Baker, R (on the application of) v Devon & Cornwall Constabulary & Its Police Authority

A judicial review claim must be filed promptly and, in any event, within three months after the grounds first arose under the Civil Procedure Rules. A later letter reaffirming an earlier decision does not necessarily create a new decision. Mere assertion that a respondent’s account is false does not establish an arguable case; supporting evidence is required. Article 6 does not generally confer a hearing right on a person aggrieved by a police decision not to investigate, where there are no criminal proceedings and the person’s civil rights are not engaged.

The applicant challenged a letter from the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary affirming that allegations concerning her late father’s estate had been investigated and disclosed no criminality. She alleged that the investigation had not occurred, that the police position was false, and that her Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 had been infringed. Hooper J refused permission on 7 November 2001. The renewed application concerned whether the claim was timely, whether there was evidence supporting an arguable public-law challenge, and whether Article 6 or a right to be heard was engaged.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Dyson refused the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. Each of the three grounds identified was independently fatal.
2. Delay. The operative decision not to investigate further was made in September 1998. The letter of 12 January 2001 merely reaffirmed that position and was not the decision under challenge. Under Part 54.5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the claim had to be filed promptly and no later than three months after the grounds first arose. The challenge was therefore brought far too late.
3. Arguable public-law case. The court was not persuaded either that no investigation had taken place or that it was not reasonably open to the Police Authority to conclude that there was no prima facie evidence of criminality. A bare assertion that the respondent’s statement was false was insufficient. Further evidence was required before the court would consider whether the conclusion was unlawful on an established ground of English public law. Judicial review was not a means of deciding merely whether the authority had reached the correct conclusion on the merits.
4. Convention rights. The argument under Article 6 and the Human Rights Act 1998 disclosed no arguable violation. A right to be heard could arise where a person faced criminal proceedings or where civil rights were engaged so as to justify an oral hearing before an impartial tribunal. That did not apply to an interested person aggrieved by a police decision not to investigate alleged criminal offences.

Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 15 May 2002, the court refused the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review: [2002] EWCA Civ 769.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Hooper J refused permission on 7 November 2001.