R (Thompson) v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code C, a non-accredited or probationary legal representative may be excluded only where a superintendent or above considers that the visit will hinder the investigation of crime. That assessment must relate to the particular investigation. Senior officers may give general advice, including about character, but may not impose a blanket ban which pre-empts the individual officer’s decision. The police must secure access to independent legal advice; responsibility for its independence and quality lies primarily with the solicitor and professional bodies. Personal discomfort, contact with witnesses, or possible prejudice to other proceedings does not justify exclusion absent likely interference with the particular investigation.

The Crown appealed against Gibbs J’s dismissal on 20 July 2000 of an application for judicial review. The claimant, a dismissed former police officer registered as a probationary solicitor’s representative, had been excluded by the Deputy Chief Constable from every police station in Northumbria pending his Home Office appeal. The exclusion relied on concerns about independence, character, access to witnesses, and possible prejudice to investigations. The central issues were whether those concerns justified refusing access under Code C, paragraph 6.12, and whether a blanket exclusion was lawful.

1. Disposition. Lord Woolf CJ gave the leading judgment. May LJ and Jonathan Parker LJ agreed. The appeal was allowed and the Deputy Chief Constable’s direction was quashed. The formal order awarded costs and dismissed the damages claim.
2. Statutory and regulatory framework. The Chief Constable’s wide power of direction and control under section 10 of the Police Act 1996 had to be exercised consistently with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Code C. Code C protected access to independent legal advice and tightly constrained police intervention.
3. Individual investigation required. Under Code C, paragraph 6.12, a non-accredited or probationary representative had to be admitted unless a superintendent or above considered that the visit would hinder the investigation of crime. The relevant decision belonged to the officer responsible for the particular investigation. General advice from senior officers was permissible, including advice about character under paragraph 6.13, but it could not pre-empt the individual decision or create a blanket exclusion.
4. The Court followed the reasoning of R v The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset, ex parte Robinson [1989] 1WLR793. The court responsible for the individual investigation had to assess the risk in its factual context. Concerns about the quality or independence of advice were primarily matters for the solicitor and professional bodies, not the police. The police’s responsibility was to provide access, intervening only where attendance was likely to hinder the investigation.
5. Personal discomfort, possible contact with witnesses in the claimant’s disciplinary appeal, lack of trust, and possible prejudice to that appeal did not justify exclusion where interference with the particular criminal investigation was not likely and the representative was otherwise qualified and behaved appropriately.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed the appeal, quashed the Deputy Chief Constable’s direction, awarded costs, and dismissed the damages claim: [2001] EWCA Civ 321.
2. Queen’s Bench Division Gibbs J dismissed the application for judicial review on 20 July 2000.