Merseyside Police Authority, R (on the application of) v Gidlow & Anor

For a psychological injury suffered over time, the question is whether the injury has a sufficient causal connection with service as a police officer, rather than merely with the officer’s status. Work circumstances may include non-operational aspects of police employment. However, an officer’s psychological reaction to an allegation or to disciplinary or grievance proceedings, without more, is not an injury received in the execution of duty. The fact that the officer continued working during the resulting stress does not alter the analysis. The medical referee must decide the legal question on the proper factual basis and must not determine disputed allegations, assess the handling of complaints, or substitute sympathy for the statutory test.

The Merseyside Police Authority sought judicial review of Dr Gidlow’s decision under the Police Pensions Regulations 1987. Dr Gidlow, acting as medical referee under regulation H2, had allowed Godfrey Reilly-Cooper’s appeal and certified that his adjustment disorder or mixed anxiety/depression was an injury received in the execution of duty.

The condition followed a workplace appraisal, an allegation of inappropriate behaviour, grievance proceedings, perceived failure by senior officers to vindicate him, and a consequential move at work. The Authority argued that the decision was inconsistent with R (Stunt) v Mallett. The central issue was whether the injury arose from service as a police officer or merely from his status and exposure to complaint or grievance procedures.

1. The decision was quashed. Mr Reilly-Cooper’s appeal was remitted for rehearing by a different medical referee.
2. Under regulations A11 and A13 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, the relevant question was whether the psychological injury was received in the execution of duty. For a psychological injury suffered over time, that question is distinct from whether the resulting disablement was caused by the injury.
3. The principles in R (South Wales Police Authority) v Kellam require a causal connection with service as a police officer, broadly understood to include work circumstances and matters encountered at work. The connection need not be exclusive. But R (Stunt) v Mallett establishes the important limit that injury resulting from an officer’s reaction to an allegation or the operation of disciplinary proceedings is attributable to the officer’s status as a constable, not to the execution of duty.
4. The distinction between disciplinary and grievance procedures was immaterial on these facts. The injury resulted from the allegation and the perceived failure to vindicate the officer, not from the performance of his police work or any effect on his working conditions. Continuing to work while the stress developed did not bring the injury within regulation A11.
5. The medical referee made several errors of law. He equated injury suffered whilst on duty with injury received in the execution of duty; relied on the appraisal being part of the officer’s job although it did not cause the injury; treated the absence of a disciplinary investigation as distinguishing R (Stunt) v Mallett; and treated the officer’s resentment and perceived lack of support as sufficient to satisfy regulation A11.
6. It was not normally the medical referee’s function to decide whether the allegation was justified, whether the grievance had been handled well, or whether the Authority had acted insensitively. Those matters were extraneous to the legal question.