The Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police, R (on the application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission

An IPCC investigation must remain within the statutory function of investigating complaints, recording relevant matters and indicating whether there is a case to answer. It may rigorously investigate facts, evaluate competing evidence and express an opinion on potential unlawfulness or criminality where necessary. It must not make definitive findings on criminal liability, civil liability, assault, unlawfulness or misconduct. Those questions belong to the criminal courts, civil courts and police disciplinary bodies. The language of an IPCC report is therefore legally significant. A report which presents provisional investigative opinions as concluded determinations exceeds the IPCC’s powers and may be quashed.

The Chief Constable sought judicial review of an IPCC report concerning a complaint by Mrs Sutcliffe about PC Lee Armstrong’s arrest and use of force against her son, Mr Sutcliffe. The report concluded that the arrest was unlawful, that excessive force had been used and that the conduct constituted an assault. It upheld the complaint and identified a case to answer for misconduct.

The central issue was whether the report exceeded the IPCC’s statutory and regulatory role by determining criminal, civil or disciplinary liability rather than investigating and reporting matters for the appropriate decision maker.

1. Claim succeeded. The IPCC report was unlawful and was quashed. It had to be re-crafted within the limits of the Police Reform Act 2002, the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 and applicable statutory guidance.
2. The IPCC’s primary function under section 10 of the 2002 Act is to handle complaints and record matters which may amount to criminal conduct or misconduct. Its role is investigative, not adjudicative. The investigation must nevertheless be rigorous and sufficiently thorough to maintain public confidence and comply with Convention requirements.
3. Under paragraph 14E of the 2004 Regulations, an investigator must provide an accurate summary of the evidence, attach or identify relevant documents and indicate an opinion on whether there is a case to answer. That is the high water mark of the permissible conclusion. The report may evaluate competing accounts and recommend a course which assists the decision maker.
4. The IPCC must not make definitive findings or rulings on criminal guilt, civil liability, assault, unlawfulness or disciplinary misconduct. Those matters fall respectively to the criminal courts, civil courts and police disciplinary body. Where it is necessary to address lawfulness, the report must use language indicating an opinion rather than purporting to determine the issue.
5. The court followed the guidance in R (on the application of Allatt) v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police and IPCC [2011] EWHC 3908 (Admin) that IPCC reports are not judgments and must be understood realistically, while the decision maker must retain the ultimate judgment. It also applied the distinction between evaluating evidence and determining liability identified in R (on the application of Reynolds) v IPCC and Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] EWCA Civ 1160, and drew support from Glinski v McIver [1962] AC 726.
6. The report repeatedly stated that the arrest and use of force were unlawful and constituted an assault. It did not merely indicate a case to answer, but purported to determine issues reserved to other bodies. That exceeded the lawful boundary by a substantial margin. The IPCC’s later knowledge that the CPS would not prosecute also meant that the report should have been revised, although it was unlawful in its original form in any event.

The judgment records that permission to bring judicial review proceedings was granted on 8 January 2013. The claim was determined at first instance by the High Court (Administrative Court), which quashed the IPCC report and granted permission to appeal on the basis of the importance of obtaining an authoritative Court of Appeal ruling.