Police officers respond to Home Secretary's attempt to block court challenge to 100-year-old ban on police union membership

In judicial review proceedings brought against the Home Office, the Home Secretary and PFEW have lodged Summary Grounds of Resistance asking the High Court to refuse permission for the claim to proceed. 

The claim, brought by serving officers Lee Broadbent and Gemma Fox, challenges the compatibility of the statutory ban in the Police Act 1996 with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to freedom of association, including the right to form and join trade unions. 

The officers argue that section 64 of the 1996 Act imposes a complete prohibition on police officers joining trade unions, negating their Article 11 rights. They contend that the ban cannot be justified in a modern democratic society and that it places the UK in breach of its international obligations. 

Following the government’s attempt to prevent the case proceeding, lawyers at law firm Leigh Day have filed a response (sent 24 February 2026) on behalf of the claimants, arguing that no “knock-out blow” has been identified that could justify refusing permission at this stage. 

In their summary grounds, the Home Secretary argues that trade unions are inherently political and that allowing police officers to join them would undermine political neutrality in policing. The government also contends that the PFEW provides an adequate substitute for trade union representation. 

However, in their response, the officers argue that this reasoning is inconsistent. They point out that the government itself relies on the fact that PFEW engages in campaigning and lobbying activity - including on mental health, regulation and police reform - which the government characterises as ‘political’ when undertaken by trade unions. 

The officers further argue that the government “cannot have it both ways” - if such activities are permissible for PFEW, they cannot logically justify a blanket ban on another trade union doing the same. 

Their response also highlights that the Home Secretary has acknowledged serious and ongoing concerns about PFEW’s governance, culture and effectiveness, including concerns about leadership and reform. The claimants argue that these admissions undermine the government’s claim that PFEW provides a real and effective substitute for independent union membership. 

They further contend that, unlike a trade union, PFEW is a statutory body whose structure, constitution, finances and membership are tightly controlled by regulations made by the Home Secretary under the 1996 Act, with its rules subject to ministerial approval. The claimants argue that this fundamentally distinguishes it from an independent trade union protected by Article 11. 

The officers argue that the case raises an important constitutional issue concerning the scope of fundamental rights and the limits of state control over police representation, which should be determined at a full hearing rather than dismissed at the permission stage. 

The claimants are represented by Leigh Day partners Mandy Bhattal and Tessa Gregory as well as solicitor Ellie Fawcett. 

Lee Broadbent said: 

“This case is about having a genuine, independent voice. Many officers feel that the current system does not represent the diversity of views within modern policing. We are not asking to strike. We are asking for the same basic right enjoyed by other workers - the right to choose whether to join an independent trade union. 

“It is disappointing that both the government and PFEW are trying to stop the court from even considering the arguments. We believe these issues are too important to be shut down at the first hurdle.” 

Mandy Bhattal, employment partner at Leigh Day, said: 

“The Home Secretary and the Police Federation are seeking to prevent this important case from even being heard. But permission should only be refused where there is a clear knock-out point. None have been identified. 

“This case concerns the essence of a fundamental democratic freedom - the right to form and join a trade union. A complete statutory ban on police officers exercising that right is an extreme measure. The government’s attempt to justify it rests on inconsistent reasoning and on the assertion that a statutory body, subject to ministerial control, is an adequate substitute for independent union representation. These are serious issues which deserve full consideration by the court.”