McNeany v IPCC

An IPCC review of a police decision is not a reinvestigation. The question is whether the police action and the IPCC’s conclusion were reasonable, lawful and rational on the information available. A decision letter may contain an inaccurate explanation of one element of blackmail without being unlawful overall, where the decision is read as a whole and the remaining reasoning supports the conclusion. The court must consider the complete decision, the underlying investigation and the evidence before the decision-maker. Where a lawful reconsideration would inevitably produce the same result, quashing the decision would provide no practical benefit.

The claimant sought judicial review of an IPCC decision dated 18 February 2013, which did not uphold his complaint about Northumbria Police’s handling of allegations of blackmail and related misconduct. Permission was initially refused but was later granted on the limited ground that the IPCC’s decision letter appeared to mischaracterise blackmail by suggesting that reasonable grounds for a demand meant that all elements of the offence were absent.

The central issues were whether the IPCC had misunderstood the offence and whether its decision was thereby unlawful, irrational or unreasonable. The court also considered the proper scope of an IPCC review.

1. Claim dismissed. The IPCC’s decision was neither unreasonable, unlawful nor irrational.
2. The IPCC’s role was to review whether the police decision was reasonable. It was not required to reinvestigate the allegations or determine them afresh as a court would. Its case worker had to reach a valid, appropriate, reasonable and understandable conclusion on the police action.
3. The decision letter used unfortunate wording. In particular, the statement that the proprietor had reasonable grounds for making the demand, followed by the conclusion that the elements of blackmail were not met, inaccurately suggested that reasonable grounds alone disposed of the offence. That was a limited mischaracterisation.
4. That wording could not properly be read in isolation. The court considered the entirety of the decision letter, the police investigation and the substantial evidence before the IPCC. Viewed in context, the material supported the conclusion that the proprietor’s purpose was to stop persistent contact with the agency, rather than to obtain a gain or cause a loss within the meaning of blackmail.
5. The claimant’s alternative argument that the proprietor sought to protect the agency’s economic interests was circular and unsupported by the evidence. The IPCC was therefore entitled to uphold the police assessment.
6. Alternatively, even if the decision were quashed, a fresh review applying the correct elements of blackmail would inevitably reach the same result. There would therefore be no benefit to the claimant from quashing the decision.
7. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £3,843.20.

Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers on 4 September 2013. On 9 December 2013, permission was granted on a limited ground in the absence of the IPCC and Northumbria Police. The High Court (Administrative Court) subsequently dismissed the claim.