Officer’s Vetting Revocation Challenged as ‘Irrational’ in High Court

The High Court has been informed that a police constabulary’s choice to withdraw an officer’s vetting clearance, stemming from accusations nearly ten years prior, was “irrational.” Joseph Quirke, then 18, faced arrest in November 2014 following a claim by a 14-year-old girl that she had transmitted intimate images to him when he was 17. Avon and Somerset Police concluded the investigation in 2015, taking no subsequent action against Mr. Quirke. He joined the force as an officer in 2019; however, in January 2023, his vetting status was rescinded because of these allegations, preventing him from being certified as a police officer. Mr. Quirke, currently 28 years old, has initiated legal proceedings against the constabulary. His barrister informed the High Court on Tuesday that the determination was “irrational.” The force is contesting this claim, with its legal representatives asserting to the court that the decision was “open to a reasonable decision maker.” Mr. Justice Fordham is scheduled to deliver his written judgment at a subsequent time. Following an initial refusal, Mr. Quirke’s vetting status was approved after an appeal in 2019. In 2022, he sought a more advanced vetting status, which would have enabled him to undertake additional responsibilities. Although this application was subsequently withdrawn, it triggered a comprehensive re-evaluation of his vetting status, culminating in its ultimate revocation in January 2023. A subsequent appeal challenging this decision was rejected. Kevin Baumber, counsel for Mr. Quirke, stated that the “credibility of the allegation was extremely poor” and noted that when the complainant was requested to present her phone, law enforcement officials were informed she had disposed of it. Mr. Baumber further indicated that the complainant had asserted the existence of “further victims,” yet these individuals “emphatically denied” the accusation during interviews with officers. Additionally, Mr. Baumber pointed out that the police had “not kept any record of that successful vetting process” and that “PC Quirke served without adverse incident” subsequent to that point. He elaborated that individuals lacking vetting status might secure roles such as “counting paperclips,” but emphasized: “The position taken by this and most forces… is that if one loses recruitment vetting, that renders one with an inability to do the job.” Mark Ley-Morgan, representing the force, asserted that “the purpose of vetting is to protect the public” and that “the fact that the matter was not progressed is not a ‘powerful’ reason to grant clearance.” He continued: “The claimant’s submission is, effectively, that no reasonable decision-maker could have suspected that the claimant had been involved in criminal activity. With respect, that submission is untenable.“The claimant is not suspected of minor shoplifting at the age of 13. He is suspected, when almost 18-years-old, of asking a 14-year-old child to send him indecent images.“The decision not to uphold the claimant’s appeal was not irrational. It was a decision that was open to a reasonable decision maker to make.”