Whittall v Hampshire Police

A police force is not required to undertake a full investigation of every reported allegation. A decision not to investigate further is lawful if it is rationally reached after the complaint has been recorded and given proper preliminary consideration, including review and regard to other available remedies or prosecuting authorities. A permission-stage ruling concerning serious telephone-tapping allegations does not create a general investigative duty. The availability of prosecution by a planning authority for false or reckless planning-certificate conduct may be a rational consideration.

This was a renewed application for permission to appeal against Ouseley J’s refusal of permission to bring judicial review proceedings. The applicant challenged the Chief Constable’s decision not to investigate further complaints alleging fraudulent representations in planning and building-control materials concerning a property dispute with neighbours.

Permission had first been refused on the papers by Wyn Williams J, and Ouseley J refused the renewed application. The central issue was whether the police response was irrational or unlawful because the allegations had not been investigated further.

1. Disposition. Permission to appeal was refused. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and disclosed no arguable ground for judicial review.
2. Rationality of the police decision. The police were not required to conduct a full investigation. The allegations had been recorded under an occurrence number, given preliminary consideration, reviewed by supervisory officers, and considered with advice from a police solicitor. The decision-maker also took account of the possibility of prosecution by the planning authority and the availability of civil remedies. In those circumstances, the decision not to pursue the matter further could not arguably be characterised as irrational.
3. Failure to investigate. The applicant’s reliance on Bryant was misplaced. Foskett J’s decision in R (on the application of) Bryant & Ors v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] EWHC 1314 (Admin) was a permission-stage ruling confined to the particular circumstances of that case. It concerned an alleged failure to investigate telephone tapping, conduct which, if proved, involved serious crimes of considerable public importance. It did not establish a general obligation to investigate every alleged crime and was distinguishable from the present property and planning dispute.
4. Planning prosecution. The availability of a prosecution by the planning authority under section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was a relevant consideration. It was rational for the police to regard the planning authority as the appropriate prosecuting body where the complaint depended substantially on the alleged falsity of planning certificates and the authority did not share the applicant’s concerns.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused by Lord Justice Lloyd Jones: [2015] EWCA Civ 1229.
• High Court. Ouseley J refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings on 22 May 2015.
• High Court on the papers. Wyn Williams J initially refused permission to apply for judicial review.
• Court of Appeal on the papers. McCombe LJ refused permission to appeal. The application was then renewed before Lloyd Jones LJ.