Friend & Ors, R (on the application of) v Greater Manchester Police Authority & Anor

A public authority may refuse funding for separate legal representation where it reasonably concludes that joint representation creates no material conflict of interest or significant future risk of conflict. The assessment must be independent, but the position adopted by the other proposed client may carry significant weight. A possible conflict must remain under active review if new evidence emerges. Guidance requiring representation for officers who acted in good faith and reasonably does not necessarily require payment for a second legal team. Each funding application must be decided on its own merits; inconsistent outcomes in other cases do not establish unlawfulness without a sufficiently consistent policy.

Police officers involved in an inquest sought retrospective funding from the Police Authority for separate legal representation. The Chief Constable was also a properly interested party. The Authority refused the request, considering that the officers and the Chief Constable could be represented by the same solicitors. The officers argued that outstanding disciplinary-investigation matters created a significant conflict of interest and that previous funding decisions required consistency. By the hearing, the Chief Constable had confirmed that he did not intend to initiate disciplinary proceedings on the material then available, although he could not fetter his duty to respond to genuinely new evidence.

1. Claim dismissed. The Authority was entitled to conclude that there was no material conflict of interest, and no sufficient risk of future conflict, requiring separate representation.
2. The Authority had to reach its own independent view and could not simply adopt the Chief Constable’s position. His stated view that there was no conflict could nevertheless carry significant weight, since it was difficult to reconcile that position with an active intention to pursue discipline on the evidence then available.
3. The fact that regulation 9 notices remained outstanding did not establish a significant risk. The notices initiated the investigation and did not require withdrawal before the investigation could be treated as concluded. The Chief Constable could not properly promise never to take disciplinary action, because genuinely new evidence might arise at the inquest.
4. The possibility that later evidence might create a conflict required the solicitors to keep the issue under active consideration. It did not, on the facts, require the Authority to fund a second legal team retrospectively.
5. The purpose of an inquest is to determine how a person came by his death. As noted in R v Coroner for Derby and South Derbyshire ex parte Hart Junior (7 April 2000), it could not reasonably be assumed that the Chief Constable was using the inquest to obtain material for disciplinary proceedings.
6. The Home Office Circular 43/2001 created a strong presumption in favour of paying for representation where officers acted in good faith and exercised their judgment reasonably. It did not require payment for separate representation where joint representation was properly considered adequate.
7. The previous funding decisions relied on by the claimants were not shown to be sufficiently similar or to establish a consistent policy. Each application had to be determined on its own merits.