Dennis, R (on the application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission

A review of a police-complaints appeal decision is irrational where it proceeds on a material misunderstanding of the investigators’ factual findings, fails to address an important issue within the complaint, or gives reasoning that is materially unclear. The reviewing body must address the case on the factual basis established by the investigation and explain conclusions sufficiently clearly for the complainant, officers and police authority to understand them. A correct or broadly reasonable outcome does not cure a defective decision-making process. An appeal decision, once made and promulgated, cannot be varied merely because further representations are made, absent statutory authority or an implied power consistent with the statutory scheme.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s partial allowance of her appeal against an investigation into her treatment during an armed-police operation. The investigators had concluded that the relevant uses of force, detention, search and entry were lawful or reasonable. On review, the IPCC caseworker misunderstood which officers had performed particular acts, failed to consider the justification for handcuffing and continued detention, and criticised an officer on an incorrect factual basis.

The claimant also invited the court to consider whether the IPCC could reopen or vary an appeal decision after it had been made and promulgated.

1. The appeal decision was quashed. The caseworker had reviewed the matter on an incorrect factual basis by treating PC Pilsbury as having dealt with the claimant throughout, although the investigation found that PC Callan had handcuffed and detained her for searching purposes. That error went to the heart of the review.
2. The caseworker also failed to consider whether PC Callan was entitled to handcuff and continue detaining the claimant under section 47 of the Firearms Act 1968 for the purpose of a further search. The whole detention formed part of the complaint and had been addressed by the investigators. Refusal to review that issue was unjustified.
3. The decision was further defective because its reasoning was unclear. It criticised the force used while implicitly treating it as reasonable, without stating clearly how those conclusions were reconciled. A decision-maker must give conclusions and reasons that can readily be understood by the complainant, officers and the relevant police authority.
4. The court accepted that the entry into the premises was lawful under section 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the common-law power to prevent a breach of the peace. That conclusion did not cure the defects in the appeal review.
5. Although not necessary to the result, the court held that an appeal decision under the statutory complaints scheme, once made and promulgated, could not be varied merely in response to further representations. Any power to reopen or vary such a decision would ordinarily be expected to derive from statute or regulations. The claim was therefore allowed and the decision quashed, with the claimant’s costs payable by the defendant.