Ramsden, R (on the application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission & Anor

In an appeal concerning a police complaints investigation, proportionality governs the evidence that investigators and the IPCC must obtain. There is no duty to interview every relevant witness, and no rigid rules govern the conduct of an investigation. The investigator may exercise judgment by reference to the seriousness and context of the allegations, the available evidence, the likelihood of proving them and the consequences of further investigation.

Judicial review of an IPCC appeal decision is limited. The court asks whether the IPCC’s conclusion was fairly and reasonably open to it, applying a form of double rationality where the IPCC reviews the police investigation. Even where additional evidence might have improved the investigation, the decision need not be quashed if the investigation was proportionate and the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct was reasonably open.

The claimant challenged an IPCC decision rejecting his second appeal under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. He alleged that police officers had assaulted him after a football match and argued that the police investigation was unreasonable because statements had not been taken from his daughter and another young witness.

The police had conducted two investigations, obtained accounts from several officers and other witnesses, reviewed CCTV footage, revisited the scene and considered photographs. The IPCC concluded that the investigation was proportionate and that there was insufficient evidence to establish misconduct. Permission for judicial review was limited to the issue of the two witnesses, although a related challenge concerning identification of other officers was later reconsidered.

1. Application dismissed. The IPCC’s decision not to require statements from the claimant’s daughter and Tom Casey was reasonably and fairly open to it and was not irrational.
2. Under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, the police investigation had to determine whether the alleged facts were established on the balance of probabilities. Its function was not limited to deciding whether there was merely a case to answer on those facts. The IPCC’s appeal function was by way of review, including consideration of whether the investigation was proportionate and whether its conclusions were reasonable.
3. There was no duty on an investigator or the IPCC to interview every relevant witness. The scope of an investigation was a matter of judgment governed by proportionality. Relevant considerations included the seriousness and context of the allegations, the extent of any injury, the evidence already obtained, the likelihood that further evidence would prove the allegations and the scale of the investigation already undertaken.
4. The IPCC had made some unsatisfactory observations. It was unclear whether its reference to a lack of corroboration meant a lack of any corroboration or merely a lack of independent corroboration. It also inaccurately suggested that one officer’s evidence positively corroborated another’s. Those defects did not invalidate the overall decision.
5. The investigation was substantial. It included evidence from at least six police officers, other officers, a civilian witness, expert evidence, extensive CCTV review, a site visit and photographs. The IPCC was entitled to conclude that further statements would not sufficiently resolve the evidential difficulties. It was also entitled to conclude that, even accepting the claimant’s account, the available evidence did not establish misconduct in the context of the serious crowd disturbance.
6. The court applied a deferential judicial review standard. The question was not whether the court would have reached the same conclusion, but whether the IPCC’s conclusion was fairly and reasonably open to it. A related challenge concerning identification of other officers was also rejected on proportionality grounds.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment records that permission was initially refused on paper, but was granted on oral renewal on a limited ground by HH Judge Spencer QC.