High Court Rules Police Federation Suspensions Unlawful, Awards £840,000 Costs

The High Court ruled in January 2026 that the Police Federation unlawfully suspended two branch officials over remarks concerning race, costing the organization over £500,000 in legal fees. GB News reported that the federation paid £326,427 to solicitors and an additional £201,480 in barristers' fees, including costs for a King's Counsel.

With the federation now liable for the legal costs of the two officials, the total bill for the failed action is expected to reach approximately £840,000, all funded through officer subscriptions.

Rick Prior, former head of the Metropolitan Police Federation, and Richard Cooke from the West Midlands branch both successfully challenged their suspensions through judicial review. The suspensions prevented Prior and Cooke from standing in the 2025 Police Federation of England and Wales elections.

Documents obtained through freedom of information requests revealed these costs, as reported by GB News.

Prior appeared on television to warn that officers were growing increasingly anxious about using force, fearing unfounded racism complaints. ' The federation deemed his remarks potentially discriminatory and suspended him the following day. Prior was dismissed after telling The Telegraph he might expect better treatment in North Korea.

Cooke, who represents 7,000 West Midlands officers, was suspended after posting on X that he rejected claims of widespread racism and misogyny within his force. ' The High Court determined that the federation had breached both officials' Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

The judge concluded that as elected representatives, Prior and Cooke were entitled to speak on matters of public concern, including race relations, policing standards, and officer confidence.

The Police Federation, which represents 145,000 officers across England and Wales, initially lodged an appeal against the High Court judgment. In March 2026, the Police Federation announced it was abandoning the legal challenge. A crowdfunding campaign organized by the Free Speech Union enabled Prior and Cooke to bring their judicial review.

The federation engaged a leading law firm and prominent criminal barrister to contest the case. Cooke stated: 'What a waste of money this has been. ' Dr. Bryn Harris, chief legal counsel of the Free Speech Union, described the federation's defense as 'misconceived' and questioned how its 'obdurate and self-defeating stance' served the public interest.