Smyth, R (on the application of) v Police Complaints Authority

A statutory complaints authority does not err in law by omitting a later, separate complaint when deciding an earlier complaint, where the later complaint neither refers to the earlier incident nor asks to be considered with it. An investigation is not legally defective merely because the authority did not formally supervise it under its statutory power, where the authority directly examines the relevant records, actively assesses the evidence and reaches a reasoned conclusion. Permission to appeal should be refused where there is no arguable error of law, no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for an appeal.

The claimant sought permission to appeal from Harrison J’s judgment and order of 15 June 2001. The judge had refused permission to challenge by judicial review a decision of the Police Complaints Authority dated 16 October 2000.

The original complaint concerned the claimant’s arrest and treatment by police at the Benefits Agency on 24 May 2000. His subsequent witness statement also referred to an earlier incident in April. The Authority investigated both matters and rejected the allegations on the balance of probabilities. The claimant argued that it should also have considered a separate complaint concerning a further arrest on 18 July 2000, and that it had failed to supervise the investigation under section 72(1)(c) of the Police Act 1996. The central issue was whether either matter disclosed an arguable error of law.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Lord Justice Rix, found no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for granting permission. There was no order for costs.
2. The Authority was entitled to treat the complaint of 24 May 2000 as concerning the incidents identified in that complaint and the connected April incident raised in the claimant’s witness statement. The later letter of 28 July 2000 concerned a separate arrest on 18 July. It did not refer to the earlier incident or complaint and did not ask the Authority to consider the matters together. The Authority’s failure to mention that letter therefore disclosed no error of law.
3. The claimant relied on the Authority’s power under section 72(1)(c) of the Police Act 1996 to supervise an investigation. Although a document indicated that the investigation had not been referred to or supervised under the statutory provisions, the decision letter showed that the Authority had taken personal and active steps. It examined all relevant police records and assessed whether the evidence supported the claimant’s account and the complaint.
4. Those steps demonstrated that the Authority had properly addressed the complaints and exercised its statutory powers. The investigation was not shown to be unfair or a mere rubber-stamping exercise. The asserted absence of formal supervision did not establish an arguable error of law on the facts.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused. The court upheld the conclusion that there was no arguable error of law in the Authority’s decision or in Harrison J’s approach.
• Administrative Court: Harrison J refused permission on 15 June 2001 to challenge the Police Complaints Authority’s decision by judicial review.