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

When reviewing a decision not to record a police complaint, the decision-maker must address each distinct strand of the complaint. A complaint need not identify the individual officer concerned, because the statutory scheme accommodates conduct by an officer whose identity is unascertained. However, a complaint must contain sufficient specificity to permit a sensible and proportionate investigation. Considerable latitude should be given to case workers interpreting complaints, and brief appeal findings may be adequate. A decision which omits material aspects of the complaint is unlawful and may be quashed for reconsideration.

The claimant sought judicial review of the IPCC’s decision of 2 September 2008 upholding Suffolk Constabulary’s refusal to record his complaint. His complaint arose from the handling of his request to have an old conviction stepped down, including delay, an erroneous reference to a drug conviction, and alleged unlawful disclosure of his criminal record.

The IPCC treated the complaint principally as an allegation of unlawful disclosure and concluded that it was too general and did not identify misconduct by a Suffolk officer. The central issues were whether the absence of an identified officer prevented recording, whether the disclosure allegation was sufficiently specific, and whether the decision had addressed all parts of the complaint.

1. Decision quashed. The IPCC’s decision of 2 September 2008 was quashed, and the claimant’s appeal was directed to be reconsidered.
2. The complaint contained three separate strands: delay in dealing with the request to step down the conviction, alleged unlawful disclosure of the criminal record, and the incorrect recording of a drug conviction. The IPCC decision dealt with the disclosure strand but omitted the other two. The defendant’s later attempts to rationalise the decision could not cure that omission.
3. The absence of a named officer was not decisive. Under section 12 of the Police Reform Act 2002, the relevant statutory concepts include complaints about the conduct of a person serving with the police and conduct matters indicating possible criminal or disciplinary misconduct. Section 23(2)(1) and regulation 22(1) of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 address cases where the person’s identity is unascertained.
4. Nevertheless, a complaint must have a degree of specificity. The disclosure allegation was too general and speculative to be dealt with through a sensible and proportionate investigation, so the police were not obliged to record that aspect.
5. Case workers must deal with the complaint as presented, but substantial latitude is appropriate because such documents are imprecise. Brief appeal findings may be acceptable in the interests of proportionate administration. Those considerations did not justify omitting material strands of the complaint.
6. The claimant was awarded the costs of the judicial review. The amount claimed was remitted to detailed assessment, with an interim payment on account of £15,000.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission was granted on the renewed oral application by Mr Justice Beatson on 6 April 2009. The Administrative Court quashed the IPCC decision and directed reconsideration.