W, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of Kent Police

Judicial review may be appropriate where a challenge to police stop-and-search practices raises wider public-law issues, even though individual factual disputes and claims for damages are also present. The Administrative Court has sufficient procedural powers to receive oral evidence and order cross-examination where necessary to resolve limited factual disputes. The existence of disputed facts does not itself require the claimant to proceed in the County Court. Evidence recorded by police officers on statutory search forms may be important in deciding whether a genuine factual dispute exists. Rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights may be arguable at the permission stage where policing of a public demonstration is challenged.

Three claimants sought permission to challenge stop-and-searches conducted during an environmental protest. The searches were said to have been carried out under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but the claimants alleged that, in practice, the police operated a blanket checkpoint policy without reasonable suspicion.

The claim also alleged breaches of Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and included claims for damages. The defendant argued that factual disputes and the damages claims made judicial review inappropriate and that the matter should be transferred to the County Court.

1. Permission granted. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on both grounds: the alleged unlawful stop-and-search policy and the alleged interference with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. The claim raised issues extending beyond the individual searches. The policing of a large demonstration, the alleged widespread checkpoint system and the public importance of the issues gave the claim a substantial public-law dimension. The presence of individual claims for damages did not remove the appropriateness of judicial review.
3. Potential factual disputes did not make judicial review unsuitable. The Administrative Court possesses sufficient powers to hear oral evidence and order cross-examination where required. Any disputes were expected to be limited and could be resolved within the judicial review proceedings.
4. The police search forms were material evidence. Their recorded reasons, including references to the operation name, negative grounds and an authorisation not in force on the relevant date, called into question whether there was a genuine dispute about the nature of the searches and whether individual officers had reasonable suspicion.
5. The claim under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was therefore arguable. The human-rights ground was also arguable. Any issue concerning damages could be addressed after determination of the public-law claim.
6. The matter was considered suitable for determination by a Divisional Court. Directions were made for evidence and further submissions, with costs in the case.