Lee Broadbent and Gemma Fox are seeking to overturn section 64 of the Police Act 1996, which prevents police officers from belonging to any trade union aside from the statutory Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW). 

The pair are seeking a declaration from the High Court that the current law is incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to freedom of association, including the right to form and join trade unions. 

The restriction on union membership dates back to the Police Act 1919, introduced in the wake of police strikes after World War One. Mr Broadbent and Ms Fox argue this historical restriction is no longer justifiable in a modern, democratic society. 

A Pre-Action Protocol letter previously sent by lawyers at Leigh Day to the Home Secretary had signalled intent to apply for a judicial review if the government did not act to repeal section 64 of the act, which the claimants argue is not fit for purpose and fails to provide adequate representation for officers. 

In her response, dated August 29, 2025, the Home Secretary accepted that section 64 interferes with officers’ Article 11 rights by preventing them from associating through any body other than then PFEW. She however characterised the interference as “limited” – asserting that allowing police officers to join trade unions would undermine the political neutrality required of the police service. 

The claimants have now officially served proceedings seeking permission to apply for a judicial review, and to grant a declaration under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that section 64 is incompatible with Article 11 of the ECHR. 

The legal challenge follows a successful employment tribunal in which Mr Broadbent and other officers were found to have been discriminated against and victimised by the PFEW for pursuing claims related to changes to police pensions. The judgment revealed a toxic internal culture and governance failings within the federation, reinforcing concerns that it is not a credible or effective representative body for officers. 

The claimants are represented by Leigh Day partners Mandy Bhattal and Jamie Beagent, as well as solicitor Ellie Fawcett. 

Mr Broadbent, an officer with Greater Manchester Police, said: “Legal arguments may use terms like ‘union’ and ‘unionisation’ to reflect legislative language, but at its core my case is about freedom of choice. This is not a trojan horse for securing a right to strike, nor an attempt to erode the political neutrality of the Office of Constable. It is simply a call for parity: that police officers be granted the same right to plural representation enjoyed by almost every other worker in the UK.” 

Ms Fox, who served as PFEW’s Deputy National Secretary from 2022 to 2025, said:  “The second independent review into the Police Federation lays bare a culture that has caused real harm, particularly to female officers and representatives. As someone who has served within the federation, I have seen first-hand how these behaviours undermine trust and create an unsafe environment. Yet, as a serving officer, I have no choice but to pay subscriptions to an organisation that has been found to act in this way. This challenge is about restoring that choice – the ability for officers to seek representation that reflects their values and safeguards their wellbeing.” 

Mandy Bhattal, employment partner at Leigh Day, said: “A blanket prohibition on police officer forming or joining a trade union is outdated and unjustifiable. There is no justifiable reason why police officers should be treated differently from firefighters, doctors, or prison staff, all of whom can unionise. The Home Secretary has already accepted that section 64 interferes with Article 11 rights. Our clients say that a total ban cannot be justified.”