M, R (on the application of) v Commissioner Of Police For Metropolis

In judicial review, an internal guidance note need not impose a binding obligation before it becomes relevant to an operational decision. The question is whether the evidence shows an irrational or unprincipled failure to consider it and the competing operational factors. Guidance cannot override a rational assessment of safety, room availability and detention requirements. A declaration that a defendant acted unlawfully must identify the alleged unlawfulness with sufficient precision. A general policy challenge must be clearly formulated and pursued in proceedings directed to that policy, rather than inferred from an individual claimant’s experience.

These were applications for permission to appeal from the Divisional Court’s judgment of 13 July 2001. The applicants were M, a young boy, and Leon La Rose. M’s original complaints concerned refusal of bail and the provision of a suitable room for consultation with his solicitor. The Convention complaint was rejected below and was not pursued in the Court of Appeal. The remaining issue concerned an alleged failure to follow, or legitimate expectation arising from, a Metropolitan Police guidance note about solicitor-client consultation facilities.

La Rose complained about facilities for a private telephone conversation. The applications raised whether the individual decisions and alleged general police practices were unlawful, and whether the proposed declaratory relief was sufficiently identified.

Applications for permission to appeal refused. Lord Justice Buxton delivered the judgment, and Lord Justice Longmore agreed.

1. The status of an internal guidance document is not determined solely by whether it imposes a binding obligation. Even if it is a matter to be taken into account, the relevant question is whether the evidence reasonably demonstrates an irrational or unprincipled decision.
2. The Branch Note concerning solicitor-client consultation facilities was aspirational and hortatory, and lacked the authoritative provenance of a formal policy document. The evidence nevertheless showed that the officers had considered solicitor-client interests alongside health and safety, the availability of interview rooms, the need to conduct taped interviews and the risk of prolonging detention. The guidance note could not override those operational considerations.
3. There was no indication that an unlawful policy had been adopted at the Tottenham or Hornsey stations. The proposed declaration that the defendant had acted unlawfully was also insufficiently specific. Any general policy challenge would have to be identified more clearly and pursued in judicial review proceedings focused on the policy.
4. La Rose’s individual complaint was misconceived. The opportunity for a telephone conversation arose at his request and was sought for family convenience rather than because of a pressing legal need. The court would not permit a general challenge to police arrangements for private telephone calls to proceed on the facts of that case.

Permission to appeal was refused in both applications. Detailed assessment of the applicants’ community legal funding certificate was ordered.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Applications for permission to appeal were refused. The paper applications had previously been rejected by Lord Justice Longmore.
• Divisional Court, Queen’s Bench Division — The court rejected the Article 6 complaint and addressed the amended challenge concerning the alleged police policy and legitimate expectation.