Independent Police Complaints Commission, R (on the application of) v West Midlands Police & Ors

A review meeting under the Police Conduct Regulations 2004 is not required to be private merely because the Regulations expressly identify persons who must be permitted to accompany the officer. Regulation 41 leaves the reviewing officer with a discretion to admit other persons, including the presenting officer, the Independent Police Complaints Commission or complainants. That discretion may extend to inviting submissions where fairness requires inter partes argument. Statutory guidance may explain and supplement that discretion, provided it does not contradict the Regulations. The discretion should be exercised realistically and consistently with the nature of the review, including the need to protect confidential information and to limit attendance where appropriate.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission sought judicial review of a decision by the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, acting as reviewing officer. The Chief Constable had concluded that he had no power to admit representatives of the Commission or complainants to review meetings concerning disciplinary findings against two police officers.

The issue was the proper construction of regulation 41 of the Police Conduct Regulations 2004, read with the statutory guidance issued under the Police Act 1996. The central question was whether the review meeting was necessarily private, subject only to the officer's express right to be accompanied.

1. The claim succeeded. The decision that the reviewing officer was legally precluded from admitting representatives of the Commission or other interested persons to a review meeting was quashed.
2. Regulation 41(2) expressly requires the officer concerned to be permitted to be accompanied by another police officer and, where applicable, by counsel or a solicitor. That express entitlement does not imply that all other attendance is prohibited. The maxim expressio unius, exclusio alterius therefore did not resolve the issue.
3. The Regulations expressly make the disciplinary hearing and appeal hearing private, subject to specified exceptions. They contain no equivalent requirement that a review meeting be private. Nor do they constitute a complete code which excludes any additional procedural discretion. The word “meeting” does not justify reading such a restriction into regulation 41.
4. The context was important. A review may confirm or overturn the original disciplinary decision, which may have followed a hearing lasting several days. Fairness may require an opportunity for inter partes argument, including submissions from the presenting officer or other interested persons. The reviewing officer may also seek written comments during a paper review.
5. The statutory guidance under section 87(1) of the Police Act 1996 was lawful. Its provision that any other person might attend a personal hearing at the Chief Constable's discretion explained and supplemented regulation 41; it did not reverse or contradict the Regulations.
6. The discretion must be exercised sensibly. Attendance may be limited, and participation may be confined to listening or assisting when requested. Any refusal to admit the Commission would be challengeable if it were Wednesbury unreasonable. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant's costs of £6,969.23.

First-instance judicial review decision. No earlier appellate decision is stated in the judgment.