North Yorkshire Police Authority, R (on the application of) v The Independent Police Complaints Commission

For the purposes of the statutory police complaints regime, “conduct” means behaviour and does not require an allegation of bad or improper behaviour. A complaint about a chief officer’s decision confined to a particular case is not ordinarily a complaint relating to the general direction and control of a police force. The distinction is between general matters, such as policies and organisational decisions, and particular operational decisions. The Commission’s determination on that characterisation is a question of law, not a discretionary decision. Registration of such a complaint does not require the police to investigate or reconsider the underlying matter.

Mr Jordan complained that the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police had refused to supervise a further investigation into his concerns about his mother’s treatment in a care home and the handling of related complaints. The Police Authority declined to record the complaint, treating it as concerning the direction and control of the force. On appeal under Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, the Commission held that the complaint concerned conduct, not direction and control, and directed the Police Authority to record it.

The Police Authority sought judicial review. The central questions were whether the complaint related to the Chief Constable’s conduct and, if so, whether it was excluded because it related wholly to direction and control.

1. Claim dismissed. The Commission was right to direct the Police Authority to record the complaint.
2. The Commission’s characterisation of the complaint was a question of law. The answer was right or wrong; no discretion arose. The court also agreed that brief appeal findings by Commission caseworkers can be adequate where they identify the characterisation and the grounds for it, approving the approach in The Queen on the application of Herd v Independent Police Complaints Commission [2009] EWHC 3134 (Admin).
3. “Conduct” in its ordinary meaning means behaviour and does not imply behaviour of a particular quality. It therefore does not require an allegation of misconduct or personal misconduct. Section 29(1) of the Police Reform Act 2002 did not alter that conclusion. Schedule 3 paragraph 19B(4), which refers to conduct that may amount to misconduct or serious misconduct, supported the view that conduct and misconduct were overlapping concepts.
4. “Direction and control” was essentially concerned with matters of a general nature. A chief officer’s decision confined to a particular subject fell outside that concept. The national and local guidance supported a general/particular distinction. The complaint concerned a decision about a particular investigation and therefore was not excluded by section 14(1) of the Act.
5. Registration was only the initial recording of a complaint. It did not compel the Police Authority or Chief Constable to investigate or reconsider the underlying decision. Repetitious or abusive complaints could be addressed through the statutory dispensation procedure.

The Police Authority issued a judicial review claim after the Commission directed it to record Mr Jordan’s complaint. Permission was granted on the papers by His Honour Judge Behrens. The Administrative Court dismissed the substantive claim.