Miles & Anor, R (on the application of) v Kent Police Authority & Anor

In judicial review proceedings, the court examines whether a public authority’s decision was unlawful or Wednesbury unreasonable. A complaint may be treated as repetitious where the statutory criteria for dispensing with further investigation are satisfied. The court may refuse permission to appeal where there is no real prospect of success. A litigant in person has a right to an oral hearing of a renewed permission application, but no right to have the application first determined on paper. Where several related applications arise from the same unsuccessful challenge, they may properly be dealt with at one oral hearing to avoid wasted judicial time.

Mr and Mrs Miles sought judicial review of decisions by the Kent Police Authority and the Police Complaints Authority concerning complaints against police officers, authority officials and authority members. The complaints included allegations that earlier investigations had been mishandled and that further complaints should be investigated.

Jackson J dismissed the challenges, holding that the complaints were substantially repetitious, that the relevant statutory procedures had been properly applied, and that there were no arguable grounds for judicial review. The applicants sought permission to appeal and made related applications concerning paper consideration, stays and a procedural direction. The central issues were whether the decisions were unlawful or irrational, whether the complaints could properly be dispensed with as repetitious, and how the permission applications should be handled.

1. Applications and appeal. The application for permission to appeal Jackson J’s judgment was refused. The other applications were also refused and the appeal was dismissed. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
2. The applicants’ argument that the Police Complaints Authority lacked power to deal with the complaints was unfounded. The relevant procedures under Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Part IV of the Police Act 1996 were, for present purposes, the same. Any differences between the statutory schemes were not engaged.
3. Judicial review was concerned with whether the impugned decisions were wrong in law or Wednesbury unreasonable. The evidence could not sustain the allegations that the police officers or officials had knowingly misled the applicants or had committed an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
4. Under section 3(1)(a)–(d) of the Schedule to the Police (Anonymous, Repetitious etc. Complaints) Regulations 1985, the criteria for dispensing with investigation on the ground that a complaint is repetitious had to be satisfied. On the evidence and correspondence, it was lawful for the Police Complaints Authority to grant the requested dispensations. The complaints against the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable were substantially repetitious of the earlier complaints against Detective Inspector Croucher.
5. There was no right to have a permission application determined on paper before an oral hearing. A litigant in person was ordinarily assisted by an oral hearing, and the applicants had exercised that right. In the circumstances, dealing with the related matters at one oral hearing was proper. The procedural error in describing an application as renewed was immaterial, and the conclusion that the case had no merit was correct.
6. Permission was refused because there was no real prospect of any appeal succeeding. Granting permission would also expose the applicants to the substantial costs of an unsuccessful appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Miles & Anor, R (on the application of) v Kent Police Authority & Anor, [2001] EWCA Civ 236. Permission to appeal was refused, the related applications were refused, and the appeal was dismissed.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Jackson J dismissed the judicial review challenges and held that there were no arguable grounds for attacking the respondents’ decisions.