Peters, R (on the application of) v West Yorkshire Police

In a judicial review of a police misconduct complaint, the court reviews whether the investigation and appeal decision were fairly and reasonably open to the decision-makers. The court must assess the allegations as made at the relevant time and identify the specific conduct alleged to constitute misconduct. It may consider the wider evidential picture rather than one item, such as CCTV, in isolation. Where the evidence is inconclusive and the decision that there was no realistic prospect of proving misconduct on the balance of probabilities was reasonably open, the court should not substitute its own assessment. A court cannot itself order misconduct proceedings; if the decision is unlawful, the usual remedy is remittal for reinvestigation.

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision by the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police refusing his appeal against the rejection of complaints concerning two officers. He alleged that the officers had fabricated statements and given false evidence following his arrest at a Leeds club. The complaints process considered CCTV footage, witness evidence and the officers’ accounts, and concluded that there was no realistic prospect of proving misconduct on the balance of probabilities.

The central issue was whether the appeal decision was unlawful because the CCTV footage allegedly demonstrated such an inconsistency with the officers’ statements that their accounts could only have been fabricated.

1. Claim dismissed. The decision rejecting the claimant’s appeal was fairly and reasonably open to the decision-maker. The court’s function was supervisory and it was not the primary decision-maker.
2. The applicable question was whether the allegations made in the complaint had been established on the balance of probabilities, taking account of proportionality. The appeal process was a review of whether, following a proportionate investigation, an appropriate conclusion had been reached. The court asked whether the investigation decision, and the appeal decision confirming it, were fairly and reasonably open.
3. The fact that the investigation and appeal were conducted within the police force did not of itself justify according the process less respect than an appeal conducted by the IPCC. Independent consideration could be present within a force’s professional standards function.
4. The investigation had to focus on the subject matter of the allegations made at the relevant time. High-level professional standards did not replace the need to identify the actual behaviour alleged to constitute misconduct. The allegation that the officers fabricated statements, if proved, would breach the standard concerning knowingly false statements.
5. The CCTV was short, of poor quality, without sound, and did not show the claimant’s upper body throughout. It did not show overt drunken behaviour or the claimant towering over one officer, but it was inconclusive and did not demonstrate a blatant and inexplicable inconsistency requiring a finding that the officers had fabricated their accounts. The decision-makers were entitled to consider the wider circumstances and evidence, rather than the CCTV in isolation.
6. The court would not itself direct the institution of misconduct proceedings. If the claim had succeeded, the proper course would have been to quash the appeal decision and remit the matter to West Yorkshire Police for reinvestigation.