Morrison v The Independent Police Complaints Commission & Ors

An arguable complaint that police officers inflicted ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 requires an effective investigation, including independence from those implicated. That obligation is assessed in context and may be discharged by a combination of procedures. A local police investigation is not necessarily unlawful merely because it lacks institutional independence at the outset, where a subsequent criminal trial or effective IPCC appeal may cure deficiencies. Civil proceedings for compensation do not ordinarily satisfy the investigative obligation in an intentional-assault case. The question is whether the available procedures inevitably fail to provide an effective investigation, not whether the IPCC itself must investigate from the outset.

The claimant alleged that Metropolitan Police officers used excessive force, including repeated Taser use, during his arrest and caused significant injuries. The complaint was referred to the IPCC, which directed a local investigation by the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department. The IPCC later accepted that the complaint arguably engaged Article 3, but maintained that a local investigation, possible criminal proceedings and an appeal to the IPCC could collectively satisfy the Convention obligation.

The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that Article 3 required an independent IPCC investigation and that the proposed alternatives were insufficient.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant was entitled to an effective investigation because the alleged use of force, if unjustified, could amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3. An effective investigation must be capable of determining whether the force was justified and of identifying and punishing those responsible. Independence requires freedom from hierarchical or institutional connection and practical independence.
2. The obligation may be fulfilled by a combination of procedures. A criminal trial before an independent and impartial court can provide the strongest safeguard for fact-finding and attribution of criminal responsibility. If prosecution followed the local investigation, the lack of independence in the initial police inquiry would not by itself establish a breach.
3. The IPCC appeal process was material. It could require further disclosure, review findings, direct a reinvestigation in any form permitted by Schedule 3 paragraph 15(4) of the Police Reform Act 2002, and recommend disciplinary action. Since the local investigation had not concluded, and no irredeemable evidential defect had been shown, it could not be said that the process would inevitably be ineffective or too late.
4. The use of Tasers required monitoring, but the court rejected the submission that this complaint raised wider issues requiring an independent IPCC investigation.
5. Civil proceedings were not a means of discharging the Article 3 investigative obligation where the allegation was intentional assault. Contrary observations in R (AM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department were obiter and did not displace the Strasbourg authorities. In any event, the other available procedures were sufficient.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. No earlier decision under appeal is stated.