Coker, R (On the Application Of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission

An IPCC may reconsider a recommendation or opinion about misconduct proceedings after representations from the police, complainant or officer. Such communications are not necessarily final decisions. The statutory scheme in Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 takes precedence over inconsistent Home Office guidance. A decision not to direct misconduct proceedings is lawful where the IPCC rationally assesses the evidence, the seriousness of the conduct and the realistic prospect of proving a more serious allegation. An admitted breach of guidance does not itself require a misconduct hearing. The court may decline relief where any error could not realistically have affected the outcome.

Amy Coker, the sister of Paul Coker, sought judicial review of the IPCC’s decision not to direct misconduct proceedings against Inspector Wood following Mr Coker’s death after arrest. The IPCC investigation had criticised Inspector Wood’s incivility towards Mr Coker’s girlfriend and his alleged failure to ensure that information about drugs was communicated to custody staff. The IPCC initially proposed a written warning, but Inspector Wood declined it. The Metropolitan Police then proposed words of advice, which the IPCC accepted. The claim challenged the IPCC’s power to reconsider its earlier position, the lawfulness of words of advice, and the rationality of its assessment.

1. Claim dismissed. The IPCC was entitled to reconsider its earlier recommendations and opinions. The circumstances were analogous to prosecutorial decisions, which may remain under review following representations. The 2008 communications and the January 2009 letter did not constitute a final direction under section 27(5) of the Police Reform Act 2002 (paras [30]–[36], [43]).
2. The IPCC’s decision was intra vires. Schedule 3, paragraph 27 was not mandatory in the relevant circumstances, and the statutory scheme took precedence over Annex C of the Home Office guidance. The IPCC could recommend words of advice after the officer declined a written warning (paras [38]–[47]).
3. The decision was not irrational. There was a rational evidential basis for concluding that the alleged incivility had not caused a lost opportunity to obtain information which might have led to hospital treatment. The evidence showed that the girlfriend had been reluctant to provide information and had given materially differing accounts. The IPCC was entitled to assess the allegation as, at most, minor incivility (paras [48]–[60]).
4. The court accepted that the seriousness of the conduct was substantially reduced once no sufficient link had been established between the conduct and Mr Coker’s death or the possibility of saving his life. The inquest verdict supported that assessment (paras [61]–[65]).
5. The omission from the decision letter of the allegation concerning communication with the custody officer was a drafting failure, not a failure to consider the issue. Later correspondence and evidence showed that the issue had been considered. The officer’s refusal to accept the written warning was treated as background, not as the determinant of the merits (paras [66]–[75]).
6. Even if a reviewable error had existed, relief would have been refused. The passage of time, the inquest evidence and the serious credibility difficulties would have made a different outcome unrealistic (para [76]). The claimant was ordered to pay £2,500 towards the defendant’s costs and £1,000 towards the interested party’s costs, with determination of liability under section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 adjourned generally (paras [100]–[102]).

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission was granted by a single judge on 10 December 2009. No lower-court judgment was identified.