Reynolds, R (on the application of) v Sussex Police & Anor

Where a person dies or suffers serious injury during or following contact with the police, and police responsibility may be involved, the investigation must be independent, effective and subject to appropriate family involvement. The IPCC must retain control of the investigation and must determine for itself what needs to be investigated. Ordinarily, the IPCC should investigate itself or manage an investigation conducted by an external police force. A force involved in the events may assist with investigative tasks if the IPCC remains genuinely in control and is satisfied that independence is not compromised. The investigation must extend to earlier events where they may establish the cause of the injury or assess the reliability of the police account.

The claimant sought judicial review concerning the investigation into his brother’s serious brain injury after arrest and detention by Sussex Police. The IPCC accepted responsibility for events after police contact but declined to investigate or supervise Operation Flansham, which concerned events before the arrest. The claimant argued that this approach breached the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the statutory scheme in the Police Reform Act 2002.

The central issue was whether the IPCC was required to control an investigation extending to pre-contact events which might establish the cause of the serious injury.

1. The claim succeeded. The IPCC had applied too narrow an approach to its statutory and Convention responsibilities. A declaration was granted. The IPCC was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, and leave to appeal was granted on the ground of public importance.
2. Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights required an independent investigation into the circumstances of the serious injury. The investigation had to be independent in both institutional and practical terms, effective in determining the cause of the injury and any responsibility for it, and sufficiently transparent to secure accountability. The family or next of kin had to be kept informed and given an opportunity to make representations. These principles were drawn from Jordan v United Kingdom [2003] 37 EHRR 52 and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Amin [2004] 1 AC 653.
3. Under Part 2, sections 10 and 12 of the Police Reform Act 2002, the matter was a death or serious injury matter. The IPCC had broad powers and discretion, but those powers had to be exercised so as to secure an appropriate degree of independence and public confidence. The statutory forms of investigation included an investigation by the IPCC itself, a supervised investigation, a managed investigation, or an investigation by the appropriate authority.
4. Where police responsibility for a death or serious injury was reasonably possible, an investigation by the force implicated in the events would ordinarily lack the necessary hierarchical or institutional independence. The IPCC should normally investigate itself or manage an investigation by an external police force. Supervision alone would be exceptional.
5. The investigation could not properly be divided between police-contact and pre-contact events. Earlier events were relevant to determining whether an injury existed before police contact and therefore to assessing the cause of the coma and the reliability of the police account. Operation Flansham therefore fell within the investigation which the IPCC was required to control.
6. The IPCC could use officers from the force concerned for particular investigative tasks, including local enquiries, provided that it directed and controlled the investigation, selected suitable officers and ensured that their involvement did not compromise independence. The statutory duties of assistance and cooperation did not make the Sussex Police investigation sufficient by itself.

This was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The court granted a declaration and leave to appeal on the ground that the issue was of considerable public importance.