Last updated 11:39, Friday, 16 May 2008

NINE detectives who tried to sue Cumbria police saying they were “recklessly” exposed to groundless disciplinary proceedings have had their compensation hopes dashed by a top judge.

The nine had faced disciplinary charges over claims that they “used police vehicles for private purposes” after a covert inquiry within the Cumbria force, codenamed Operation Pool, which is believed to have cost around £1.6m.

The investigation lasted three years before all the charges against the CID, Special Branch and Force Crime Squad officers were either abandoned or dismissed in April and June 2003, London’s High Court heard.

The officers sought up to £500,000 damages from the Chief Constable of Cumbria police, claiming the disciplinary charges were always “hopeless” and “should never have been brought”.

However, High Court judge Mr Justice Tugendhat yesterday struck out their damages claims – ruling they had no reasonable chance of success – and cleared the force of liability.

The judge, sitting in London, said: “Whatever the weaknesses of the expense charges, I see no real prospect of the claimants succeeding in showing that they were unlawful on the basis of unfair discrimination, and that the charges were pursued with knowledge that they were unlawful, or with subjective recklessness”.

The nine detectives had made “misfeasance in public office” accusations against three senior “named officers” involved in Operation Pool, for whose actions their lawyers argued the Chief Constable was “vicariously liable”.

Lawyers argued there were “numerous occasions when officers were authorised to, and did, take unmarked police vehicles to their home addresses for operational reasons” .

Six of the detectives were said to have been “subjected to surveillance” during Operation Pool and their lawyers argued there had been “inconsistency of treatment” between them and “numerous other officers” who had “engaged in the same practice”.

The nine claimed the disciplinary charges against them were “fatally flawed from the very start”.

But, striking out the misfeasance in public office claims, Mr Justice Tugendhat said that, even on the assumption that unlawful errors had been made, “subjective reckless indifference” on the part of the named officers was “not arguably the only possible explanation”.

The judge observed that the police are “immune” from straightforward negligence claims.

Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting in London, concluded: “I see no real prospect of the claimants proving that the named officers who made the impugned decisions were subjectively reckless in willfully disregarding a fatal flaw in their case.”

The detectives who brought the case against the Chief Constable were Detective Chief Superintendent Iain Goulding, Detective Superintendent Paul Carter, Detective Inspector Stuart Jardine, Detective Sergeant Bob Stafford and Detective Constables Stephen Hodgson, Paul Dugdale, Duncan Watson, John Whittle, and John Robson.

All but Mr Jardine, Mr Stafford and Mr Whittle are still serving in the force, either in the CID, Special Branch or the Force Crime Squad.