Sharp v West Yorkshire Police & Anor

Eligibility for an ill-health award under the Police Pension Regulations 1987 requires three elements: an infirmity of mind or body, inability to perform all the ordinary duties of a police officer caused by that infirmity, and an inability likely to be permanent.

A diagnosed recurrent depressive disorder may constitute an infirmity even where it is in remission. A personality feature or vulnerability which contributes to the disorder need not itself be an infirmity. Causation does not require the infirmity to be the sole cause of incapacity. In intermittent conditions, the tribunal must assess the substantial effect of episodes and the likelihood and consequences of recurrence. Its reasons must address those matters clearly.

The claimant, a former police officer, sought an ill-health award under regulation B3 of the Police Pension Regulations 1987. The Selected Medical Practitioner rejected the application, and the Police Medical Appeal Board rejected and then reconsidered the appeal.

The claimant suffered from recurrent depressive disorder, in remission at the relevant time, and had a paranoid attitude which his expert considered likely to trigger further episodes if he returned to police work. The PMAB concluded that the attitude was neither an infirmity nor a permanent disablement. The central issues were whether the diagnosed disorder constituted an infirmity, whether it caused inability to perform the ordinary duties of a police officer, and whether that inability was likely to be permanent.

1. The application succeeded. The PMAB’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.
2. Regulation A12 required the tribunal to ask three questions: whether the officer suffered from an infirmity of mind or body; whether that infirmity caused inability to perform the ordinary duties of a police officer; and whether that inability was likely to be permanent. An award was available only if all three questions were answered affirmatively.
3. The definition of infirmity in regulation A12(5) was wide and included a mental disorder, injury or condition. The claimant’s recurrent depressive disorder was a recognised medical condition and therefore constituted an infirmity. The PMAB had wrongly treated his paranoid attitude, rather than the depressive disorder, as the relevant infirmity. The attitude was a cause of the disorder and its severity.
4. The ordinary duties meant all the ordinary duties of a member of the force. The disorder did not need to be the sole cause of inability. Psychiatric illness may result from interaction between personality and life circumstances. The appropriate question was whether the infirmity was a material or substantial cause of inability to perform the duties.
5. An intermittent condition could amount to permanent disablement. The PMAB had to assess the effect of previous episodes, the likelihood of recurrence on return to work, the likely effect of future episodes, and the extent of recovery. The PMAB had not undertaken that assessment.
6. The PMAB’s statement that the claimant’s attitude was not immutable did not resolve permanence. It failed to explain its departure from the expert evidence and did not assess the likelihood of change before normal retirement age. The decision was therefore inadequately reasoned.

This was a first-instance judicial review of the Police Medical Appeal Board’s reconsideration decision dated 22 May 2015. Permission had been granted on the papers by HH Judge Gosnell on 2 October 2015.