the Metropolitan Police Federation for “championing” the judicial review.
Sir Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, is understood to be furious about the ruling. A source close to the mayor said: “Sadiq is very angry about this. He fully supports Sir Mark Rowley. This will make it harder to clean up the Met.”
Claire Waxman, London’s independent victims’ commissioner, 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.”
Earlier this year the government issued a consultation on new vetting regulations for police forces, which are due to come into force later this year and may be affected by the ruling in this case.
The Home Office said: “It is essential for public confidence in policing that the strictest standards are upheld and maintained. Individuals who fall below the high standards the public expects should not be police officers. That’s why this government is acting rapidly to introduce new, strengthened rules that will help forces dismiss officers who cannot maintain vetting clearance.”
Matt Cane, the Met Federation’s general secretary, said: “This judicial review was about ensuring a fair, but more importantly, legal process was in place. I remain curious as to why those in Scotland Yard thought they could operate outside of the law when it comes to police officers.”
Cane claimed that he tried to work with the force to ensure any vetting-based dismissal was fair and legal but said “this offer was ignored”.
Behind the story
When Sir Mark Rowley took control of the Met in September 2022, he pledged to cull “toxic” officers whose racism, misogyny and homophobia had infected the ranks (David Woode writes).
But he claimed “byzantine and complex” police regulations made it harder to kick out rogue officers and staff who failed vetting — an official process assessing suitability for the police service. Vetting forms require disclosure of previous contact with the police, any arrests and reprimands, plus family information and details of social media profiles.
Every police officer in England and Wales was told they would be re-vetted after police chiefs ordered forces to root out those “simply not fit to wear the uniform”. That followed a string of scandals that rocked policing, including the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Met firearms officer, Wayne Couzens.
At the Met, the review came in two phases: Operation Assure looked at the vetting of officers and staff where concerns had been raised about their behaviour; Operation Onyx examined every finalised sexual offence or domestic abuse case involving a police officer or staff member between April 2012 and April 2022 where the allegation did not lead to dismissal.
Rowley had called for greater powers for police chiefs to sack officers deemed unfit to serve. Scotland Yard launched a process in which an officer who failed vetting faced a gross misconduct hearing and risked losing their job. Almost 100 officers were either sacked or resigned and 29 were placed on special leave when their vetting was rescinded.
One of those officers was Sergeant Lino Di Maria, who challenged the Met after he was stripped of his warrant card in 2023 after complaints from colleagues and members of the public, including accusations of rape, sexual assault and indecent exposure, which he denies.
The crux of Di Maria’s case was that the decision to revoke his vetting and dismiss him was unlawful because after misconduct proceedings he had been found to have no case to answer.
Di Maria, who joined the Met in 2004 and most recently managed a team in forensic services, argued that having his vetting removed without the accusations being proved was a breach of his right to a fair trial. In this case, it related to his ability to defend himself in a civil case such as disciplinary proceedings.
Lawyers for the Met told the High Court that the force was entitled to reach its decision based on the allegations as a whole, even though there was no case to answer on the individual allegations.
John Beggs KC, who acted for the Met, said: “This is a police officer who has repetitively, over three years, attracted a certain kind of public complaint.”
On Tuesday Mrs Justice Lang rejected the Met’s argument and, in her ruling, noted that the secretary of state “has not yet made regulations for dismissal by reason of withdrawal of vetting clearance”.
Quashing the vetting decision, the judge said: “In my view, dismissal without notice for gross incompetence will be a serious stain on a police officer’s record when seeking alternative employment, in addition to the loss of vetting clearance. It ought not to be imposed without an effective and fair hearing.“
The Met is seeking leave to appealbut for now it remains in a “hopeless position” as it works to win back the support of women and girls and vulnerable Londoners whose trust in the force remains on a knife edge.
