Who am I? 

My name is Lee Broadbent and I’m a serving Police Officer with Greater Manchester Police and former Chair of the Greater Manchester branch of the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW). 

Summary 

I am seeking to challenge s.64 of The Police Act 1996, which provides that a member of a police force shall not be a member of any trade union, or any association having as one of its objects to control or influence the pay, pensions or conditions of any police force, other than the PFEW. This provision has been in law since 1919 and has no regard to the right of freedom of association. I argue that the current prohibition is incompatible with rights enshrined within Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights, specifically my right to choose and associate with a trade union of my choice, and I’m seeking a declaration of incompatibility. 

Why This Matters

Unlike most members of the public, and public servants, Police officers in England and Wales are denied the right to choose their own representative body. Under the Police Act 1996, we are forced into a single organisation, the Police Federation. PFEW is charged with representing Police Officers' interests on matters of pay, pensions, welfare, and conditions of service. One of their key roles is to protect and defend Police Officers who may find themselves subjected to poor working practices, bullying, discrimination, and victimisation.

In September 2022, I found myself in the unenviable position, as Chair of the Federation's Greater Manchester branch, giving evidence to an Employment Tribunal outlining how PFEW had discriminated and victimised me and thousands of my colleagues. The resulting judgement of Broadbent and Others v The Police Federation of England and Wales was excoriating in its findings.  It found that PFEW sought to deter and obstruct me and others from pursuing claims of discrimination against the Government, created ill-feeling towards us among the wider membership by producing and promoting misleading information, and engaged in negative campaigning against us. Worse still, the judgement found that PFEW was not just motivated by a difference in policy, but by personal animus and that it had formed the opinion those seeking to challenge it and the government, were the enemy within. The full judgement can be read here Mr_L_Broadbent___Others_-v-_Police_Federation_of_England_and_Wales_-_3207780_2020___Others_-_Judgment.pdf

On the 9^th April 2025 the court issued a judgement on remedy and made a number of recommendations including the following: 

Within 6 months of the Employment Tribunal making these recommendations, PFEW will put in place a policy or written practice, under which PFEW commits to the following:

 a) to collect and circulate anonymised data on the protected characteristics of PFEW members; 

b) such information to take the form of a report to all members produced every 2 years; 

c) such information to be on their website and made available to Claimants.

To date this recommendation has not been complied with which means  that  PFEW still do not have a full understanding of its membership demographics and needs. It was this lack of information and due diligence around membership data and commitment to accurate equality impact assessments, which proved a key failing in its original decision not to challenge discriminatory pension changes and which could lead to similar mistakes being made now.   It is extremely disappointing, though not surprising, that that the PFEW continues to fail its membership in this way.

It has been widely acknowledged and accepted that Police Officers deserve and have a right to expect strong and effective representation. Such representation is not only in the interests of Police Officers but also in the interest of the wider public who would expect that proper attention is given to the voices of the rank and file to ensure an efficient and effective police service. Where Police representation is weak and ineffective, it results in a demoralised, poorly rewarded, and despondent police workforce, and allows poor policing behaviours, practices, and cultures to go unchallenged, as highlighted in the Casey, Angiolini, and Macpherson reports.

Like many, my trust and confidence in PFEW has been shattered and I feel utterly betrayed by an organisation charged with acting in my best interest. Yet, perversely, I have no other option but to keep subscribing to its services or find myself navigating the complex policing landscape without the support or backing of a staff association.   How is this acceptable?

But this sense of betrayal and lack of choice is not solely confined to those of us who challenged the PFEW’s discriminatory behaviours. Scores of female officers have recently expressed their dissatisfaction with the Federation, particularly in cases where it has defended officers accused of sexual crimes, highlighting a glaring and unacceptable lack of support for those colleagues who raise complaints.

In PFEW’s most recent review the panel dedicated an entire section to the toxic culture within PFEW, noting:

“We have also heard distressing claims of misogynistic behaviour within the Federation which we are told has had severe impacts on women police officers and Federation officers, undermining their work within the Federation and making it an unsafe and toxic environment for them. It is particularly worrying that a member organisation which fights for equality in the workplace faces allegations of unacceptable behaviours and attitudes which discriminate against women.

This behaviour raises a serious question, which I recently asked the Home Affairs Select committee to investigate: If representatives of the PFEW are actively involved in sexist, misogynistic and bullying behaviours, how can its membership, police forces and indeed the public have any confidence in its abilities and public duty to safeguard some of its more vulnerable members and be a credible voice capable of driving improvements across policing? 

What am I trying to achieve? 

I’m inviting the Government to review the archaic provisions set out within s.64 of The Police Act 1996 and to take steps to secure its repeal and implement consequential statutory amendments allowing police officers to join and or form their own trade unions and/or staff associations, just like most other public servants and members of the public. 

If we can break the monopoly and reach a position where Police Officers are free to join a union of their choice (or, indeed, establish their own union), we will be empowered, through that choice and competition, to access representation which better reflects the needs and priorities of Police Officers today.    Choice will mean that we can choose representation which comes without the ties, conflicts of interests and establishment group think which has come to mark out the PFEW. It will also ensure that there is competitive pressure on such associations to be efficient and effective. 

I believe my request aligns with the Governments general position on enhancing the rights and protections of workers, as set out in its implementation road map concerning the Employment Rights Bill. With political will, amendments could be made to this Bill which would bring about the changes I seek at minimum cost and disruption to all involved. 

Where there is no political will to make this change, I will ask the court for a declaration of incompatibility under s.4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The legal case – through my legal team, I have already written to the Home Office in line with the pre-action protocol for judicial review, asking it to make this change to the legislation.  In a formal response to my pre-action letter, the government has declined to do so.  The government’s main argument is that to do so would undermine the political neutrality police officers and risk undermining public confidence in the police force.  This is the essential basis on which the government refuse to act and prefer the status quo.

In my view, this justification makes no sense and concerns about political neutrality can be addressed in other ways. 

I have been advised that whilst any challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998 to primary legislation is difficult, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights is in my favour and that the current law is not compliant with Article 11. However, only a court can decide this. A challenge in the courts could succeed, although there risks of failure are also substantial. In my view, this is an issue of real importance and that the matter needs to be considered and addressed by the Courts to test and vindicate the rights of police officers.  

If we are successful in our legal arguments that the current legislation breaches Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), we will ask the court for a “declaration of incompatibility” under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.  

While this in itself will not change the law, the government will need to amend the legislation to ensure that it is in compliance with its international law obligations.  Happily, the UK government has always taken these obligations seriously and has always acted to amend primary legislation declared to be incompatible with Convention Rights. 

So there is good reason to think that my case will be successful and that, if so, it will lead to meaningful change for police officers.

Why my fundraising is so important

Thanks to previous donations and support we have been able to fund all stages so far. However, if I am to bring the legal case to Court I will need considerable further financial resources.  A judicial review in the High Court is a very expensive process.  I am exploring the possibility of obtaining a costs cap to limit the legal costs that I could be subject to if the claim is dismissed and my legal team are prepared to reduce and limit their own costs.  Nevertheless, I need to raise funds for the claim in order to take it forward. This is because a costs cap cannot be imposed unless the claim passes the permission stage. Whilst I am confident that the claim will be granted permission, if it is not, I could be liable for the government’s costs of defending the claim to that point. Moreover, in order to obtain a costs cap, I need to raise a reasonable amount of funds which could be used to pay the government’s costs if the claim is ultimately unsuccessful. On top of this, I need to pay lawyers to prepare and bring the claim, although they will act at significantly reduced rates. 

My aim now is to crowd fund in order to reach our stretch target of £150,000 which will I hope will enable me to pursue a judicial review to its conclusion.   

Without your help I simply won’t be able to afford to bring this case and we will be stuck with the current situation in perpetuity.  If I can successfully run this challenge then we may finally see this antiquated restriction lifted and see proper high quality representation available for all police officers.

Were the claim to succeed the government may become responsible for some or all of our costs.  In this event there may be funds left over.  They will either be donated to an access to justice charity or repurposed for another appropriate case on the Crowdjustice website.   I would not receive any of the funds donated in any circumstances. 

Thank you for supporting this campaign and making a donation to bring about change. 

Lee Broadbent