West Yorkshire Police, R (on the application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission & Ors

In a special requirements investigation, an IPCC report must state the investigator’s opinion whether there is a case to answer before a criminal court or disciplinary tribunal. Investigators must evaluate the evidence and give reasons, but they cannot purport to determine the merits or make final findings on lawfulness, criminal or civil liability, or misconduct. If there is no case to answer, clear findings may explain why the complaint is misdirected. If there is a case to answer, the report must stop short of deciding the questions reserved for the later court or tribunal. This separation protects the fairness of subsequent proceedings.

The IPCC investigated a complaint concerning the arrest of Leeford Sutcliffe and the use of force by Police Constable Lee Armstrong. The investigation was certified as subject to special requirements. The report concluded that there was a case to answer, but also stated that the arrest and uses of force were unlawful, excessive, unreasonable and constituted an assault.

The Chief Constable sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in [2013] EWHC 2698 (Admin), quashed the report and directed the IPCC to produce a revised report. The IPCC appealed. The central issue was whether investigators in a special-requirements investigation could make final findings on the merits, or were confined to deciding whether there was a case to answer.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Administrative Court that the report exceeded the investigators’ powers.
2. Under the Police Reform Act 2002, a special-requirements investigation under paragraph 19B of Schedule 3 engages a statutory procedure for cases indicating possible criminal or disciplinary misconduct. Regulation 14E of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 required the report to indicate the investigators’ opinion whether there was a case to answer. That meant a case to be answered before a criminal court or disciplinary tribunal.
3. The investigators were required to investigate the complaint, evaluate the evidence and provide a reasoned report. If the evidence showed that no case existed, they could make clear findings explaining why. If they concluded that there was a case to answer, they could explain the evidential basis for that conclusion, but had to stop short of deciding the substantive questions which might later fall to a court or tribunal.
4. The report’s findings that the arrest was unlawful, that the force and CS spray were unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive, and that the conduct constituted an assault purported to decide the merits. The investigators had thereby assumed the role of judge and jury. Such findings could prejudice later proceedings and were unfair to the officer.
5. The IPCC’s general functions, the need to maintain public confidence, and the investigative obligation arising under article 2 of the Convention did not enlarge those powers. Public confidence required the complaints system to operate lawfully and fairly. The approach in Allatt was consistent with the principle that an IPCC investigator should not make final decisions on matters arising in a case requiring an answer, although the present report warranted a different conclusion on its facts.

The order quashing the report and directing a revised report was upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The IPCC’s appeal was dismissed. The order quashing the report and directing a revised report was upheld.
• Administrative Court: In [2013] EWHC 2698 (Admin), the court held that the IPCC could report whether there was a case to answer but could not make apparently conclusive findings on the lawfulness or reasonableness of the officer’s conduct. The report was quashed and a revised report directed.