Senior Met Police officer sacked over medicine check reinstated on attraction

A senior Metropolitan Police officer responsible for drawing up the force’s anti-drugs strategy – but who was sacked after he refused to provide a  drugs sample himself – was today successful in having the decision quashed.

The Independent Police Appeals Tribunal has overturned the decision to sack former Met Police Commander Julian Bennett, who served in the force from 1976.

He was originally found to have committed gross misconduct by failing to provide a urine sample for a drugs test on July 21, 2020.

But this week he launched an appeal against both the gross misconduct finding and his sacking.

On Friday, the independent Police Appeals Tribunal quashed the dismissal decision and ordered a new hearing. 

Met Police assistant commissioner Matt Twist said he was ‘very concerned’ by the decision and that the force would be looking to challenge it.

He added that his colleagues and the public would be ‘appalled’ that a final decision on Mr Bennett had not been arrived at.

Assistant Commissioner Twist also confirmed that his formerly dismissed colleague would not be returning to duty at this time.

On a social media post, he said: ‘I am very concerned by this decision and I have no doubt that the public and hardworking colleagues across the Met will be appalled that this case remains unresolved after such a long time.

‘It very clearly illustrates why reform of the misconduct process is so needed and why the Met has been calling for urgent change.

‘We await the written decision before determining our next steps, but we are actively considering a challenge by way of judicial review. 

‘Senior officers are expected to lead by example and Mr Bennett will not return to duty whilst we consider our options.’

Mr Bennett, who joined the force in 1976, had previously been cleared by a disciplinary panel of using cannabis at home in late 2019, but was found to have failed to provide a urine sample for a drugs test on July 21, 2020. 

As a result, he was suspended on full pay in July 2021 while police authorities began an investigation, which concluded at the end of October.

It was found that Mr Bennett’s actions in refusing the drug test amounted to gross misconduct and he was dismissed. 

His former flatmate Sheila Gomes claimed Mr Bennett had used the illicit substance daily before breakfast and leaving for work at New Scotland Yard, but the three-person panel rejected that allegation.

The panel also rejected an allegation that he had given an explanation for refusing a sample which he ‘knew to be untrue’.

After Ms Gomes reported Mr Bennett in July 2020, he was called in and, in the presence of an assistant commissioner, was asked to provide a sample. He offered to resign on the spot instead.

Mark Ley-Morgan KC, representing the Metropolitan Police, said it would have smacked of ‘organised corruption at the highest level’ if Mr Bennett had been allowed to resign on the spot.

The senior officer said he had been taking CBD (cannabidiol) to treat facial palsy and was worried the sample would come up positive for an innocent reason.

During the tribunal in Southwark, south London, Mr Bennett’s lawyer John Beggs KC branded Ms Gomes a ‘liar’ and a ‘fantasist’ who he said wanted to write a book about the claims and make money.

The tribunal also heard Ms Gomes was engaged in litigation about another matter and had litigated in Portugal, where she was born.

Mr Beggs also claimed she was being inconsistent by claiming she had seen a newspaper cutting mentioning Mr Bennett that did not refer to his work and said she had given an inconsistent account about whether the senior officer was smoking cannabis ‘from day one’ on moving in.

By failing to provide the sample, Mr Bennett was found to have breached force standards for honesty and integrity, orders and instructions and discreditable conduct. 

His actions were found to have amounted to gross misconduct.

Mr Bennett wrote the force’s drugs strategy for 2017-21 as a commander for territorial policing.

The document called Dealing With The Impact Of Drugs On Communities, set up plans to raise ‘awareness of the impact of drug misuse’.

Freedom of information requests showed Mr Bennett presided over 74 police misconduct hearings involving 90 officers between June 2010 and February 2012.

Out of the hearings involving Mr Bennett, 56 officers were dismissed – more than three-quarters.

He chaired 69 hearings during that time and two officers were dismissed for drug misuse, the figures showed.  

Allegations that he took magic mushrooms on holiday in France and LSD at a party were dismissed as hearsay by the panel during the summer’s tribunal hearing.

Those claims were made by Hugo Pereria, who lived with the complainant Sheila Gomes and Mr Bennett in late 2019, but the tribunal was told he ‘always lied’ before the panel threw out the claims.

Panel chairman Akbar Khan said: ‘It is highly improbable the officer believed he had a good reason for failing to comply with a lawful order.

‘Harm has undoubtedly been caused to the reputation of the Metropolitan Police Service.’

He added that Mr Bennett most likely decided to involve the ex-commissioner ‘to secure for himself high-level cover to deflect inevitable criticism and embarrassment that would come his way’.

The chairman also said that ‘if the goal of resignation was to avoid embarrassing’ the Met this was ‘unlikely to be achieved’.

Mr Khan said Mr Bennett’s behaviour was ‘deliberate and intentional, seeking a personal advantage or special treatment from the commissioner’ and that he would have had a ‘unique insight’ into what would have been a good reason to refuse a sample.

Outlining the panel’s reasons for sacking Mr Bennett, Mr Khan said he had ‘shown limited insight regarding the proven conduct’.

He said this may lead the public to be ‘concerned his mindset demonstrates an attitude of one rule for senior officers and a different rule for a lower rank officer’.

Speaking of Ms Gomes’s claims, the panel chairman said she ‘exaggerates’, ‘lies’ and that some of her claims were ‘entirely fabricated’.

He added: ‘Overall, the panel finds Sheila Gomes’s account to be unpersuasive and lacking in cogency.

‘Of particular importance are the panel’s findings that Sheila Gomes exaggerates and has lied significantly damages her credibility and reliability.

‘It is highly improbable that the officer smoked cannabis daily.’

By failing to provide the sample, Mr Bennett was found to have breached force standards for honesty and integrity, orders and instructions and discreditable conduct.

Assistant Commissioner Barbara Gray said at the time of his dismissal in October 2023: ‘Julian Bennett’s actions were deplorable. He was a senior officer and showed complete disregard and disrespect for the standards we must all uphold.

‘The public will justifiably be outraged that any police officer, but particularly one of such a senior rank, refused a lawful order to take a drugs test.

‘Commander Bennett was highly experienced and knew full well what was required of him, yet he made a choice not to cooperate. He could have been in no doubt of the professional standards required as he was responsible for chairing the misconduct hearings of numerous officers between 2010 and 2016.

‘His actions have further damaged not only the public’s trust in us as an organisation, but also the confidence of our own officers and staff in those who lead them.

‘The hearing panel was entirely independent of the Met Police, chaired by a legally qualified chair, a senior member of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services and an independent panel member. 

‘Throughout the proceedings no police officer was on the panel.

‘It is hard to comprehend that it has taken more than three years for this case to conclude. We welcome the Home Office’s recent police dismissals review which aims to address some of the pressing issues that have arisen in this case and many others.

‘In the last year the Met has been making greater use of accelerated misconduct hearings to fast track cases where the evidence is irrefutable. This allows us to dismiss officers far more quickly.’