Wilkinson, R (on the application of) v Police Complaints Authority & Ors

A statutory authority which has dispensed with the investigation of a police complaint under the relevant regulations may ordinarily review and revoke that decision. The authority must then reconsider whether the statutory conditions for dispensation are met. A court may quash the original dispensation to enable that process to occur. Reopening an investigation is not an abuse of process merely because interested officers were told that it had ended. Prejudice must be shown; where no investigation has yet begun, an objection based on presumed prejudice is premature.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Police Complaints Authority’s decision to permit Merseyside Police to cease investigating his complaint about alleged mistreatment following his arrest. The decision was made while the claimant was unavailable and before the related criminal proceedings had concluded. After he became available, he sought to reopen the investigation.

The Authority consented to an order quashing its decision. The police opposed the order, arguing that the Authority lacked power to revoke its dispensation and that reopening the investigation would abuse the process because the interested officers had been told that it had ended.

1. The court approved and made the consent order quashing the Authority’s decision of 10 June 2003 to dispense with the investigation. The Authority’s public functions made its decision amenable to judicial review.

2. The relevant statutory scheme began with the chief officer’s duty under section 69 of the Police Act 1996 to record the complaint. Paragraph 3 of the Police (Dispensation From Requirement To Investigate Complaints) Regulations 1985 enabled the appropriate authority, in suitable circumstances, to dispense with investigation.

3. Although the Police Act 1996 expressly provided in section 76(6) for withdrawal of a direction given under section 76, that did not establish that the Authority lacked power to review a dispensation made under the regulations. On general principles, a statutory authority which has made such a dispensation must have power to review it and, following review, to revoke it.

4. On revocation, the Authority should apply the questions identified in R v Police Complaints Authority, ex parte Ronald F Broome (unreported, 6 December 1988): whether the complainant refused or failed to provide a statement or reasonable assistance; whether that made satisfactory investigation within a reasonable period impracticable; and whether dispensation was reasonable in all the circumstances.

5. The suggestion that reopening the investigation would be an abuse of process was premature. The interested officers had not suffered apparent prejudice because the investigation had not begun. Any future prejudice could be raised in later proceedings, but it did not justify refusing to quash the decision.

The second defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of proceeding against it, subject to detailed assessment. No order for costs was made against the first defendant or the interested parties.