Bartosik v Independent Police Complaints Commission

An application to restore proceedings struck out for non-attendance should be assessed by reference to promptness, a good reason for non-attendance, and the merits or prospects of success of the underlying application. A litigant must keep the court informed of a current address for service and comply with hearing dates given in court. Under the Police Reform Act 2002, a complainant may require a decision on a complaint, but has no entitlement to require a particular decision-maker or office. Where the defendant concedes that a decision should be quashed, the court may quash it, but costs remain discretionary.

The claimant brought two separate judicial review proceedings concerning decisions of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. In the first, permission had been refused and the renewed application was struck out after the claimant failed to attend the hearing. He applied to restore the proceedings. In the second, he challenged a later decision; permission had been granted and the defendant accepted that the decision should be quashed.

The claimant also sought directions requiring the fresh decision and investigation to be undertaken at a particular office, together with costs. The court therefore considered restoration, the scope of the claimant’s entitlement under the Police Reform Act 2002, and costs.

1. Restoration. Applying the overriding objective in Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the relevant considerations were whether the application to restore was made promptly, whether there was a good reason for non-attendance, and whether the underlying judicial review application had a reasonable prospect of success.
2. The claimant applied within eight days, which was sufficiently prompt. He had not shown a good reason for failing to attend. The hearing date had been given in court in his presence, and there was no adequate evidence that he had informed the court of a change of address or that correspondence had failed to reach him. Further, no error of law was alleged and the earlier refusal of permission was correct. The restoration application was therefore refused and the strike-out remained in force.
3. Quashing and location of decision-making. The defendant conceded that its decision of 18 May 2012 should be quashed, and that order was made. The claimant was not entitled to require that the fresh decision or investigation take place at a particular office. Schedule 2 paragraph 9 of the Police Reform Act 2002 empowered the defendant to establish regional offices but did not prescribe where complaints had to be investigated or decided. Schedule 3 did not assist the claimant.
4. The claimant was entitled to a decision, rather than to a particular decision-maker or location. His application for such a direction therefore failed.
5. Costs and permission to appeal. Although the ordinary approach under Rule 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules might have led to costs following the event, the defendant sought no order for costs. No order for costs was accordingly made in either proceeding. Permission to appeal was refused because no arguable error of law or real prospect of success had been identified.

The judgment records earlier procedural orders in the two judicial review claims, including refusal of permission in CO/7864/2011 and the later grant of permission in CO/7862/2012. This court refused permission to appeal against its orders.