Moore v The Chief Constable of Merseyside

The claimant sought judicial review of a misconduct meeting decision which had found a discrimination (equality and diversity) charge "not proven" against a police constable while upholding a separate duties and responsibilities charge. The court analysed the duty to give reasons under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 (in particular reg. 36) and the common law duty to provide an adequate summary of reasons to a complainant with a legitimate interest. The judge applied the contextual test of adequacy of reasons (drawing on South Bucks and Southall principles) and considered the principles governing admission of later evidence of reasons (Ermakov and Nash).

The court found that the reasons given for rejecting the equality and diversity charge were wholly inadequate because they failed to engage with two central elements of the charge (whether the officer knew the victim was alcohol dependent and whether prejudice influenced the investigation), and that the late witness statement advanced by the defendant did not constitute admissible elaboration of reasons. For these procedural and substantive defects the decision was quashed and the charge remitted for fresh determination by a different investigator; the claim also succeeded on the narrower irrationality ground (as to the inadequacy of the reasons) but not on a wider Wednesbury-type irrationality basis.

Background and parties. The claimant, sister of the late Daniel Ayers, complained about the investigation by PC Simon Lewis into a road traffic collision in which Mr Ayers was struck. The collision driver pleaded guilty to dangerous driving. The claimant alleged that PC Lewis conducted an inadequate investigation and that his conduct was discriminatory because Mr Ayers was alcohol dependent. After internal investigation and two IPCC appeals (which directed further inquiry and ultimately directed disciplinary proceedings), Chief Inspector Davies held a misconduct meeting and found the equality and diversity charge not proven while upholding a duties and responsibilities charge (written warning).

(i) Nature of the claim. The claimant applied for judicial review seeking to quash the misconduct meeting decision in relation to the equality and diversity charge on two grounds: (1) inadequacy of the reasons provided for that finding, and (2) irrationality.

(ii) Issues framed by the court. The court considered (a) the statutory duty to give a summary of reasons under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 and any co-extensive common law duty to provide reasons to a complainant; (b) the proper standard for adequacy of reasons in disciplinary contexts; (c) whether to admit subsequent evidence of reasons advanced after proceedings had begun; and (d) whether the decision was irrational.

(iii) Court’s reasoning and conclusions. The court identified four elements central to the equality charge: that the victim was alcohol dependent (not disputed), that the officer knew this, that the officer allowed prejudice to influence his decisions, and that this caused a poor investigation. The decision failed to address the crucial contested questions as to the officer's knowledge and whether an inference of discriminatory prejudice should be drawn. The recorded reason that the investigator "could find no evidence" of differential treatment was inadequate because the investigator did not undertake the required evaluative task of deciding whether an inference should be drawn on the balance of probabilities, failed to engage with IPCC guidance for discrimination allegations, and omitted material analysis. The court declined to admit the expanded reasons set out in a witness statement produced after proceedings began because admission would have been an impermissible retrospective justification and would undermine the statutory timetable for issuing reasons. The court quashed the decision and directed that the equality charge be determined afresh by a different investigator. On irrationality the court rejected a broad Wednesbury challenge but upheld the narrower complaint that the decision was irrational by reference to the reasons provided.

Wider context. The court emphasised the public interest in proper handling of discrimination allegations against police officers and the need for clear, contemporaneous reasons in misconduct procedures.

The claim for judicial review is allowed. The court quashed the misconduct meeting decision in relation to the equality and diversity charge because the reasons were materially inadequate and additional reasons put forward late were not admissible; the equality charge is remitted for fresh determination by a different investigator. The court also found that the decision was irrational in relation to the reasons given, though it did not make a wider finding of irrationality on the merits.

Permission for judicial review was granted by HHJ Pelling QC on 7 November 2014. The matter was heard in the Administrative Court (Queen's Bench Division) before His Honour Judge Stephen Davies, Manchester, resulting in this judgment dated 19 May 2015.