The recent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling, which prevents the Metropolitan Police from bypassing due process to remove officers deemed unfit for duty, highlights a crucial principle: the rule of law must apply to everyone, even those who have broken public trust. While it is deeply unsettling that individuals with a history of misconduct, some of whom pose a clear risk to women, children, and vulnerable people, remain in the force, the solution cannot be to undermine due process. A justice system that arbitrarily removes individuals, even for the right reasons, sets a dangerous precedent.
The Gravity of the Problem
Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Met, has been forthright about the scale of the issue. He has acknowledged that there are officers who:
Cannot be trusted to work with women
Pose a risk to vulnerable people
Have engaged in deeply disturbing behaviour, including travelling to meet underage girls
The fact that the Met has had to strengthen its vetting processes to address this crisis shows how deeply embedded the problem is. However, the frustration over their inability to simply remove such officers cannot override the fundamental principle of fairness in disciplinary procedures.
Due Process: A Safeguard, Not an Obstacle
Due process is not about protecting bad officers, it is about ensuring that every decision is made within a framework that prevents abuse of power. If we allow the police, or any employer, to dismiss individuals without proper procedure, we open the door to arbitrary and politically motivated decisions that could be used against anyone, including those who challenge institutional failings.
If due process is abandoned for those we deem unfit, what stops it from being abandoned for those who expose corruption or call for reform?
The protection of due process ensures that all decisions are made transparently, fairly, and within a legal framework. It prevents a culture of reactionary dismissals that could later be weaponised against the very people trying to create positive change.
The Need for Reform
This does not mean the status quo should remain. The ruling should be a wake-up call to fix the system itself.
If the process for removing officers is too slow or ineffective, then it is that process which must change—not the principle of due process itself.
If the threshold for dismissal is too high, or if disciplinary bodies lack the necessary powers, then reform is needed to balance accountability with procedural fairness.
The Met must work within the legal framework to ensure that officers who abuse their position are held accountable and removed through fair but firm mechanisms. If the current legal structure allows dangerous individuals to stay in power, then changes must be made to the structure itself rather than weakening legal safeguards.
The Root of the Crisis
The real issue is not the ECHR ruling but the fact that police misconduct was allowed to fester for decades. The Met is now dealing with the consequences of:
A broken vetting and accountability system
Institutional protectionism that shields officers from scrutiny
A culture of silence that enabled unsuitable individuals to remain in uniform
This ruling does not mean we must tolerate dangerous officers remaining in post indefinitely. Instead, it means that the Met must fully engage with the disciplinary systems available and, if necessary, push for legislative changes to ensure that those who should not be serving are removed in a way that upholds justice rather than undermines it.
What This Says About Society
This moment forces us to ask some difficult but necessary questions:
Do we value fairness only when it benefits us, or do we defend it even when it is uncomfortable?
Are we willing to fix broken systems through reform, or do we prefer quick fixes that erode legal protections?
How do we rebuild public trust in a police force that has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of so many?
We must demand that the Met engage fully with the process they are bound by and work to improve the disciplinary framework without resorting to shortcuts that undermine justice. Policing must be built on trust, and trust cannot exist if the rules are applied selectively.
Due process is not the problem, failure to act effectively within it is. The focus now must be on strengthening the legal and procedural tools available to remove unfit officers while maintaining the principles that protect everyone from arbitrary power.
Actions to Take
Demand Reform – Call for a public review of the disciplinary and dismissal processes within the Met to ensure they are efficient and effective while respecting due process.
Strengthen Whistle-blower Protections – Advocate for stronger protections for officers and staff who expose corruption and misconduct within the force.
Educate Communities – Organise discussions, workshops, and awareness campaigns on police accountability and legal safeguards.
Hold Authorities Accountable – Write to MPs, police oversight bodies, and community leaders demanding action on institutional failings.
Engage in Public Consultations – When opportunities arise, contribute to discussions on police reform and justice policies.
Reflective Questions
How do we balance justice and fairness when dealing with misconduct in institutions of power?
If due process were ignored in policing, how might this be used to silence those demanding justice in the future?
What would true police accountability look like? How can it be achieved without undermining fundamental rights?
Activity: Imagining a Just Disciplinary System
Step 1: Research different models of police accountability from around the world (e.g. Norway, New Zealand, Canada).
Step 2: Compare these systems to the current UK model and identify key differences.
Step 3: Propose an alternative disciplinary framework that:
Ensures due process is followed
Provides swift and fair justice for misconduct
Maintains public trust in law enforcement
Step 4: Share and discuss ideas in a group setting, considering both feasibility and potential challenges.
This is not just about fixing the Met, it is about setting a precedent for how we deal with institutional failings in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens, justice. We must demand both accountability and fairness, ensuring that justice does not become a tool of convenience, but a steadfast principle that applies to all.
Comments