Williams, R (On the Application Of) v Merseyside Police Authority

A police medical appeal board determining entitlement to an injury pension must decide, on the balance of probabilities, the factual and medical issues referred to it. It must identify the injury or injuries causing or substantially contributing to disablement and determine whether they were received in the execution of duty. It cannot avoid disputed factual issues by accepting only evidence independently corroborated or admitted by the police authority. A decision which merely rejects particular allegations, without identifying the workplace exposure that caused the illness and applying the statutory test to it, is inadequate. A psychiatric injury caused by an erroneous perception that improper treatment occurred at work is not, without more, an injury received in the execution of duty.

The claimant, a former police officer, sought judicial review of a Police Medical Appeal Board determination refusing an injury pension under the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. He alleged that psychiatric illness resulted from workplace events, including inadequate training, lack of support, bullying and harassment. The Board accepted that the illness was work-related but did not find the allegations proved and did not identify the workplace exposure which caused or substantially contributed to the disablement.

The claim followed an earlier judicial review in which the Board’s first decision was quashed: [2010] EWHC 980 (Admin). The central questions were whether the Board had failed to determine disputed facts, applied the statutory causation test, and given adequate reasons.

1. The claim was allowed and the Board’s determination was quashed. The matter was ordered to be determined by a fresh Board.
2. Under regulations 8, 11(1) and 30(2)(c) of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, the Board had to determine whether an injury had caused or substantially contributed to the claimant’s disablement and whether that injury was received in the execution of duty. It was not enough to decide that particular allegations of bullying, harassment, lack of training or lack of support had not been proved.
3. The Board was required to decide disputed factual issues on the balance of probabilities, after considering, evaluating and testing all the evidence. It could reject the claimant’s evidence if it gave rational and adequately reasoned grounds, but it could not treat the absence of independent corroboration, formal complaints or an admission by the Authority as disabling it from deciding the dispute. The missing personnel file was in the Authority’s possession and could not properly be held against the claimant.
4. The Board accepted that the illness was related to workplace exposure but failed to identify what exposure caused or substantially contributed to it. It therefore failed to answer the question required by regulation 30(2)(c), and its decision was unfair and contrary to the civil standard of proof.
5. The irrationality ground, insofar as it asserted that the Board was bound to accept the claimant’s evidence, failed. A rational Board could reject that evidence. However, the decision in R v Fagin & another ex p Mountstephen (26 April 1996) did not establish that an injury caused by an erroneous perception of improper treatment was received in the execution of duty. The reasoning in R v Kellam, ex p South Wales Police Authority (2 July 1999), endorsed in Commissioner of Police v Stunt [2001] EWCA Civ 265, did not support that extension.

The judgment describes an earlier judicial review in which the Board’s original determination was quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration: [2010] EWHC 980 (Admin). The present claim challenged the Board’s subsequent determination. The present court allowed the claim, quashed that determination and directed a fresh Board to decide the issue.