Jump to content

Judge was wrong to order reinstatement of dismissed detective, appeal rules


Recommended Posts

Trevor Gray was jailed for a rape he did not commit.


Trevor Gray served with Nottinghamshire Police for 25 years


Nottinghamshire Police has won an appeal against a High Court ruling over the dismissal of a former detective sergeant who was wrongly convicted of rape.

The force said a judge was wrong to quash a Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT) decision and order the reinstatement of Trevor Gray, who had served for 25 years.

Mr Gray was jailed for eight years in May 2012 for sexual assault and rape.

His wife traced a witness who gave evidence that led to his conviction being quashed in 2013, and to him being acquitted of all charges at a retrial in March 2014.

At a special disciplinary case hearing in September 2012, he was dismissed from the force for gross misconduct.

PAT allowed his appeal against that decision in April 2014 following his retrial and acquittal.

But a few days after his reinstatement, fresh misconduct proceedings were launched against him and, in August 2014, he was dismissed from the police a second time.

Mr Gray's appeal against his second dismissal was refused by PAT in May 2015.

In July 2016, Mr Justice Coulson said the April 2014 decision in his favour was final and there should have been no further misconduct proceedings.

Last year, John Beggs QC, for Nottinghamshire Police, told the Court of Appeal that the judge's ruling undermined the utility of special case - fast-track - proceedings against officers convicted of criminal offences but acquitted on appeal.

"This raises a matter of compelling public importance given the acknowledged purpose of special case proceedings: to secure the swift dismissal of officers who are incontrovertibly guilty of gross misconduct.

"If such officers are acquitted on appeal, the basis for their special case dismissal often disappears, at which point it is lawful for the appropriate authority to consider placing them before a misconduct panel to have the allegations determined to the civil standard."

On Monday, the Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton, Lord Justice Underhill and Lord Justice Holroyde allowed the appeal and reinstated PAT's May 2015 decision.

View On Police Oracle


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is almost impossible to comment unless the full details of the Court Case were known  and reported and the full evidence for the gross misconduct discipline hearing. Was the misconduct arising from the Rape allegation, we do not know we could only surmise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree @Zulu 22 there just isn’t enough really.

I can remember reading this story when it first came around and the subsequent stories. I have to say, based on what has been available it sounds like this guy has been through a horrendous time and has been hung out to dry. Convicted, jailed and sacked. Gets reinstated and then sacked again. From reading many of the articles it appears they are saying because it is on balance of probability they believe the victim over him.

I would really hope there is more to it and another reason for the gross misconduct issue.

Either way, his life has been well and truly ruined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit reading that has caused me brainache...

As usual the appeal dealt with administrative arguments rather than the facts of the case but essentially the second misconduct panel found on the balance of probabilities that the officer did rape the complainant (from what I skimmed from the judgement).

The case at The appeal was approaching whether the legal requirements for abuse of process had been met to disregard the appropriate authority's second decision to hold misconduct proceedings on the same facts as the first. The ruling was that the force had not erred by reconvening the gross misconduct hearing post conviction.

***health warning - that was a 5 minute skim on my phone***

Edited by MerseyLLB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a read through on my iPhone and I have pretty much come to the same conclusion. Seems about right @MerseyLLB.

I have to say this case really troubles me. I have to feel for the guy as I mentioned above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...