Clinch v Dorset Police Authority

Under the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, a police authority must refer the questions specified in Regulation H1(2) to a medical practitioner, including whether disablement resulted from an injury received in the execution of duty. The authority cannot avoid that reference by deciding the factual or legal issues adversely in advance.

That procedural obligation does not prevent the Crown Court from dismissing an appeal where the claim is obviously spurious, vexatious or bound to fail. A psychiatric condition caused solely by disappointment at failed promotion prospects is not an injury received in the execution of duty. The necessary connection is with service as a police officer, rather than merely with the person’s status as a constable.

The claimant, a police inspector, was medically retired after developing depression which he attributed solely to repeated failures to obtain promotion. The police authority refused to admit his claim for an injury-on-duty award and declined to refer the relevant questions to a medical practitioner under Regulation H1(2) of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987.

The Crown Court dismissed his appeal under Regulation H5. It held that the authority could determine the issue without medical reference and that the claim could not succeed in light of R v (on the application of Stunt) v Mallett [2001] ICR 989. The central issues were the scope of the Regulation H1 reference obligation and whether the accepted psychiatric condition qualified as an injury received in the execution of duty.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Crown Court had not erred in dismissing the claimant’s appeal under Regulation H5(1).
2. Regulation H1(1) makes the police authority the initial decision-maker on entitlement. However, where it is considering whether to grant an injury pension, Regulation H1(2) requires referral of the specified questions, including whether disablement resulted from an injury received in the execution of duty, to a duly qualified medical practitioner. The authority cannot pre-empt the practitioner’s answers by reaching adverse conclusions of fact or law to avoid referral. The court followed the approach of Latham J in R v Merseyside Police Authority ex parte Yates 19 February 1999.
3. The result is procedurally unsatisfactory, because the medical practitioner may be required to address questions of mixed fact and law. Nevertheless, the wording of the Regulations was treated as unavoidable. Legal conclusions may be challenged by judicial review, as illustrated by R v Kellam, ex parte South Wales Police Authority [2000] ICR 632.
4. The substantive test requires a substantial causal connection between the injury and the officer’s service as a police officer. For psychiatric injury, the relevant event, condition or circumstance must impact directly on the officer’s physical or mental condition while carrying out police duties. The connection must be with service, not merely with the officer’s status as a constable.
5. Applying R v (on the application of Stunt) v Mallett [2001] ICR 989, disappointment at repeated failures to obtain promotion did not satisfy that test. The accepted cause of the claimant’s depression was his failure to secure other duties and career advancement, rather than conditions arising while performing his existing duties.
6. The Crown Court was entitled to dismiss the claim because it was bound to fail and could not be saved by any medical certificate. The court added that, even if referral had been required, it would dismiss the appeal because referral could only produce an adverse answer.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and answered the Crown Court’s questions: questions (1) and (2), “Yes” and “No”; question (3), “No”; and question (4), confirming that dismissal was permissible.
2. Crown Court at Dorchester: dismissed the claimant’s appeal under Regulation H5(1) on 12 September 2002.
3. Dorset Police Authority: refused to admit the injury award claim and declined referral to a medical practitioner on 24 September 2001.