Moore v The Chief Constable of Merseyside

In a police misconduct decision, reasons must address the substantial issues, identify the conclusions reached on principal controversies and enable the reader to detect any error of reasoning. The required detail depends on the context, including the complexity of the case and the need to exercise a right of appeal.

A decision-maker cannot ordinarily repair materially inadequate reasons by supplying new reasons after judicial review proceedings have begun. Later evidence may elucidate the original reasons, but should not fundamentally alter or retrospectively justify the decision. Where the reasons show that material issues were not properly considered, the court may quash the decision and require fresh determination by a different decision-maker.

The claimant sought judicial review of a misconduct meeting decision concerning a police constable’s investigation of a fatal road traffic incident. The investigator found a charge of discriminatory conduct not proven, but found a separate charge of inadequate investigation proven and imposed a written warning.

The claimant alleged that the reasons for rejecting the discrimination charge were inadequate and irrational. After the claim was issued and permission granted, the defendant produced a witness statement giving further reasons for the decision. The central issues were whether those reasons could be admitted and whether the original decision was legally sustainable.

1. Reasons. Under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008, the decision-maker had to provide a summary of reasons. There was also a common-law duty to provide such reasons to the complainant. Adequate reasons had to address the substantial points raised, identify the conclusions on the principal controversial issues and enable the reader to discern any error of reasoning. The detail required depended on the context, including the complexity of the disciplinary allegations and the statutory appeal rights.
2. Charge 1. The charge required determination of whether the officer knew that the victim was alcohol dependent and whether prejudice based on that characteristic influenced the investigation and decision. The original reasons did not address the disputed issue of knowledge. Nor did they determine whether the evidence justified an inference of discriminatory influence. A general absence of prejudice against intoxicated collision victims was relevant but not decisive.
3. Late reasons. The subsequent witness statement was not admitted. It was produced after proceedings and permission, introduced reasoning not stated previously, and created a real risk of retrospective justification. It went beyond elucidation or clarification and was arguably inconsistent with the original reasons.
4. Irrationality and remedy. The court could not conclude that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached the finding on the evidence. However, the decision was irrational by reference to the reasons given because material questions were left unresolved. The claim succeeded. The decision was quashed and the charge was remitted for fresh determination by a different investigator.