Police officers challenge long-standing union ban

In a notable legal development, police officers Lee Broadbent and Gemma Fox have intensified their legal battle against the Home Office after the Home Secretary, along with the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW), sought to dismiss their judicial review application. 

The officers’ claim centres on the 1996 Police Act, which imposes a prohibition on police officers joining trade unions. They argue that this ban contravenes Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of association, including the right to form and join trade unions. Emphasising that section 64 of the Act entirely strips away their rights, the officers contend that such a ban is archaic and cannot be justified in a modern, democratic context, placing the UK in violation of its international commitments.

In response to the government’s legal manoeuvres, law firm Leigh Day submitted a rebuttal on behalf of the claimants, stating that no clear “knock-out blow” had been presented that would warrant barring the case from moving forward. The Home Secretary’s argument hinges on the assertion that trade unions are inherently political and that allowing police officers to join them would jeopardise the political neutrality of policing. Moreover, the government maintains that the PFEW serves as an adequate alternative for trade union representation.

However, the officers challenge this reasoning as contradictory, noting that the government itself recognises PFEW’s involvement in political action, which it condemns as inappropriate for trade unions. They argue “the government cannot have it both ways” as the activities deemed acceptable for PFEW should also extend to independent trade unions.

The claimants further highlight ongoing concerns regarding PFEW’s governance and effectiveness, including issues related to leadership and reform that the Home Secretary has acknowledged. They contend these admissions weaken the argument that PFEW can effectively substitute for independent trade union membership. Unlike traditional unions, which operate independently, they assert that PFEW’s structure is strictly governed by the Home Secretary under the 1996 Act, which fundamentally differentiates it from an independent trade union that should be protected under Article 11.

The case raises significant constitutional issues surrounding the extent of fundamental rights and the boundaries of government control over police representation. The officers advocate for a full court hearing to address these critical matters, rather than have them dismissed prematurely.

Lee Broadbent commented, “This case is about having a genuine, independent voice. Many officers feel that the current system does not represent the diversity of views within modern policing.” He expressed disappointment over the government’s and PFEW's attempts to prevent the court from evaluating their arguments, stating, “We believe these issues are too important to be shut down at the first hurdle.”

Mandy Bhattal, a partner at Leigh Day, reinforced that the Home Secretary and PFEW’s efforts to block the case are unsubstantiated. She said, “This case concerns the essence of a fundamental democratic freedom - the right to form and join a trade union. A complete statutory ban on police officers exercising that right is an extreme measure.” According to Bhattal, the government’s rationale, which relies on the assumption that a minister-controlled body can replace independent union representation, is riddled with inconsistencies and merits thorough court examination.

Copyright & permissions