City of London Police Authority, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

A medical referee exercising functions under the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 must answer the questions referred and issue the certificate required by the Regulations. A decision which fails to do so is unlawful. A later certificate is also unlawful where it is wholly inconsistent with the referee’s earlier decision, no new evidence has been provided, and there is no rational basis for the change. Where the referee disagrees with medical evidence on a material issue, brief reasons must be given. Judicial review may therefore quash both the defective decision and an unsupported later certificate.

The claimants sought judicial review of decisions by a medical referee under the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 concerning Mrs Galvin’s entitlement to a disablement pension. The referee was required to determine whether Mrs Galvin was disabled, whether the disablement was permanent, whether it resulted from an injury received in the execution of duty, and the degree of disablement.

In March 2002 the referee declined to answer those questions and instead recommended further therapy. In August 2002 she issued a certificate finding permanent disablement caused by anxiety and depression, although no further information had been supplied. The central issues were whether either decision complied with the Regulations and whether the August certificate had a rational evidential basis.

1. Judicial review granted. The March and August 2002 decisions of the medical referee were quashed. No order for costs was made against the referee.
2. Regulation H2(3) required the medical referee, where disagreeing with the selected medical practitioner, to express the decision in a certificate addressing the questions referred. The March decision was a non-certificate. It did not answer any of the four questions and therefore failed to comply with the Regulations.
3. The August certificate complied with the prescribed form on its face, but was wholly inconsistent with the March decision. The March decision had been that no firm conclusion could be reached without further therapy. No further information became available between March and August. There was consequently no rational basis for the later findings.
4. The referee was entitled, as a qualified medical practitioner, to disagree with the other doctors’ evidence, including evidence that Mrs Galvin was not permanently disabled by an injury received in the execution of duty. However, a disagreement on that material issue required at least brief reasons. The August certificate gave none.
5. These defects amounted to a total failure to comply with regulation H2. In the circumstances, the claimant’s application was allowed notwithstanding that the interested parties and the referee did not oppose relief. The referee’s quasi-judicial role and her early indication that she would not contest the claim justified refusing the claimant’s costs application.

Not stated in the judgment.