Sussex Police Authority, R (on the application of) v Beck & Anor

Under the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, disablement is assessed by reference to the ordinary duties of a police officer, not duties in a comparable civilian occupation.

The relevant comparison is with the police service as a whole. Inability to work for one particular police force does not establish disablement if the officer can perform ordinary police duties in another force. Inability to work in the police service at all may establish disablement.

A medical certificate must answer whether disablement is likely to be permanent without qualification. Relevant circumstances, including the prospect of recovery, are factors in that assessment rather than alternatives to the statutory question. An unclear or legally misdirected certificate may be quashed and the questions reconsidered by a fresh medical practitioner.

The Sussex Police Authority sought judicial review of a certificate prepared by Dr Edwin Beck concerning Paul Hamlin, a former police officer.

Following disciplinary proceedings and dismissal, Mr Hamlin claimed early payment of his deferred pension on the ground of permanent disablement. The Crown Court ordered the Authority to refer to a medical practitioner the questions whether he was disabled and whether the disablement was likely to be permanent under the Police Pensions Regulations 1987.

Dr Beck certified that Mr Hamlin was disabled and that the disablement was likely to be permanent, but qualified his answer and referred repeatedly to his inability to work for the Sussex Police. The central issues were the proper construction of disablement and permanent disablement, and whether the certificate sufficiently answered those statutory questions.

1. The certificate was quashed. The Authority was permitted to refer the questions under regs. H1(2)(a) and H1(2)(b) to another duly qualified medical practitioner.
2. Reg. A12(2) focuses on the ordinary duties of a member of the police force. It does not extend to equivalent duties in another occupation, even where the skills and functions are similar. An inability to work in the police service at all therefore constitutes disablement within the Regulations.
3. The reference is to the police service as a whole, rather than to the particular force in which the officer serves or last served. An officer unable to work for one force is not disabled if capable of performing ordinary police duties in another force.
4. The court rejected any merits-based restriction on pension entitlement. Nothing in the Regulations excluded entitlement because the officer’s condition resulted from personal failings, misconduct or an unreasonable antipathy towards the force.
5. Permanent disablement under reg. A12(1) required an answer whether the person was disabled at the relevant time and whether that disablement was then likely to be permanent. The medical practitioner could consider prospects of recovery and relevant treatment, but could not qualify the answer so that permanence depended on an unresolved future event.
6. Dr Beck’s report and certificate were unclear as to whether Mr Hamlin could not work as a police officer at all, or merely could not work for the Authority. They were also unclear as to whether he had applied the ordinary-duties test and whether his qualification meant that disablement was not likely to be permanent.
7. Clarification alone was inappropriate. A fresh practitioner would need to make an independent diagnosis and answer the two questions afresh. The parties were given liberty to apply concerning costs and any application for permission to appeal.