Overview
- The three-judge panel granted the Met’s appeal, ruling vetting is a forward-looking assessment of risk in which no specific past event needs to be proved.
- The court distinguished vetting from disciplinary hearings, saying disciplinary cases determine whether past events occurred on the balance of probabilities, whereas vetting evaluates future risk.
- The decision complements Home Office regulations introduced in 2025 that enable dismissal when vetting is lost, though the judges noted those regulations were not themselves before the court.
- The case stemmed from Sergeant Lino Di Maria’s challenge after his clearance was removed over sexual assault allegations he denies; he remains suspended while his case is reviewed under the new process.
- Backed by the College of Policing and the Home Office, the ruling supports the Met’s standards drive following Operation Assure, which led to 96 officers being sacked or resigning after vetting removals.