Adams, R (on the application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission

A public authority deciding whether to dispense with statutory police-complaint procedures must apply the statutory criteria and take account of material evidence bearing on whether a fair investigation remains possible. A decision may be lawful for an old complaint where delay has caused substantial evidential difficulty. A separate allegation must be considered on its own terms, particularly where contemporaneous records and formal proceedings provide relevant evidence. The reviewing court determines legality, rationality and adequacy of reasoning; it does not decide the underlying factual dispute.

The claimant sought judicial review of the IPCC’s decision to grant Greater Manchester Police dispensation from the statutory procedures for investigating two complaints about a police officer. Allegation A concerned the handling and recording of an alleged dog attack in 2006. Allegation B concerned alleged misleading evidence given to a criminal injuries compensation tribunal and the presentation of an unrelated criminal record. The IPCC treated both allegations as unsuitable for investigation because of delay and likely injustice.

The central issues were whether the decision was rational and adequately reasoned, whether relevant contemporaneous evidence had been considered, and whether the IPCC had applied the statutory test.

1. Allegation A. The IPCC was entitled to conclude that the substantial delay since 2006 satisfied the relevant criteria in Schedule 3 paragraph 7 of the Police Reform Act 2002. The decision was rational and lawful, and allegation A was not to be reopened.
2. Allegation B. The decision was inadequate. The IPCC failed to address contemporaneous incident reports which materially contradicted the account recorded by the tribunal of the officer’s evidence. It also failed to take proper account of the formal tribunal proceedings and the documentary evidence available.
3. The IPCC’s reasoning improperly elided the statutory ground that it was not reasonably practicable to complete the investigation or other procedures with a separate consideration of injustice. That created a hybrid test not contained in the applicable legislation.
4. The court did not determine whether the officer had misled the tribunal or whether the criminal record was wrongly presented. Those were matters for the IPCC on reconsideration. The decision concerning allegation B was quashed and remitted for reconsideration on the basis of the full evidence, including the correct timing of the tribunal hearing and its transcript.
5. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s reasonable costs, subject to the agreed order and costs schedule.