Case Explained: Katy Bourne proposes legal action over no confidence vote – Legal Perspective

The Sussex Police and Crime Panel (SPCP) conducted a vote of no confidence and a formal censure on January 30.

It came after commissioner Katy Bourne attended a march against the use of a former army barracks in Crowborough to house asylum seekers.

Panel members expressed concern that her actions could undermine her ability to remain an impartial “listening ear” in her role as commissioner.

Following the vote, Ms Bourne accused panel members of harassment and intimidation. She said she was “surprised” by the decision and that she will continue in her role “to be the voice of the public in policing…without fear or favour”.

Now, a spokesman for the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner’s office has said Ms Bourne has taken legal advice and sent a notice of proposed judicial review regarding the no confidence and censure decision.

The full statement reads: “I can confirm that the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner has taken legal advice and instructed our solicitors to contact the legal advisor to the Sussex Police and Crime Panel (PCP) to issue a notice of proposed Judicial Review of the decision of the Sussex Police and Crime Panel to censure the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner at the meeting at County Hall in Lewes on January 30.

“We are advised this procedure was outside of the Police and Crime Panel’s statutory authority, not in accordance with natural justice and was in breach of Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“We await a response to that letter of notice.”

A spokesman for the Sussex Police and Crime Panel said: “We have now received correspondence from the commissioner’s representatives, to which we will be responding fully in due course.”

Councillor Andrei Czolak, chairman of the panel, said: “I have been made aware of the Office for the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner correspondence. I personally believe the allegations to be baseless.

“In response to the SPCP decision to censure her, the commissioner has accused panel members of harassment and intimidation and is now seeking to question the legality of that decision.

“The panel will await the outcome of this notice and will continue to discharge its statutory responsibilities of scrutiny robustly, lawfully and in the public interest.”