South Yorkshire's former Chief Constable, David Crompton, has won a legal challenge over his sacking.
Lawyers for the police chief took the case to the High Court claiming there was no 'fair or reasonable basis' for taking the 'draconian' step of forcing him out of his job after the inquests into the deaths of 96 football fans in the Hillsborough disaster.
Lady Justice Sharp and Mr Justice Garnham, sitting in London today, ruled in Mr Crompton's favour.
The judges quashed a number of decisions made by the commissioner.
They ruled that the 'final decision to require the Chief Constable's resignation was wholly disproportionate'.
South Yorkshire's Police and Crime Commissioner, Dr Alan Billings, suspended Mr Crompton then called for his resignation following a statement he issued after the inquests.
A jury concluded that police conduct contributed to or caused the deaths of the football fans in the stadium disaster in 1989 and the families of those who died complained that a line of questioning by South Yorkshire Police during the inquests was designed to try and blame the fans.
After the inquests, Mr Crompton appeared to justify the questioning of the fans' conduct.
Dr Billings said the statement showed Mr Crompton did not 'grasp the gravity of the situation' and that it was 'insensitive and damaged both the force and the Chief Constable himself'.
But Mr Crompton challenged the decision and took his case to judicial review in the High Court.
Hugh Davies QC, representing Mr Crompton, who had intended to retire in November 2016 after 30 years' service, stressed he was not involved in his force's underlying failures at Hillsborough 27 years earlier or its response to the disaster.
Nor was he implicated in any of the jury's adverse findings.
As chief constable in 2012, he made a public apology on behalf of the force following the findings of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, which laid bare a police cover-up after the disaster.
Asking the High Court to quash the decision to sack Mr Crompton, his barrister said: "The claimant submits that the defendant had no fair or reasonable basis for taking the draconian step of forcing him out of office, and that the decision was unlawful."