Sidwell, R (On the Application Of) v Police Medical Board

For permanent disablement under regulation A12, the decision-maker must determine whether the officer cannot perform all the ordinary duties of the relevant police force, whether that inability is caused by a medically recognised condition, and whether it is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

A specialist medical tribunal may rely on ICD 10 when identifying a medical condition. Judicial review requires respect for its expert fact-finding. Its reasons must explain the essential findings and reasoning, but need not resemble an appellate judgment. An immaterial error on one element does not invalidate a decision independently supported by another element.

The claimant sought judicial review of a Police Medical Appeal Board decision that he was not permanently disabled under regulation A12 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987. The decision affected his eligibility for additional early pension payments.

He alleged errors of law, inadequate reasons, and irrational reliance on the Board’s specialist member’s medical opinion. The Board had rejected competing psychiatric diagnoses and found that any condition was amenable to treatment. The issues concerned the meaning of permanent disablement, use of ICD 10, adequacy of reasons, and judicial review of specialist medical findings.

1. Applicable test. Permanent disablement requires proof that: (i) the officer cannot perform all ordinary duties of the particular force; (ii) the inability is caused by a medical condition of body or mind, excluding mere vulnerability; and (iii) the inability is likely to endure for the foreseeable future.
2. Medical condition. The Board was entitled to use ICD 10 as authoritative guidance when deciding whether a recognised medical condition existed, provided it avoided an excessively prescriptive approach.
3. Judicial review. The court should respect the findings of a specialist medical tribunal. Its reasons need not be elaborate, but must sufficiently explain its findings, conclusions, and essential reasoning. The Board’s reasons met that standard.
4. Outcome. Although there may have been a minor error concerning the particular duties considered, it was immaterial. The Board was entitled to prefer its specialist member’s evidence. Its finding that any condition was amenable to treatment independently established that the condition was not permanent. The claim was dismissed, and permission to appeal was refused under CPR 52.3(6).

First-instance judicial review. Following circulation of the draft judgment, permission to appeal was refused under CPR 52.3(6).