South Wales Police Authority v Morgan

For a police injury award, the relevant question is whether the injury was received in the execution of duty, not merely whether it was connected with employment. Disablement caused by separate injuries must be assessed by reference only to the earning-capacity loss caused by the duty injury. Whether there is one injury or several is primarily a medical question. Where a single injury has multiple causes, it is enough that the duty-related cause substantially contributed to it. A medical referee who applies the broader employment-connection test commits an error of law requiring the decision to be quashed unless the error is immaterial.

A former police officer received an ill-health award after developing depression during a prolonged period involving overwork, investigations concerning his foster son, and financial difficulties during sickness absence. A medical referee assessed his disablement at the major level under regulation H2 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987. The Police Authority sought judicial review, arguing that causes unrelated to an injury received in the execution of duty had been included. The central issues were the correct statutory test, the treatment of separate or multiple causes of injury, and whether the error affected the assessment.

1. Error of law. Dr Morgan applied the test whether the relevant causes were attributable to employment. The Regulations required the injury to have been received in the execution of duty as a constable under regulation A11. Stress from an internal investigation, and depression or stress caused by financial worries during non-duty sickness absence, did not satisfy that test. The approach in R (Stunt) v Mallett [2001] EWCA 265, [2001] ICR 989 supported that distinction.
2. Separate injuries. Regulation A13 required disablement to be treated as the result of an injury where that injury caused or substantially contributed to it. Read with regulation A12(3), this meant that where separate injuries included a duty injury and a non-duty injury, earning-capacity loss had to be assessed only so far as caused by the duty injury. The guidance issued by the Home Office was consistent with that approach.
3. Single injury with multiple causes. The same apportionment analysis did not automatically apply where there was one injury with several causes or non-duty exacerbating factors. In that situation, normal causation principles applied, and a duty-related cause was sufficient if it substantially contributed to the injury.
4. Medical question and disposition. Whether there was one injury or more than one was primarily a medical question for the selected medical practitioner or medical referee. Dr Morgan had not considered it because he had applied the wrong legal test. The Police Authority’s earlier acceptance of a single injury and its formulation of the appeal question did not preclude consideration of the issue. His error was therefore material. His decision was quashed and the matter remitted to a fresh medical referee.