John de Bono

CALLED TO THE BAR 1995

Junior Counsel

Police Profile

Background

1990 Downside School
1993 1st Class Honours, Oxford University, Philosophy and Theology
1994 CPE, De Montfort University, Leicester, (placed 1st)
1995 ICSL, called to the Bar

Email: jdebono@3serjeantsinn.com

Directory Comments

John is recommended in police law and clinical negligence by leading legal directories Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500.

"John de Bono is singled out for the speed of his responses to clients and his "concise, no-nonsense approach." He is well known for his work in disciplinary tribunals and judicial reviews and has also developed a niche practice in handling cases involving corruption. His recent work includes acting for Merseyside Police in a case involving an officer accused of diverting high-value counterfeit cigarettes. Chambers and Partners 2012

'John de Bono remains a respected expert and an increasingly renowned name in police disciplinary proceedings and judicial review matters. He recently represented Merseyside Police in a corruption trial against two constables accused of offering a prisoner sex/drugs in return for confessing to motor crime offences.'.... Chambers and Partners 2011

"...'first rate', 'responsive' and a 'brilliant advocate'..." Legal 500 2010

John de Bono is considered to be “reliable counsel.” Chambers and Partners 2010

John de Bono continues to build an impressive practice with an emphasis on disciplinary work. He has particular interest in judicial review and public law generally. Chambers and Partners 2010

'...“star of the future” John de Bono has won some challenging medium and high-value cases. He is admired for his “enthusiastic, pleasant style,” and for his “well-prepared advocacy and sound judgement.”' Chambers & Partners 2009

"...able to identify and deal with the crux of a claim simply and efficiently..." Legal 500 2008

Nature of Practice

Police discipline

John has considerable experience of acting as presenting counsel in disciplinary hearings. In the past 12 months he has appeared in misconduct panels involving issues including corruption, theft, racism and sexual harassment. John's recent cases include acting on behalf of Merseyside Police in a lengthy corruption trial against two constables accused of offering a prisoner sex/drugs in return for confessing to motor crime offences. He also provides advice to panels.

Judicial review

John has a particular interest in judicial review and public law generally. He regularly acts for the police in High Court challenges including attempts to quash cautions and in relation to the investigation of complaints.

Civil actions involving the police

John has wide experience of defending Police Forces in civil jury trials.

Reported and other cases of Interest

Chief Constable of Merseyside v PCs Heath and Turner [misconduct hearing 2007, PAT 2009] Lengthy corruption hearing against two officers accused of offering a prisoner sex/drugs in return for confessing to motor crime offences.
Aru v. Chief Constable of Merseyside Where judicial review proceedings were initiated in the High Court following the administration of a police caution, the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of the High Court. The consequent inability of the appellant to bring such an appeal was not a breach of his human rights.
CA (Civ Div) (Maurice Kay LJ, Longmore LJ, Waller LJ) (2004) 1 WLR 1697, CA
R. on the application of Wilkinson v. Police Complaints Authority and Chief Constable of Merseyside Police. 19.3.04, Gage. J. Where the police complaints authority had dispensed with the investigation of a complaint under Police (Dispensation of Requirement to Investigate Complaints) Regulations 1985 it had the power to later revoke its decision and continue the investigation.
F v. Crown Prosecution Service and Merseyside Police It was only in exceptional circumstances that the police should administer a final warning or a reprimand under s.65 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 when the accused had already been charged and had appeared before a court.
DC (Rose LJ, Jackson J) 12/12/2003
R v. Liverpool City Council ex parte Barry A local authority did not act unlawfully by creating a mandatory door attendants` registration scheme. It was unlawful, however, for the authority to charge a fee for registering with the scheme.
CA (Civ Div) (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers MR, Kennedy LJ, Dyson LJ) 21/3/2001
(2001) LGR 361 : Independent, April 4, 2001