Broadbent v Police Federation
Explained
Tribunal Findings, Section 64, and the Future of Police Representation
Executive Summary
In Broadbent & Others v Police Federation of England and Wales (3207780/2020 and related claims), the Employment Tribunal examined whether the Police Federation unlawfully discriminated against and victimised members in the context of the police pension litigation following the 2015 reforms.
The Tribunal upheld elements of direct age discrimination and victimisation. Some claims failed. Others succeeded. The judgment has become a reference point in wider debates about police representation, governance, and Section 64 of the Police Act 1996.
This guide explains:
- • The pension background
- • What the Tribunal actually found
- • The remedy recommendations
- • The legal framework under Section 64
- • The Article 11 ECHR challenge
- • What this means for serving officers
1. Background: The 2015 Police Pension Reforms
To understand Broadbent, you must understand McCloud.
In 2015, the government introduced reformed public sector pension schemes. Transitional protections were offered to older members who were closer to retirement. Younger officers were moved into the new schemes.
Subsequent litigation (McCloud/Sargeant) determined that the transitional protections amounted to unlawful age discrimination. The consequence was a large-scale remedy programme affecting police pensions across England and Wales.
During this period, disputes arose about representation, legal strategy, and whether all cohorts of officers were being treated equitably in how the issue was pursued.
It is within this context that the Broadbent litigation emerged.
2. The Claim
The claimants, including Lee Broadbent and thousands of other officers, brought proceedings against the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW).
- Direct age discrimination
- Indirect age discrimination
- Victimisation
- Conduct relating to the handling of pension litigation
The Tribunal examined whether PFEW, as a representative body, had treated members less favourably because of age or because they pursued discrimination claims.
It is important to state clearly:
This was not a claim against the government pension reforms. It was a claim about representation and conduct.
3. What the Tribunal Found
The Employment Tribunal’s findings were extensive and fact-specific. The key outcomes were:
Direct Age Discrimination
Elements of the direct age discrimination claims succeeded. The Tribunal concluded that certain conduct in relation to representation and treatment of members amounted to unlawful discrimination on age grounds.
Victimisation
The Tribunal upheld aspects of the victimisation claims.
Victimisation under the Equality Act occurs when an individual suffers detriment because they brought or supported discrimination proceedings. The Tribunal found that some claimants were subjected to unlawful detriment connected to their protected activity.
Indirect Discrimination
Not all indirect discrimination claims succeeded. Some elements of the claim failed. This is critical for balance: the Tribunal did not uphold every allegation.
4. Scale of the Case
This was not a small individual grievance.
Regardless of the final outcome, the Broadbent litigation creates a permanent legal record of the "representation vacuum" that exists when a statutory monopoly fails to protect the individual interests of its members.
For many, the case reinforces the arguments made by alternative bodies like the National Police Association, who advocate for a more pluralistic model of representation that isn't bounded by the 1919 restrictions of Section 64.
Its scale elevated it from an employment dispute to a governance case study.
5. The Remedy Judgment (April 2025)
Following liability findings, the Tribunal issued recommendations.
Among the recommendations was the implementation of a policy or written practice requiring:
- Collection of anonymised data on protected characteristics
- Publication of a biennial demographic report
- Circulation of this data to members
The recommendation reflects the Tribunal’s concern about data transparency and equality impact. Tribunal recommendations under the Equality Act aim to reduce the likelihood of future discrimination. They do not automatically amend primary legislation.
6. Section 64 Police Act 1996
Section 64 provides that:
"A member of a police force shall not be a member of any trade union or association whose objects include influencing pay, pensions, or conditions of service, other than the Police Federation."
This provision dates from 1919, following the police strikes.
Police officers in England and Wales cannot join a conventional trade union.
They are represented by the Police Federation.
This creates a statutory monopoly model of representation.
Constitutional Basis
This case is a direct challenge to the statutory framework of Section 64 Police Act 1996.
Executive Summary
7. Article 11 ECHR – Freedom of Association
Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects:
- Freedom of peaceful assembly
- Freedom of association
- The right to form and join trade unions
However, Article 11 allows lawful restrictions for national security, public safety, prevention of disorder, or protection of rights of others.
The UK government’s longstanding position has been that prohibiting police union membership is necessary to preserve operational neutrality and public confidence.
The legal debate centres on proportionality: Is a blanket statutory prohibition proportionate in a modern democratic society?
That is a question ultimately for the courts.
8. Declaration of Incompatibility
Under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, courts may issue a declaration of incompatibility where primary legislation conflicts with Convention rights.
Important:
A declaration does not strike down legislation. It invites Parliament to reconsider.
If such a declaration were issued regarding Section 64, Parliament would decide whether to amend the law.
9. Government Position
In pre-action correspondence, the government has reportedly maintained that lifting the Section 64 prohibition could:
- Undermine political neutrality
- Risk politicisation of policing
- Reduce public confidence
This argument reflects historic concerns dating back to the early 20th century. Whether those concerns remain proportionate in 2026 is a matter of legal and political debate.
10. Institutional Governance Implications
The Broadbent case highlights structural questions extending far beyond one case. They go to the architecture of police workforce governance:
11. What Has Not Changed
- Despite the findings, Section 64 remains in force.
- The Police Federation remains the statutory representative body.
- Officers cannot currently join independent trade unions.
No immediate structural change.
12. What This Means For Officers
- Representation arrangements remain legally unchanged.
- Pension remedy implementation continues separately.
- The Section 64 challenge may proceed through judicial review.
- Reform requires court declaration or legislative amendment.
Operational rights remain intact.
13. Long-Term Matter
This case will be cited in future debates about staff association governance, equality compliance, Article 11 application, and the modernisation of employment law.
It represents one of the most significant examinations of internal police representation in decades.
14. Frequently Asked Questions
What did Broadbent v Police Federation decide?
The Employment Tribunal upheld aspects of direct age discrimination and victimisation claims against PFEW. Some claims failed.
Did it abolish the Police Federation?
No. Section 64 remains in force.
Can police officers join trade unions now?
No. The statutory prohibition still applies.
What is a declaration of incompatibility?
A formal court statement that legislation conflicts with Convention rights. It does not automatically change the law.
Does this affect pension payments?
No. Pension remedy implementation operates separately.
15. Linked Workforce Governance Guides
Explore our related deep dives into representation, positive action, and pay strategy.
Legal Disclosure: This guide provides independent explanatory analysis of publicly available tribunal documentation and statutory law. It is not affiliated with the Police Federation, Home Office, or any representative body.