Police lose pay award court fight

Police officers have lost their High Court fight to force the government to backdate a 2.5% pay award.

The government's refusal to fully implement the rise in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from September 2007 means its worth falls to 1.9%.

The Police Federation - which can now appeal - said Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had approached the issue "with a closed mind" and acted unlawfully.

But High Court judges said Ms Smith had not acted unlawfully.

The decision does not apply to Scotland because Scottish ministers had accepted an earlier decision of the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT) and awarded the rise in full.

"We want to fight crime and criminals, we don't want to fight the home secretary - we should never have been put in this position"
Paul McKeever, Police Federation

Q&A: Police pay dispute

Two judges in London heard that the decision not to backdate the rise had resulted in a £200 loss in average pay in the current pay year.

The police were given 14 days in which to lodge notice of appeal.

In making their ruling, Lord Justice Keene and Mr Justice Treacy recognised that police officers were in "a difficult position over pay" and were denied the right to strike.

Ms Smith said: "This was a difficult decision, but one I stand by.

"It was important to ensure that pay settlements are affordable and consistent with government pay policy in the interests of keeping the cost of living under control for families across the country."

Chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales Paul McKeever, said police were "extremely disappointed" with the decision.

"We did not take the decision to bring this matter to court lightly, but the failure of the home secretary to fight our corner in government and her unwillingness to accept and implement findings of an independent police arbitration tribunal left us with no choice," he said.

"We take heart that we have won the moral case.

"This has been demonstrated by the tremendous support shown by the public and politicians of all political parties who have voiced their anger and concern at the way this government has treated police officers across the UK."

In December the chairman of the home affairs select committee, Keith Vaz MP, urged the home secretary to "honour the terms of the independent tribunal", which called for a 2.5% rise.

It should be backdated, he said, adding that it was a "question of trust".

In a statement Mr McKeever added that the home secretary's action had shown the government could impose whatever pay award they wished on the police, regardless of negotiations and independent recommendations.

"We are police officers. We want to fight crime and criminals. We don't want to fight the Home Office and the home secretary. We should never have been put in this position by the Home Office in the first place," he said.

Speaking outside the High Court he told BBC News: "We don't have any other employment rights. We are unique in that sense and we expect to be treated fairly by our home secretary."

Industrial rights

Last month officers in England and Wales voted by a large majority to lobby the government for the right to strike.

And in January more than 20,000 officers marched on Westminster in protest at the pay decision.

Mr McKeever said they would meet with colleagues and their legal team on Thursday to decide what to do next.

Aiming to restore their industrial rights would be one option, he said, adding that more protests could not be ruled out.

"We don't want to go have to down that road, but we do have a very clear mandate from our members that if it's necessary we will follow that course of action," he said.

The judicial review application was brought by Police Federation general secretary John Francis and the staff side of the Police Negotiating Board (PNB).

They said police forces around the country had a "legitimate expectation" that they would receive the full 2.5% increase recommended by the PAT.

But Lord Justice Keene said police could only expect that the home secretary would not "lightly set aside a PNB recommendation or PAT award, but will only do so for good reasons".

He ruled that Ms Smith had reasons she rightly regarded as being of greater weight than the PAT award.

"She explained those reasons with sufficient clarity," he said.