Scotland Yard has warned it could face a “hopeless” position of being unable to sack rogue officers if it loses a High Court battle over the process used to vet its staff.
The Met is facing a judicial review from Sergeant Lino Di Maria, who was stripped of his warrant card over past allegations of rape and domestic abuse.
Sgt Di Maria did not face criminal proceedings or misconduct hearings over the allegations – which he denies.
But he failed a fresh vetting process, during Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley’s drive to identify potentially rogue officers who had faced past complaints about their conduct.
Sgt Di Maria has challenged the lawfulness of the process which has left him facing dismissal, and brings a host of complaints including a claim that his human rights would be breached without a fair hearing of his case.
But John Beggs KC, leading the Met’s legal team, argued in the High Court on Wednesday that police chiefs must have the power to sack officers who cannot clear the basic vetting procedures.
“Vetting is crucial to the integrity of the police service, to the confidence that a chief officer of police can have in their officers, and to public confidence in the police”, he set out, in written arguments.
“Vetting, and the ability to exclude officers who cannot maintain vetting clearance is, for instance, critical to ensuring that those who pose a risk of violence and sexual impropriety against women and girls are identified, risk to female members of the public and officers is reduced, and their confidence in the police is increased.”
He said Sgt Di Maria’s case “raises the fundamental issue of whether a chief officer of police is entitled to dismiss a constable under his direction and control who has lost the minimum level of vetting clearance required to perform their role.”
He said the force is fighting every aspect of the judicial review claim, and told the court: “If a chief officer of police in not entitled to do so, the post-appointment vetting of police officers would be rendered almost nugatory.
“It would place chief officers of police in a hopeless position, unable comply with the College of Policing’s guidance, or the expectations of bodies such as His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services in terms of integrity management.”
The court heard Sgt Di Maria was accused of rapes in cars in public car parks on two dates in December 2018. He denied the claims, and said sexual contact was consensual.
The officer was accused of touching a fellow police officer’s leg and exposing himself in 2015, but the alleged victim then retracted the allegation and refused to support proceedings.
Sgt Di Maria denied wrongdoing and said there was a background of consensual sexual contact.
He also faced an allegation of domestic abuse against an ex-partner, which he denied and called “malicious”, and court papers show he was also accused of “inappropriate behaviour in the workplace in 2021” and “allegations of sending inappropriate messages to a member of police staff made in 2019”.
The Sergeant was quizzed by Hertfordshire Police over the first allegation of rape, but the court heard no further action was ultimately taken after inconsistencies in the evidence around consent.
The Met says in his case the vetting process that Sgt Di Maria failed in 2023 also considered his admitted sexual activity in cars in public car parks, as well as the historic misconduct allegations.
Sir Mark’s drive to rid the force of rogue officers was launched after a slew of scandals, including Sarah Everard’s murder by PC Wayne Couzens.
Wayne Couzens abducted, raped and murdered Sarah Everard (Metropolitan Police/PA) (PA Media)
Sgt Di Maria’s legal challenge is being seen as a “test case” for forces around the country, with other officers who face the possibility of dismissal through lack of vetting currently bringing appeals, going to tribunals, and threatening their own claims for judicial review.
Couzens’ case shone a stark spotlight on deficiencies on the vetting process for police officers, as he had been previously suspected of sexual offences but continued in his role as an armed officer in the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection unit.
Kevin Baumber KC, representing Sgt Di Maria, said the process being challenged had arisen when officers had not faced either criminal or misconduct proceedings because of a ‘no case to answer’ decision, or when a misconduct hearing had been held and concluded with a dismissal of the allegations or an accused officer being found guilty but not sacked.
Officers are then put through a fresh vetting process, and if they fail they have been deemed guilty of gross incompetence because they are unable to perform the basic policing role.
The court heard the Home Office is currently considering issuing new vetting regulations, which may tackle the suggested flaws in the current process.
Sgt Di Maria is arguing “vetting removal not a lawful basis for dismissal”, that the process he has been through is a breach of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights including an alleged denial of an “Independent and impartial tribunal”, and the process bypasses the safeguards for accused officers which are contained in full misconduct proceedings.
The High Court hearing, which is expected to last two days, continues.