Breaking The Monopoly
Breaking The Monopoly
Latest: Sept. 28, 2026
Permission granted: the case will proceed to a High Court hearing
I am pleased to share an important update in the Breaking the Monopoly campaign.
The High Court has granted permission for our Judicial Review to proceed on all grounds.
This is a significant step forw…
Read moreWho 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 9th 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
Lee Broadbent
Sept. 28, 2026
Permission granted: the case will proceed to a High Court hearing
I am pleased to share an important update in the Breaking the Monopoly campaign.
The High Court has granted permission for our Judicial Review to proceed on all grounds.
This is a significant step forward. It means that the Court has accepted that our challenge should proceed to a full hearing. A hearing date is now being explored for January 2027 onwards.
Permission to proceed is not the same as winning the case. The Court has not yet decided whether the current arrangements are unlawful. That decision will only be made after the substantive hearing.
However, this decision means that the arguments at the heart of this campaign have merit and will now be properly examined by the High Court.
For police officers in England and Wales, the issue is simple but important: why should they be prevented from choosing who represents them?
Police officers cannot strike. Their employment rights are restricted in ways that do not apply to most other workers. They carry significant responsibilities, exercise considerable powers and put themselves in danger to protect the public.
Yet, when it comes to representation, they are still tied to a system that gives one organisation a unique statutory position.
Choice matters because it creates accountability. It gives organisations an incentive to listen, improve and represent their members effectively.
That is the principle behind Breaking the Monopoly.
Reaching this stage has taken considerable time, effort and financial support. The case is being brought by myself and Gemma Fox, without the resources or funds available to those defending the existing system.
The next stage will involve further legal work and significant costs as we prepare for the High Court hearing.
I want to thank everyone who has supported the campaign so far. Every donation, message and share has helped bring us to this point.
If you are able, I am asking for your support and contribution now as we still need to raise the funds required to take it through to the hearing. Please donate whatever amount you can afford and share this update with colleagues, friends and anyone who believes that police officers should be trusted to choose who represents them.
Thank you for standing with us.
Lee Broadbent
Sept. 7, 2026
Our letter to the Policing Minister
There comes a point in every campaign when you have to assess the position as it is, rather than as you would like it to be.
For months, we have continued to make the case for reform directly to Government. We have argued that police officers should have a genuine choice in who represents them, that no organisation should enjoy a statutory monopoly indefinitely without having to retain the confidence of those it exists to serve, and that plural representation can be introduced while fully protecting the independence and political neutrality of policing.
Recent events have only made that case more pressing.
On 18 August, the City of London Police announced that four further people had been arrested as part of its ongoing investigation involving the Police Federation of England and Wales, concerning suspected fraud and bribery offences. Two of those arrested were serving police officers. Those arrests followed three earlier arrests in March as part of the same wider investigation.
It is important to be clear: arrests are not convictions, and nobody should prejudge the outcome of an active criminal investigation. But the wider question facing Government is no longer simply about the guilt or innocence of particular individuals. It is about whether the present system of police representation remains sustainable.
That question has already reached Parliament.
During the Westminster Hall debate on the effectiveness of the Police Federation on 15 April, Policing Minister Sarah Jones acknowledged Government frustration at the pace and scale of change within PFEW. She told MPs that the “status quo is not an option” and reiterated that the Government stood ready to bring forward reforms if necessary.
Since the further arrests in August, I have written again to the Policing Minister.
I have asked Government to meet with us and explore what a fair framework for plural representation could look like: appropriate thresholds for recognition, fair access to officers and workplaces, consultation rights, proper governance standards and safeguards protecting the operational and political independence of policing. A copy of the letter can be found at teh end of this update.
We remain ready to have that conversation.
But we also have to be realistic.
Despite everything that has happened, despite the concerns raised in Parliament, despite the Government's own acknowledgement that the status quo cannot continue, and despite the Minister previously saying that Government stands ready to act, there is still no clear political route to delivering choice.
I increasingly believe that a political resolution may not materialise.
Government may yet act, and our door remains open. But we cannot base this campaign — or the rights of thousands of police officers — on the hope that Ministers eventually decide to intervene.
That means we must now prepare properly for the Judicial Review.
Our challenge to section 64 of the Police Act 1996 goes to the heart of #BreakingTheMonopoly. It asks whether, in a modern democratic society, it remains lawful and proportionate to prevent rank-and-file police officers from having a meaningful alternative to the representative structure Parliament created more than a century ago.
We believe officers deserve that choice.
But taking on Government through the courts requires resources.
We have got this campaign this far because ordinary police officers, retired officers, families and members of the public have backed us. Every donation has allowed us to keep asking a question that would otherwise be very easy for the established system to ignore.
We now need to step that support up again.
If you believe police officers should have a choice in who represents them, please do three things:
- Donate to the Judicial Review fund, however much you can afford.
- Share this CrowdJustice page with colleagues, friends and anyone who believes monopolies should be accountable to the people they serve.
- Talk about the campaign. Every share, conversation and contribution demonstrates that the demand for change is not going away. If you are a serving or retired police officer you can also sign our petition here: Sign in Support: A Real Choice in Police Representation
This has never been about replacing one monopoly with another. It is not about destroying the Police Federation, and it is certainly not an attack on the thousands of dedicated local Federation representatives who support colleagues every day.
It is about something much simpler.
Choice.
Police officers exercise extraordinary powers on behalf of the public and accept restrictions on their own rights that almost no other profession is asked to accept. The very least they should expect in return is a meaningful say in who stands beside them when they need representation.
We have asked Parliament.
We have asked Government.
We have made the case for political reform.
Now we have to be ready to make that case in court.
Help us #BreakTheMonopoly. Please donate, share the campaign and help us take the next step.
Re: Police Federation of England and Wales – the case for choice in police representation
Dear Policing Minister,
I write following the announcement by the City of London Police on Tuesday 18th August 2026, that a further four individuals have been arrested as part of its ongoing investigation involving the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW), concerning suspected fraud and bribery offences. These arrests follow three previous arrests made in March 2026 concerning the CEO and two previous PFEW national secretaries.
I want to be clear from the outset that those arrested are entitled to due process. The investigation must be allowed to take its course, and I do not seek to prejudge either the individuals concerned or its eventual outcome.
However, Government cannot reasonably consider today’s developments in isolation from the much wider and longstanding concerns surrounding PFEW which currently enjoys a unique statutory position representing police officers in England and Wales.
I have written previously to the Home Office setting out concerns about the governance, culture, transparency and accountability of the PFEW. I have highlighted its history of failed reform, the loss of confidence amongst sections of its membership, and concerns surrounding financial transparency and governance.
Initially, I asked Government to intervene because I believed reform was necessary. More recently, I have argued that given the lack of intervention and further concerns highlighted within the PFEW’s own independent review, that a more radical approach is required and that the statutory monopoly currently enjoyed by PFEW should end allowing Police officers a choice of representative bodies.
The City of London Police investigation is now described publicly as a significant and complex investigation into allegations of fraud and bribery. Whatever the investigations eventual outcome, Tuesday’s developments inevitably create further questions around institutional confidence.
The question for Government therefore needs to change.
Rather than continuing to ask whether police officers have demonstrated a sufficient case to be given a choice of representation, I respectfully suggest the more appropriate question is now:
Has the PFEW demonstrated that it continues to deserve the exceptional statutory protection, confidence and support afforded to it by Government – and does it retain sufficient confidence amongst the police officers it exists to represent to justify denying those officers alternatives?
Choice does not mean dismantling the Police Federation. Nor does it require Government to determine that the PFEW has failed. It simply means recognising that, in a modern police service, no representative organisation should be insulated indefinitely from meaningful competition or member accountability by statute.
Plural representation would allow officers themselves to determine which organisation/s best represents their interests. It would create an incentive for all representative bodies, including the PFEW, to maintain the standards of governance, transparency, service and accountability necessary to retain the confidence of their members.
I do not ask Government to replace one monopoly with another. I simply ask for a framework within which credible representative organisations who can demonstrate sufficient support and satisfy appropriate standards of governance and accountability, are formally recognised and permitted to represent police officers on matters of pay, welfare, pensions and their terms and conditions of service. Organisations like the National Police Association.
I appreciate Governments nervousness on this topic and agree that there are legitimate questions which would need to be addressed: recognition thresholds, access to workplaces, facilities arrangements, consultation rights, safeguards around political independence, governance standards and the interaction with the existing statutory framework. But none of these questions are insurmountable. They are matters of policy design, and the National Police Association is ready to engage constructively on each of them.
The request for plural representation need not be approached as Government choosing between the PFEW, the NPA or any other police support network or association. That is precisely the choice Government should not have to make. But it should be a choice police officers are able to make.
At a time when policing faces significant challenges in maintaining public trust, let alone the confidence and trust of its workforce, the case for representative choice has never been stronger.
Choice drives accountability. Accountability builds trust. Trust strengthens policing.
I therefore request a meeting with you to discuss how Government and the National Police Association might work constructively together to explore a workable model for representative choice within policing.
I understand that I am not alone in making this request, and I am aware that several police staff support networks and associations have recently contacted your office highlighting similar concerns. In this regard, The NPA stands ready to work with Government, other support networks/associations, wider policing stakeholders and PFEW itself, to assist in building a model of plural representation routed in transparency, accountability and trust which is worthy or representing police officers across England and Wales.
I would also like to extend an invitation to you and your colleagues to our upcoming parliamentary drop in session on Tuesday 15th September 2026, between 11:00am–12:00pm in Room N, Portcullis House.
I look forward to meeting you soon.
Lee Broadbent
Dec. 15, 2025
The Case has now been issued and papers served on the Home Office
I have some important updates to share with you in relation to the progression of my Judicial Review. However, before I address each update, I want to thank those who have supported this campaign and who have kindly donated so far. Your support, both financial and in the encouraging messages you send, is truly appreciated.
The first update is that the case has now been issued and served on the Home Office.
Secondly, prior to issuing the case, we have reached agreement with the Home Office that each party will pay their own costs. This means that we no longer need to worry about the risk of having to pay the Home Office’s costs should the case go against us.
However, we do still need to raise significant sums to pay for the costs of our own legal team. Working with Leigh Day, who have agreed to vary the costs usually recovered in these types of claims we have adjusted the ‘stretch target’ down to £100,000, meaning we are almost a third of the way to fully funding this case.
We are expecting a response from the Home Office at the beginning of February before the court will go on to consider the claim for the first time.
Finally, I have been in conversation with Gemma Fox, former deputy national secretary for PFEW, and having discussed her concerns and experiences at length, I initiated a meeting between Gemma and my legal team. We believe Gemma adds significant evidence to this case, which supports our position and underscores the urgent need for police representative choice. As such, Gemma has joined the case as a second claimant and the funds generated so far, and from this point onwards, will also be used to cover jointly any costs associated with our claim.
I hope you will join me in both thanking Gemma for courage shown to raise her concerns and for providing additional evidence in support of this case.
We now need to press forward and increase our campaigning activity to raise the additional funds required to continue with this vital case. Please, if you can, donate today - like and share the various social media pages associated to this campaign, talk to your friends, family and colleagues about why this matters - spread the message and help us to #BreakTheMonopoly.
Recent contributions