Chief Executive of the IPCC, R (On the Application Of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission

An investigator assessing whether police misconduct proceedings should follow must decide whether a reasonable disciplinary body could find misconduct or gross misconduct on the evidence. The investigator must not decide the merits, resolve credible conflicts of fact, or apply the balance of probabilities to determine whether misconduct actually occurred. The report must provide an accurate, sufficiently detailed summary of material evidence and identify relevant documents. It need not be exhaustive, but material conflicts and issues must be addressed. A report applying the wrong test, omitting material evidence and shaping later decision-making may be quashed. Delay and prejudice to officers do not outweigh the need for a proper investigation where a death in police contact engages accountability and public-confidence obligations.

Following the death of Jordon Begley after police officers used a Taser and restrained him, the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigated whether the officers had a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct. The investigator concluded that there was no case to answer, and the Chief Constable and the IPCC accepted that conclusion.

After an inquest jury returned findings critical of aspects of the police conduct, the IPCC reviewed the investigation and concluded that the report contained public-law defects. The IPCC and its Chief Executive sought judicial review and supported quashing the report. The officers opposed the application, relying principally on delay, prejudice and the practical difficulty of a further investigation. The central issues were whether the investigator had applied the correct case-to-answer test, complied with Regulation 20 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012/1204, and whether the court should decline relief.

1. Application allowed. The investigation report and the consequential decision that there was no case to answer were quashed. The matter had to be considered afresh.

2. The investigator’s task was not to determine whether misconduct had occurred. The correct question was whether there was sufficient evidence on which a reasonable misconduct meeting or hearing could, applying the balance of probabilities, find misconduct or gross misconduct. The investigator had to explain the evaluation of the evidence but stop short of deciding the questions reserved for the disciplinary tribunal.

3. The report’s repeated conclusion that, on the balance of probabilities, each officer had no case to answer showed that the investigator had decided the merits. The report made unqualified factual findings and did not consider whether a reasonable disciplinary body could accept less favourable factual conclusions arising from conflicts in the evidence. That error was fundamental. The court could not substitute its own view or say that no investigator could reach any other conclusion.

4. Regulation 20 required a sufficiently detailed, though not exhaustive, summary of the material evidence, together with relevant documents or references to them. Materiality depended on the potential disciplinary issues. The report should have addressed conflicts about Mr Begley’s hands when the Taser was discharged and whether officers gave the required post-Taser warning. Those matters could affect whether the use of force or subsequent procedures breached applicable standards.

5. The investigator’s report materially influenced the Chief Constable and the IPCC and was not corrected by their later review. Delay, the officers’ restricted duties and the difficulty of a fresh investigation could not outweigh the need for a proper investigation into a death during police restraint, the requirements of article 2 of the ECHR, and the IPCC’s public-confidence function. The fresh investigation’s terms were not enlarged by the judgment, and the court expressed no view on whether any officer had a case to answer.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The application succeeded and the report and consequential decision were quashed.