The Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales & Ors v The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police

Regulation A19 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 concerns the general efficiency of the police force, not the personal inefficiency of an individual officer. It may be used to reduce officer numbers where that is rationally connected with maintaining an efficient force within available resources, including budgetary constraints. A Chief Constable may make an in-principle decision concerning a cohort, provided each individual case is subsequently considered with an open mind and on its own circumstances. The decision-making process must be fair and rational, but the regulation prescribes no particular procedure, business case, comparative exercise or fixed form of reasons. A decision may be made before the officer has completed the qualifying service, provided the retirement date will be one on which the officer satisfies the regulation.

The claimants challenged the policy adopted by the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police for compulsorily retiring officers under Regulation A19 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987. The policy followed a decision in principle to consider compulsory retirement for officers approaching 30 years’ pensionable service, against a background of substantial budget reductions and restructuring.

The claim also challenged the decision to retire Detective Superintendent Johnston, the timing of that decision before he had completed 30 years’ service, and the compatibility of the process with article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention. The central issues were the statutory meaning of the general interests of efficiency, the lawfulness of cohort-based decision-making, the procedural safeguards required, and whether the A19 decision was premature.

1. Claim dismissed. The Chief Constable’s policy and the decision concerning Detective Superintendent Johnston were lawful.
2. Regulation A19 is directed to the general efficiency of the force as a whole, rather than the personal efficiency of the officer. That concept can include the need to accommodate financial constraints and reduce officer numbers while maintaining an efficient police service. The officer’s skills, experience and performance remain relevant because retaining a particular officer may contribute to the force’s general efficiency.
3. The regulation confers a discretion. A Chief Constable may make an in-principle decision that retiring a cohort would generally promote efficiency, provided the individual officer’s circumstances are later considered with an open mind. An open mind does not require an empty mind. The individual decision-maker must consider representations and, after 3 December 2012, the factors in Regulation A19(3).
4. A published policy is unlawful only if it creates an unacceptable risk of unlawful decision-making. The regulation does not require a particular procedure, a personal business case, a comparative ranking exercise, a fixed burden of proof, or a prescribed form of reasons. Fair consultation, consideration of relevant matters and rationality remain essential.
5. The decision concerning Johnston was not premature. The relevant question was whether, on the date fixed for retirement, he would satisfy Regulation A19(1). The power could therefore be exercised before he had actually completed 30 years’ pensionable service.
6. A final review immediately before retirement was advisable to address changes in circumstances, but its absence from the policy did not make the policy unlawful. The article 1 of Protocol 1 claim also failed: the decision affected no existing possession, and a future expectation of salary was not a protected possession.

First-instance judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court. The court dismissed the challenges to the policy and to the individual compulsory-retirement decision.