A police force’s decision to revoke an officer’s vetting status due to allegations made against him almost a decade earlier was “irrational”, the High Court has heard.

Joseph Quirke was arrested in November 2014, aged 18, after a 14-year-old girl alleged she had sent intimate pictures to him when he was 17.

No further action was taken against Mr Quirke and the investigation was closed by Avon and Somerset Police in 2015. He became an officer with the force in 2019.

But in January 2023 the force revoked his vetting status due to the allegations, meaning he cannot be signed off as a police officer.

Mr Quirke, now 28, has taken legal action against the constabulary, with his barrister telling the High Court on Tuesday that the decision was “irrational”.

The force is opposing the claim, with its lawyers telling the court the decision was “open to a reasonable decision maker”.

The court in London was told that Mr Quirke was arrested after a 14-year-old girl told a member of staff at her school that she had sent intimate photographs to him. The case against him was closed in January 2015 due to a lack of evidence.

Mr Quirke joined the force in 2019, with his vetting status granted on appeal having originally been refused.

He applied for a higher vetting status in 2022 which would have allowed him to carry out further duties. The application was later withdrawn but it led to a full review of his vetting status and its eventual revocation in January 2023 due to the allegations.

An appeal against the decision was later dismissed.

Kevin Baumber, for Mr Quirke, said in written submissions that the “credibility of the allegation was extremely poor” and that after the complainant was asked to provide her phone, police were told she had thrown it away.

He also said that the complainant alleged there were “further victims”, but these girls “emphatically denied” the claim when spoken to by officers.

Mr Baumber added that police had “not kept any record of that successful vetting process” and that “Pc Quirke served without adverse incident” from then on.

He concluded that it was “irrational” for police to conclude that the allegation “gave reasonable grounds for suspecting criminal conduct” which could warrant vetting clearance being revoked.

In court, when asked whether losing vetting meant someone could not work as a police officer, Mr Baumber replied: “The short answer is yes.”

He said people without vetting status could get jobs “counting paperclips”, but added: “The position taken by this and most forces… is that if one loses recruitment vetting, that renders one with an inability to do the job.”

Mark Ley-Morgan, for the force, said in written submissions that Mr Quirke did not answer questions while being interviewed after his arrest and that there were “reasonable grounds to suspect that he was guilty” at the time.

He added that “the purpose of vetting is to protect the public” and that “the fact that the matter was not progressed is not a ‘powerful’ reason to grant clearance”.

He said: “The claimant’s submission is, effectively, that no reasonable decision-maker could have suspected that the claimant had been involved in criminal activity. With respect, that submission is untenable.”

He continued: “The claimant is not suspected of minor shoplifting at the age of 13. He is suspected, when almost 18 years old, of asking a 14-year-old child to send him indecent images.

“The decision not to uphold the claimant’s appeal was not irrational. It was a decision that was open to a reasonable decision-maker to make.”

Mr Justice Fordham will give his judgment in writing at a later date.