Reckless, R (on the application of) v Kent Police Authority

The statutory appointment of independent police authority members involves two stages. A selection panel may conduct the assessment process and recommend candidates. The final appointment must, however, be made by the existing members of the authority and cannot be delegated to a smaller committee. The authority’s members must retain the opportunity to make an informed decision, but a short meeting or reliance on recommendations does not itself invalidate the appointment. Individual members may request further information or raise concerns at the full meeting. Home Office guidance may support the chosen procedure but cannot determine the statutory construction. A claim concerning delayed appointments may also be refused where the claimant could have challenged the process earlier and delay has prejudiced appointees.

The claimant, a member of Kent Police Authority, sought judicial review of the appointment of three independent members in September 2008 and one further independent member in 2009. He challenged the delegation of the interview and recommendation process to a committee of three authority members. He contended that the governing legislation required the whole authority to conduct the appointment process, rather than merely endorse the committee’s recommendations.

The central issue was whether the statutory requirement that independent members be appointed by the existing members of the authority prevented delegation of the preliminary selection and recommendation stages.

1. The application was refused. The court held that the statutory scheme had been complied with.
2. Police Act 1996, Schedule 2, paragraph 3, and regulation 9 of the Police Authority Regulations 2008 establish a two-stage process. A selection panel prepares a shortlist. The existing members of the police authority then make the appointments from that shortlist.
3. The authority was entitled to delegate to a committee the interviewing and recommendation process. That delegation was within the general powers in sections 101 and 107 of the Local Government Act. What could not be delegated was the final appointment decision, and that decision remained with the full authority.
4. The fact that the full authority dealt with the recommendations shortly and without the information the claimant considered necessary did not invalidate the appointments. Members could ask for information, raise issues, or seek a fuller consideration at the meeting. No such challenge had been made in this case.
5. Home Office and Association of Police Authorities guidance supported the procedure, while recognising that guidance could not determine the proper construction of the legislation. It might be desirable, particularly for reappointments, to vary the membership involved at the different stages, but that was not legally essential.
6. The judge added that, even if the challenge to the 2008 appointments had been arguable, permission would have been refused for delay. The claimant could have investigated and raised his concerns earlier, and delay would have prejudiced those appointed in 2008.