Press release: on behalf of Kristina O’Connor in the Court of Appeal

On 4 December 2024 the Court of Appeal will hear the case of O’Connor v Panel Chair (Police Misconduct Panel) and James Mason

This appeal raises an important issue of principle as to how police misconduct panels select an appropriate penalty and whether an officer using his position of authority to sexually harass a victim of crime can properly be sanctioned through the lowest available type of penalty.

In 2011 Kristina O’Connor reported an assault by a group of young men at Kentish Town Police Station. Mr Mason, then a Detective Sergeant, made wholly inappropriate advances of a sexual nature towards Ms O’Connor. He subsequently sent inappropriate emails to her. His actions caused her extreme discomfort and distress at a time when she was a vulnerable victim of crime.  The experience has caused her to lose faith in the ability of police officers to keep her, or other women, safe.

Ms O’Connor complained about Mr Mason’s conduct in October 2020. In 2021 a Police Misconduct Panel found Mr Mason guilty of gross misconduct (conduct which amounts to a breach of the police standards of professional behaviour which is so serious that dismissal would be justified). Despite this, Mr Mason was served with a three-year final written warning; he was allowed to remain in post and keep his rank. In October 2022 he resigned.

Ms O’Connor’s claim for judicial review was heard over two days at the High Court in May 2023. Ms O’Connor argued that the police investigation into Mr Mason’s conduct was unlawful. She also challenged the decision of the misconduct panel not to dismiss Mason, which the Metropolitan Police itself did not support; their position was that officers who behave in this way have no place in the Metropolitan Police. There was a further hearing on 20 October 2023 after additional evidence emerged of further allegations about Mr Mason’s inappropriate behaviour towards women (which was not before the Misconduct Panel).

Mr Justice Swift dismissed the application for judicial review. He found the steps taken in the police investigation were reasonable and appropriate, and it did not matter whether it could have been conducted differently. Similarly, he concluded that a misconduct panel had not acted unlawfully in their decision that a final written warning was an appropriate penalty on the facts of this case.

Ms O’Connor’s appeal focusses solely on the dismissal of her claim for judicial review against the Police Misconduct Panel.

Note to Editors

The families are represented by Nancy Collins and Rebecca Argall of Bindmans LLP and by Maya Sikand KC and Rosa Polaschek of Doughty Street Chambers.