The Metropolitan police vowed to keep scores of officers facing allegations including rape and sexual misconduct away from the public after the high court struck down its policy of sacking those who fail their vetting.
A furious Sir Mark Rowley, commissioner of the Met, said the force had been left in a “hopeless position” after a test case brought by an officer facing unproven claims including rape.
The commissioner said he would pay money to sideline the officers he views as unfit to serve by keeping them on special leave. The Guardian understands the Met estimates this may cost up to £7m a year.
London’s victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman, said women’s safety had been put at risk by the ruling, and the government said it would consider rushing in new laws if an appeal against the decision by the Met is unsuccessful.
The ruling could in theory lead to 96 police officers and staff who failed the new vetting scheme, and were then either quit or were sacked, being reinstated if they win a further appeal. More than 100 more are having their vetting reviewed, while a further 29 have lost their vetting status and face a dismissal hearing.
The scheme was introduced after the kidnap and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving officer, and the failure to identify the dangers of Met officer David Carrick from carrying out a string of attacks despite numerous unproven allegations against him.
Rowley attacked the Met Police Federation, which represents the rank and file officers, for bringing the case. It accused Rowley effectively of a misjudgment by trying to “operate outside the law”.
The high court found sacking people who failed their vetting was unfair without a proper hearing. The Met said among those who had their vetting revoked and left the force were:
• An officer accused of the rape of ex-partner, and also named in two reports alleging sexual misconduct of colleagues.
• An officer who travelled to the US to meet a 13-year-old girl he had met online.
• An officer who committed an indecent act on a train.
Officers can be sacked if a discipline hearing finds against them. The Met had pioneered using the revocation of vetting as a technique to drive out officers of concern where allegations were unproven or not enough to warrant dismissal.
A visibly annoyed Rowley said: “Those we have removed vetting from had a pattern of behaviour that meant if they applied to work in policing today, we’d never let them in.
“But today’s ruling on the law has left policing in a hopeless position. We now have no mechanism to rid the Met of officers who are not fit to hold vetting – those who cannot be trusted to work with women, or enter the homes of vulnerable people.
“It is absurd that we cannot lawfully sack them.”
Several factors are driving the anger of the Met’s leadership, sources say.
There is shock the force lost the case so comprehensively. They were convinced the high court judges would back them. There is also anger at the federation for picking a case involving an officer alleged – but not proven – to be a sexual danger to women.
Sgt Lino Di Maria is a Met officer who has faced allegations of rape and improper conduct towards women. The Met said “in light of the significant pattern of adverse information against him, his vetting was removed”. He denies the allegations and is on special vetting leave.
Rowley attacked the federation, labelling their decision to bring this case – on behalf of an officer facing allegations of rape – as “perverse”.
He also confirmed that affected officers will remain on vetting special leave, describing the position as a “ridiculous waste of money” but the “least bad option”.
Waxman 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.
“I am concerned this outcome will put female officers’ safety at risk, as well as that of their colleagues and the public.”
In the ruling, Mrs Justice Lang said the Met had been breaching article 6 of the European convention on human rights that guarantees a fair hearing and did not have the power to dismiss officers.
“Dismissal is a matter which should be provided for in regulations made by the secretary of state. This results in an anomalous situation where officers who do not have basic vetting clearance cannot be dismissed by the defendant,” Lang said.
“In my view, that anomaly could and should be resolved by regulations.
“The process deprives the officer of any meaningful opportunity to challenge a finding of gross incompetence. The panel merely confirms a decision that has already been made, by an internal vetting regime which is not article 6 compliant. Where basic vetting clearance has been withdrawn, the only outcome open to the panel is dismissal.”
Matt Cane, the general secretary of the Met Police Federation, said obvious flaws in the scheme had being ignored by the commissioner and his lawyers: “I remain curious as to why those in Scotland Yard thought they could operate outside the law when it comes to police officers.
“As far back as early 2023 I wrote to the Metropolitan police raising our concerns around the legality … I made it clear from the outset that where an individual is dismissed, unlawfully, this will not go unchallenged.”
A Home Office spokesperson said the government was “acting rapidly” to introduce new rules to help forces sack officers who could not hold vetting – an official system used to assess someone’s suitability to work for the police.
