The Chief Constable (Defendant) dismissed C a probationer constable because he had heard largely unfounded rumours about his private life, but Defendant believed them.
The rumours included a former "hippy" lifestyle, the keeping of 4 dogs and financial difficulties.
HL held that the Chief Constable’s decision to force the resignation of the respondent was vitiated by his erroneous assumption that he had an absolute discretion and by his total failure to observe the rules of natural justice in not giving the respondent the opportunity to refute the allegations on which the chief constable relied.
HL emphasised that it was scrutinising the procedure, NOT the fairness of the decision itself.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Administrative Law | Discretion Fettering Notes (31 pages) |