Cebelle Dawson, who served as an officer for five years, is now seeking judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of Police to terminate her employment.The Bermuda Police Association was also listed as a respondent in the legal action, but the group was “struck-out” of the action on the grounds that it has no statutory power to involve itself with disciplinary proceedings.In a hearing on July 16, Supreme Court heard Ms Dawson became a police officer in 2008. She had no material blemishes on her disciplinary record until June 23 when she was summoned to a meeting with the Assistant Commissioner and a superintendent.During the meeting, she was told for the first time that it was believed, based on credible evidence, that she was having an intimate relationship with someone described as a “senior gang leader”.While the respondent in the matter, the Commissioner of Police, claims Ms Dawson admitted the misconduct during the meeting, Ms Dawson claims she did not.At the end of the meeting Ms Dawson tendered her resignation without being first offered the opportunity to seek legal advice.If the allegations against her were true, the breach was potentially serious enough to justify her dismissal, but according to the Police (Disciplinary) Orders 1975 an officer facing such an allegation has 24 hours to inform the investigating officer if they admit or deny the allegations.Chief Justice Ian Kawaley wrote in a July 19 ruling the respondent claims to have “compelling evidence” incriminating Ms Dawson, while Ms Dawson claims to have a coherent and straightforward response.Mr Justice Kawaley said during the hearing it became clear that, due to the disputed facts of the case, cross-examination of the applicant and two senior police officers would be required.However, on the Court’s own motion, the Chief Justice decided to tackle a preliminary issue and determine, based on the agreed facts, if the applicant’s resignation was unlawful because it contravened statutory protections.He wrote the 24-hour period granted in the Police (Disciplinary) Orders was designed to provide the officer with reasonable opportunity to consider their response to serious allegations.But he said the requirements could be modified by “exceptional or special circumstances by virtue of which fairness was clearly not compromised”.Mr Justice Kawaley wrote in his conclusion: “It appears from the evidence presently before the Court that a breach of paragraph 3(4) of the Orders did occur based on the agreed facts.“On the other hand, it is far from clear that the procedural irregularity was sufficiently serious to justify a formal finding that the purported resignation was of no legal effect.”As a result, the Chief Justice granted leave to cross-examine all deponents on their affidavits, postponed any final determination and directed the parties to submit agreed dates for a continuation of the hearing.A Police spokesman said yesterday that the service will not comment on the matter as it is before the courts.