R (on the application of Lino Di Maria) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis 2026
D was a serving police officer and had several allegations made against him, relating to events that occurred between 2007 and 2022 – including 3 allegations of rape. None of the allegations resulted in criminal convictions, or findings of misconduct or gross misconduct under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. Following investigations, it was found in each case that there was no case to answer or that the allegation had not been proved.
D's "Management Vetting" and "Recruitment Vetting" status (under the College of Policing's Vetting Code of Practice issued under section 39A of the Police Act 1996) was withdrawn on 15 September 2023, with the consequence that D ceased to hold the minimum level of vetting required for a police officer.
D submitted an internal appeal against the removal of his vetting status. That appeal was dismissed on 13 February 2024. The internal appeal decision-maker concluded that, although there were no misconduct or criminal findings against D, it was not uncommon for allegations of this nature to be difficult to prove. The allegations and complaints had arisen over a significant period of time from a number of complainants and there was a "consistency and cumulative force" in them. They were unlikely to be "entirely devoid of truth".
On 20 February 2024, D was referred to the appropriate authority to make a determination as to gross incompetence under regulation 32 of the Police (Performance) Regulations 2020. On the basis that D was unable to perform his role as an officer without any vetting clearance, D was referred to a "third stage" meeting under the Performance Regulations on 1 March 2024.
D brought a claim for judicial review of those decisions by C. On 11 February 2025, the Judge allowed D’s claim for judicial review.
C appealed the decision to allow the claim for judicial review with only one of the grounds of appeal remaining live in this appeal, that being that the judge erred in finding that, where a police officer has been investigated pursuant to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 and found to have 'no case to answer' or the allegation has not been proved in formal misconduct proceedings under those Regulations, a subsequent vetting review may not find that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the same conduct occurred, save in exceptional circumstances.
Held
Appeal allowed.
The Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and held that the judge had erred in her interpretation of the Vetting Code.
The vetting test required there to be reasonable grounds for suspicion; the Judge in effect had incorrectly equated that with a finding of "no case to answer" or a finding that no misconduct had been proved in misconduct proceedings.
Although a finding of "no case to answer" may appear to create a relatively low threshold, what it actually amounted to was a conclusion that no reasonable tribunal of fact, having considered all the evidence, could find the charge to be proved having applied the standard of proof of a balance of probabilities. In relation to a finding that no misconduct had been proved, it was even more clear that a finding that no misconduct had been proved will be arrived at after considering all the evidence and applying the standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Neither of these is the same thing as having reasonable grounds for suspicion that an act may have occurred.
Fundamentally, the nature of the exercise which was required in vetting was different from the exercise in disciplinary proceedings. The vetting test required there to be reasonable grounds for suspicion, which is a lower threshold than the test used in misconduct proceedings – that being on the balance of probabilities.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
