Doubtfire & Anor, R (on the application of) v West Mercia Police Authority & Anor

Under the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, the diagnosis reached when deciding whether an officer is disabled and permanently disabled is not itself final or binding for the later causation question. The final decisions are the answers to the statutory questions, not the reasoning or diagnosis supporting them.

When deciding whether permanent disablement resulted from an injury received in the execution of duty, the medical decision-maker must independently determine what injury, if any, caused or substantially contributed to the disablement, and whether that injury was received in the execution of duty. A decision confined to the earlier diagnosis answers the wrong question and is liable to be quashed.

Two conjoined judicial review claims concerned decisions of the Police Medical Appeal Board refusing injury pensions to police officers who had been compulsorily retired for permanent disablement.

In each case, the Board treated the diagnosis made for the earlier permanent-disablement decision under the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 as binding when deciding causation under regulation 30(2)(c) of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. The central issue was whether the Board had been required to determine causation by reference to that earlier diagnosis, or whether it had to decide independently whether the permanent disablement resulted from an injury received in the execution of duty.

1. The claims succeeded. The decisions of the Police Medical Appeal Board were quashed. Both matters were remitted to the Board for reconsideration in accordance with the judgment.
2. The statutory scheme distinguishes the disablement questions from the causation question. The former ask whether the officer is disabled and whether the disablement is likely to be permanent. The latter asks whether the disablement resulted from an injury received in the execution of duty.
3. Under regulations H1(2) and H2(5) of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, and regulations 30(2) and 30(6) of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, it is the decision on the referred question which is final. The diagnosis is part of the reasoning and is not itself final.
4. The medical decision-maker considering regulation 30(2)(c) must independently determine whether the disablement was caused by an injury, applying the definition and deeming provisions in regulation 6, and whether that injury was received in the execution of duty. The decision-maker is not bound by the earlier diagnosis, although the earlier final decisions that the officer was disabled and likely permanently disabled remain binding where applicable.
5. In Ms Doubtfire’s case, the Board asked whether workplace events had caused social phobia. In Mr Williams’s case, it asked whether bipolar affective disorder resulted from an injury on duty. Those were not the statutory questions. The correct inquiry concerned the permanent disablement and required consideration of whether one or more conditions constituted injuries and whether any such injury was received in the execution of duty.
6. The alternative grounds were not determined because they raised factual issues for the Board. The interested parties were ordered to make interim payments of £6,000 on account of costs. No party sought permission to appeal.

First-instance judicial review claims. The judgment records earlier permission decisions and an order conjoining the claims, but no prior merits judgment in the present proceedings.