• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

BTP go to High Court to sack officer for gross misconduct

Status
Not open for further replies.

ASharpe

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2013
Messages
1,000
Location
West Yorkshire
There was a thread recently about police misconduct hearings due to ticketless travel on the railway.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/police-misconduct-hearings-related-to-rail-travel.243356/

Following that I thought the standards required to keep a job in the police were fairly high.

However today I learnt a BTP officer got to keep his job after "attempting to abuse his position for a sexual purpose".

The BTP to their credit didn't take him back and went to the High Court to get him sacked.

It amazes me that a police officer can act like that, loose the confidence of the public and his force and have any chance of keeping his job.




BTP successfully overturn decision to let officer keep his job in landmark case – London​

Navigation​

England
14:16 17/03/2023
British Transport Police have successfully overturned the decision of an independent misconduct panel who let an officer keep his job after being found guilty of gross misconduct.
Following an investigation by BTP’s Professional Standards Department and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), PC Imran Aftab, based in central London, appeared at a public misconduct hearing on 19 May 2021 where an independent panel found him guilty of gross misconduct.
They decided, however, that he would be given a final written warning rather than dismissed from his job.
BTP disagreed with this decision and immediately began legal proceedings to challenge the sanction through a judicial review in the High Court of Justice.
Following the misconduct hearing in May 2021, PC Aftab’s suspension no longer applied as the regulatory process was over. However, the Chief Constable exercised her powers to remove PC Aftab’s warrant card while the judicial review was considered, meaning he has been unable to access any BTP premises.
Following a Judicial Review Hearing on 1 December, today (17 March) the judge issued his written judgement. He ruled that the decision of the panel was irrational and would be overturned. PC Aftab is now formally dismissed from the force.
The hearing heard that on 15 April 2020, PC Aftab parked his car while off duty and approached a woman who was out jogging, before using his police warrant card to try and talk to her, thereby attempting to abuse his position for a sexual purpose.
The panel accepted PC Aftab showed the victim his warrant card in order to impress her and advance his prospects of building a relationship with her, and that he told the woman she “looked too curvy to be Asian”. Before leaving, PC Aftab asked the woman for a hug which was in itself deeply inappropriate, and at the time also breaching government guidelines on social distancing at the time of the incident.
The panel were also shown evidence of a text the woman had sent to her friend at the time of the incident saying “help me”.
The force argued that the approach of the independent panel unlawful and it failed to understand the seriousness of PC Aftab’s behaviour, making the decision not to dismiss him incorrect.
PC Aftab tried to claim to the High Court that he was a “victim of the times we are now living in today” but the Judge ruled that that there “could only be one rational and reasonable disciplinary outcome” from his behaviour and that BTP were “correct to observe that these proceedings capture a real and present national concern about male police officers’ conduct towards lone women.”
The judge stated it was his “own choice to approach a lone female and indulge in prejudiced racial stereotyping and sexualised language, amongst other troubling features of his conduct, which have been the undoing of his police career.”
Chief Constable Lucy D’Orsi said: “There is no place for anyone like Imran Aftab in policing, so we were resolute in overturning the decision of the independent panel which had allowed him to continue his role as a police officer, despite being a risk to the women he was employed to protect.
“This is a strong position and a costly step for a police force to take, and I hope it reassures everyone of our determination to uphold the standards expected from those who work within British Transport Police and to root out those who corrupt our integrity.
“Using a warrant card to influence a lone woman for an officer’s sexual gain is a total abuse of police powers and so seriously undermines public confidence that it is destructive to the very fabric of policing by consent. It is completely unforgivable that any woman should feel so intimidated by the actions of a police officer that she feels compelled to text her friend for help.
“This is why we were so determined to ensure he doesn’t work another day as police officer, and I am pleased that the judge agreed with our challenge today.”
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Flying Snail

Established Member
Joined
12 Dec 2006
Messages
1,638
It does beg the question who are the people on the disciplinary panel and what rules are they adhering to (or not).

Whoever they are it sounds like time for some more sackings to be undertaken.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,483
Location
London
There was a thread recently about police misconduct hearings due to ticketless travel on the railway.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/police-misconduct-hearings-related-to-rail-travel.243356/

Following that I thought the standards required to keep a job in the police were fairly high.

However today I learnt a BTP officer got to keep his job after "attempting to abuse his position for a sexual purpose".

The BTP to their credit didn't take him back and went to the High Court to get him sacked.

It amazes me that a police officer can act like that, loose the confidence of the public and his force and have any chance of keeping his job.



I read that summary, then had to re read it because I couldn’t quite believe my eyes.

Absolutely bloody shocking, on many levels.

Well done to the Chief Constable!!

Indeed.
 

DC1989

Member
Joined
25 Mar 2022
Messages
498
Location
London
The new Met chief has come out multiple times in the last few months bemoaning the fact he has officers that have committed various offensives and he's not allowed to sack them. Barmy
 

GodAtum

On Moderation
Joined
11 Dec 2009
Messages
2,638
It's actually very easy to sack them. All police officers are vetted so if they commit misconduct this means they have breached vetting rules.
 

ASharpe

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2013
Messages
1,000
Location
West Yorkshire
It gets worse the more I've read into it.


During the pandemic lockdown, an off-duty police officer approaches a lone female pedestrian, whom he does not know, having got out of his car alongside her, leaving the engine running. He engages her in conversation, for no policing purpose, during which he observes that she is “too curvy to be Asian” and shows her his warrant card to demonstrate that he is a police officer. She informs him that she is meeting someone and that she is “taken”; she also messages a friend saying “help me”. He stands close to her to show her photographs of himself working out in the gym, on his mobile telephone. He asks for her telephone number and immediately calls her to check she has given him the correct number. Before she leaves, he asks her for a hug. After she walks away, he drives alongside her at a slow speed seeking to wave at her. That evening he messages her addressing her as “babe”.
 

Lucan

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2018
Messages
1,211
Location
Wales
Incredible. What sort of idiots thought that this guy was fit to continue as a policeman?
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,193
It does beg the question who are the people on the disciplinary panel and what rules are they adhering to (or not).

Whoever they are it sounds like time for some more sackings to be undertaken.
Hard to sack an independent panel....

I agree that the decision not to dismiss was perverse at face value though.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,498
Hard to sack an independent panel....

I agree that the decision not to dismiss was perverse at face value though.
If nothing else - what sort of message would it send out.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,193
If nothing else - what sort of message would it send out.
That "independence" is a farce.... See the BBC???

I imagine that the panel members could easily litigate and win were they minded to do so.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,498
That "independence" is a farce.... See the BBC???

I imagine that the panel members could easily litigate and win were they minded to do so.
Should clarify that I was replying to your second sentence there.
 

Parjon

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2022
Messages
519
Location
St Helens
There is a strata of useless self important cretins that are absolutely crippling this country and making normality impossible. The royal college of policing, supposedly independent panels, ineffectual regulators that manage to both go beyond their remits AND fail to satisfy their actual duties, most councils, the civil service... Honestly, this example does not surprise me. It also doesn't surprise me that more money needed to be wasted taking this to the high court.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,483
Location
London
That "independence" is a farce.... See the BBC???

I agree. It’s outrageous that Gary Lineker is still employed by them.

I imagine that the panel members could easily litigate and win were they minded to do so.

On what possible basis? Being “independent” isn’t a protected characteristic, last I checked. On the other hand, this particular “independent panel” were clearly utterly incompetent, which is a pretty good reason for getting the sack!

There is a strata of useless self important cretins that are absolutely crippling this country

Agreed. I’m no fan of the current cabinet, either.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,193
I agree. It’s outrageous that Gary Lineker is still employed by them.



On what possible basis? Being “independent” isn’t a protected characteristic, last I checked. On the other hand, this particular “independent panel” were clearly utterly incompetent, which is a pretty good reason for getting the sack!



Agreed. I’m no fan of the current cabinet, either.
It's outrageous that the DG of the BBC, who espouses impartiality, was Chairman of Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Association and stood for election as a councillor.

It's outrageous that the Chairman of the BBC is a Tory donor who was Sunak's boss in the City and facilitated a loan for Johnson.

It's outrageous that Robbie Gibb, who was Theresa May's direct of communication is one of several Tories on the BBC board.

What isn't outrageous is that a freelance sports presenter whose contract apparently did not prohibit him, under the BBC's own rules, from commenting was taken off the air. Doubtless he is back because his lawyers set out to the BBC's own lawyers just how many millions he would take them for for breach of contract...

You obviously, being biased yourself, can't get your head around what independent actually means. It neither means a rubber stamp nor someone/a group who can be leant on.

Should clarify that I was replying to your second sentence there.
Ah, sorry. Yes 'independent' just as long as you deliver the 'corrrect' result....
 

NorthernSpirit

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
2,187
The new Met chief has come out multiple times in the last few months bemoaning the fact he has officers that have committed various offensives and he's not allowed to sack them. Barmy
That'll be because they, the constables, may have connections in high places. There were the four security staff who were working for Metrolink in 2016 and they ended up killing one bloke for not paying his fare, transpired that three of them were connected to the same lodge.
 

Stigy

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2009
Messages
4,883
The fact this officer slipped through the net in the first place should raise eyebrows. Especially since police officers have been dismissed for far more mundane matters and continue to be.
 

theageofthetra

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2012
Messages
3,512
That'll be because they, the constables, may have connections in high places. There were the four security staff who were working for Metrolink in 2016 and they ended up killing one bloke for not paying his fare, transpired that three of them were connected to the same lodge.
Spot on. The same culture that infests the railway.
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
3,681
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
It's outrageous that the DG of the BBC, who espouses impartiality, was Chairman of Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Association and stood for election as a councillor.

It's outrageous that the Chairman of the BBC is a Tory donor who was Sunak's boss in the City and facilitated a loan for Johnson.

It's outrageous that Robbie Gibb, who was Theresa May's direct of communication is one of several Tories on the BBC board.

Was it also outrageous that Greg Dyke, a major donor to the Labour Party and former Labour candidate for the GLC, was BBC DG from 2000 to 2004, or is it only a problem if Tories are involved? Should all future appointments to the BBC be only people who have never been a member of or candidate for any political party, or shown no political preference or opinion whatsoever? I doubt that is even possible.
 

D1537

Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
538
Was it also outrageous that Greg Dyke, a major donor to the Labour Party and former Labour candidate for the GLC, was BBC DG from 2000 to 2004, or is it only a problem if Tories are involved? Should all future appointments to the BBC be only people who have never been a member of or candidate for any political party, or shown no political preference or opinion whatsoever? I doubt that is even possible.
The bolded part of that sentence is very easy to do.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,491
Location
Up the creek
Was it also outrageous that Greg Dyke, a major donor to the Labour Party and former Labour candidate for the GLC, was BBC DG from 2000 to 2004, or is it only a problem if Tories are involved? Should all future appointments to the BBC be only people who have never been a member of or candidate for any political party, or shown no political preference or opinion whatsoever? I doubt that is even possible.

The difference is now that we are seeing the Board and top management being packed with people who are overtly pro one side (or the other). Previously, although there might be inclinations one way or the the other, there was a fair amount of balance. Not at the moment.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,945
Location
Yorkshire
Can we stick to the thread title, please.

If anyone would like to post about general discussion / political matters, please either create a new thread in General Discussion, or use an existing one, as appropriate. Many thanks :)
 

mike57

Established Member
Joined
13 Mar 2015
Messages
1,692
Location
East coast of Yorkshire
Surely its the rules that are wrong, if as a police officer (BTP or otherwise) you have been found to commit any of a list of offences i.e gross misconduct, then you are sacked, immediately with no recourse as to the penalty. You know the rules when you sign up, they will no doubt be explained, and if you break them you go, no discussion, no panel. By all means have independance to confirm the initial misconduct, but once proven that should be it.

To be fair to the BTP he was still sacked, which is the right result, what is wrong is the need to use of public money and resources to remove someone who has broken the rules.

The next step to my mind would be investigate the panel members and see if there was/is some undeclared influence/connection with the accused, surely even the most 'head in the clouds' member must be aware of current public disquiet about misconduct in all police forces.
 

Vespa

Established Member
Joined
20 Dec 2019
Messages
1,588
Location
Merseyside
Coming from three generations of police officers, all served with distinction two got long service and good conduct medal and one also got the defence medal along with his LSGC.

Things I have picked up from them is policing generally a vocation rather than a job, they have seen some bad apples in their time, vetting only goes so far as it only cover your past actions not your future intentions.

It does seem standards have dropped and it went from being a vocation to simply "a job", also there don't seem to be a joined up process of getting in which is how the likes of Wayne Cousins having bypassed normal vetting process as he was in nuclear protection transferring to London police.

You can still sack an officer via disciplinary panel or you can be given the option to resign to preserve your police pension known as "mutual parting of ways", there are some that are so serious that it can only be dealt with via a criminal process, you're suspended and warrant card withdrawn.

I don't know how this guy managed to avoid being dismissed that the Chief Constable has to go court to effect a dismissal, I've never heard of this before, it does appear the disciplinary panel is corrupt to allow this to pass.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,285
Location
No longer here
Surely its the rules that are wrong, if as a police officer (BTP or otherwise) you have been found to commit any of a list of offences i.e gross misconduct, then you are sacked, immediately with no recourse as to the penalty. You know the rules when you sign up, they will no doubt be explained, and if you break them you go, no discussion, no panel. By all means have independance to confirm the initial misconduct, but once proven that should be it.

To be fair to the BTP he was still sacked, which is the right result, what is wrong is the need to use of public money and resources to remove someone who has broken the rules.

The next step to my mind would be investigate the panel members and see if there was/is some undeclared influence/connection with the accused, surely even the most 'head in the clouds' member must be aware of current public disquiet about misconduct in all police forces.
Why would it be a good idea for the police to sack people without a disciplinary panel? Do you know how and why the current process came about?

The problem isn’t police officers facing disciplinary hearings here, it’s the decision made in this case.
 

mike57

Established Member
Joined
13 Mar 2015
Messages
1,692
Location
East coast of Yorkshire
Why would it be a good idea for the police to sack people without a disciplinary panel? Do you know how and why the current process came about?
I am not saying sack people without a disciplinary panel, but once guilt is proven then the penalty, immediate dismissal, should not be the subject of any further review for a list of offences, i.e. probably most gross misconduct offences. Which is what I said in my original comment: By all means have independance to confirm the initial misconduct, but once proven that should be it.

By 'Gross misconduct' we are not talking about minor infractions, but actions which would lead to loss of confidence in that officer, and the penalty should not be in doubt or subject to further review. To allow that person to remain when at best they have exhibited at serious error of judgement, or at worst are rotten isn't in anyones interest. The message that allowing them to remain sends to the public is the wrong one, and that was obviously the view of the BTP chief constable, hence the case. What is wrong is that the rules dont state that 'If you are found guilty of any of the following you will be sacked'
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,607
I am not saying sack people without a disciplinary panel, but once guilt is proven then the penalty, immediate dismissal, should not be the subject of any further review for a list of offences, i.e. probably most gross misconduct offences. Which is what I said in my original comment: By all means have independance to confirm the initial misconduct, but once proven that should be it.

By 'Gross misconduct' we are not talking about minor infractions, but actions which would lead to loss of confidence in that officer, and the penalty should not be in doubt or subject to further review. To allow that person to remain when at best they have exhibited at serious error of judgement, or at worst are rotten isn't in anyones interest. The message that allowing them to remain sends to the public is the wrong one, and that was obviously the view of the BTP chief constable, hence the case. What is wrong is that the rules dont state that 'If you are found guilty of any of the following you will be sacked'
I would prefer the plod had an independent appeals process, as I would prefer that policemen couldn't be bullied into doing what they are told with threats of sacking and losing their pension.
The only problem here seems to be that the panel made an inexplicable and unjustifiable decision!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top