Sharp v West Yorkshire Police & Anor

This judicial review challenges the Police Medical Appeal Board's decision that the claimant was not entitled to an ill-health pension under regulation B3 of the Police Pension Regulations 1987 because he was not "permanently disabled" within the meaning of reg A(12). The court held that the PMAB erred in law by focussing on the claimant's "paranoid attitude" as if it were the infirmity, rather than recognising that the claimant had a recognised medical condition—recurrent depressive disorder (ICD10 F33.4)—which satisfied the definition of "infirmity" in reg A12(5).

The court also found that the PMAB failed to apply the correct approach to causation and permanence: it did not properly assess whether the medical infirmity substantially caused a substantial inability to perform all ordinary duties and whether that inability was likely to be permanent. For those reasons the PMAB's decisions (27 January 2015 and 22 May 2015) were quashed and a rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal was directed.

This is a first-instance judicial review of the Police Medical Appeal Board's reconsidered decision denying an ill-health pension to a former officer, Mr Sharp, under regulation B3 of the Police Pension Regulations 1987. The claimant alleged he was permanently disabled from performing the ordinary duties of a police officer because of a recurrent depressive disorder. The Secretary's Selected Medical Practitioner (Dr Dagens) had concluded there was no clear medical reason to regard him as permanently unfit; the claimant appealed to the PMAB and produced detailed psychiatric evidence from Professor Rix who concluded that, because of a persistent "paranoid attitude", on balance it was more probable than not that the claimant would suffer a recurrence if returned to policing and thus would be permanently disabled.

The PMAB accepted the diagnosis of recurrent depressive disorder in remission and said it gave greatest weight to Professor Rix's report, but concluded that the claimant's "paranoid attitude" was not itself an infirmity and that vulnerability did not amount to permanent disablement. The claimant sought reconsideration, submitted further clarification from Professor Rix and the PMAB again refused the claim.

The issues for the court were (i) whether the claimant suffered an "infirmity of mind or body" within reg A12(5), (ii) whether that infirmity occasioned inability to perform all ordinary duties of a member of the force (causation), and (iii) whether that inability was likely to be permanent. The court held that (i) the PMAB should have treated the recognised diagnosis of recurrent depressive disorder as an infirmity under reg A12(5) (distinguishing the vulnerability analysis in Broome), (ii) the PMAB failed to apply a coherent causation test — the court accepted that the infirmity need not be the sole cause and that the correct approach examines whether the infirmity substantially contributed to the incapacity — and (iii) the PMAB had not properly assessed permanence by considering the effect of past episodes, the likelihood of recurrence on return to work, and prospects of recovery. The court quashed the PMAB decision and remitted the matter for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

The judgment emphasises that tribunals must identify the medical condition recognised by clinicians as the "infirmity", properly analyse causation (including interaction between personality/attitudinal factors and medical disorder), and reach clear findings about the likelihood of recurrence and permanence rather than treating personality traits as the primary legal infirmity.

The application for judicial review succeeds. The decision of the Police Medical Appeal Board (dated 27 January 2015 and reconsidered on 22 May 2015) is quashed and the matter is remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal. The PMAB erred in law by treating the claimant's "paranoid attitude" as if it were the infirmity rather than recognising the claimant's recurrent depressive disorder as an infirmity under reg A12(5), and it failed to make adequate findings on causation and the likelihood of permanence.