Police Federation

FOI 00440 - ESPC hearing cost and expenses


Request:

Received: 8 May 2025

Question 1: 

Please provide details of the financial spend (both costs and expenses to include anything deemed to as internal spend) incurred by PFEW and third parties during the investigation , hearing and appeal of ex Metropolitan Branch Chair Rick Prior which has taken place in 2025. 

Spend should include but not be limited to:

Food

Accommodation

Mileage

Expenses claimed by or paid to all hearing panel members

Legal costs

Please provide this spend separated into PFEW and 3rd party costs and broken down by each phase:

1.            investigation

2.            hearing and

3.            appeal

Question 2:

Also include the breakdown by approximate hours spent on each phase separated into  PFEW and 3rd parties and broken down into each phase:

1.            investigation

2.            hearing and

3.            appeal

Please also provide the total number of hours dedicated by external solicitors, advisors and any of the inhouse legal team.


Response:

Responded: 11 August 2025

Response 1:

Please note that the PFEW cannot provide details of the appeal as this section of the investigation remains in progress.

  Investigation (£) Hearing (£)
PFEW 0.00 1,031.18
3rd party 20,444.40 16,996.80

Third party external legal advisors agreed an estimated cost based on the anticipated amount of hours was agreed. Their role was as independent investigators, not in the capacity as instructed lawyers to act on the interests of PFEW. 

The figures above relate to the suspension appeal of 31st October 2024 and the ESPC Panel Hearing of 17th April 2025. 

Response 2: 

Individuals working at the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) do so as part of their daily roles. Therefore, the hours that they have spent on this, or any other, particular matter is not recorded in a breakdown by hour 

As to the number of hours spent by external legal advisors, an estimated cost based on the anticipated amount of hours was agreed. Their role was as independent investigators, not in the capacity as instructed lawyers to act on the interests of PFEW. 

 

We use cookies on this website, you can read about them here To use the website as intended please... ACCEPT COOKIES