Jeffrey, R (on the application of) v The Independent Police Complaints Commission

A public body investigating a complaint must maintain an appropriate degree of independence and distance from those whose conduct is criticised. The investigation must address the material evidence and the correct legal tests with reasonable thoroughness. Under the Wednesbury standard, a decision is unlawful where the investigation fails to engage with central evidence or an essential issue. In complaints about arrest, the relevant question includes whether there was a reasonable belief in the necessity of arrest and whether reasonable, practical alternatives were considered. A complaint about delay must be investigated as a complaint against the public body responsible, not artificially confined to its head. A defective investigation does not necessarily establish that the underlying arrest or search was unlawful, and the court may withhold relief where no practical consequence is shown.

The claimant, a former police officer and Police Federation representative, complained about the IPCC’s investigation into suspected collusion between officers involved in an inquest. He had been arrested, detained, interviewed and had his home searched, but no criminal proceedings were brought against him.

He later complained to the IPCC about the basis for his arrest and detention, the search and seizure of material, the conduct and independence of the complaint investigation, and delay. The IPCC classified the complaint as non-serious and upheld none of its substantial allegations, leaving the delay complaint unresolved. The judicial review therefore concerned whether the IPCC’s handling and conclusions were lawful.

1. Applicable standards. The court accepted that the challenge to the IPCC’s investigation was governed by the Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp standard, and that the lawfulness of arrest required consideration of reasonable belief in necessity and reasonable, practical alternatives, as explained in Richardson v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police and Lord Hanningfield v Chief Constable of the Essex Police.
2. The decision to classify the claimant’s complaints as non-serious was not unlawful. The complaints had to be considered as a whole, were wide-ranging and not in final form, and the applicable test was whether dismissal or resignation was likely if the complaints were proved. The categorisation was not irrevocable. Future decisions should record the reasons why dismissal or resignation was considered unlikely.
3. The complaint investigation lacked the necessary independence. It involved inappropriate consultation and closeness between the investigator, senior staff and persons whose conduct was criticised. Even for a non-serious complaint, the procedures required openness, transparency and due seriousness. The court could not establish that this lack of independence changed the outcome.
4. The investigation did not rigorously examine the basis for the claimant’s arrest and detention. It failed to engage with his earlier explanation that his frequent contact with the officers was part of his Federation representative role and that he had not denied contact. It also failed properly to consider necessity or alternatives such as a voluntary interview. This did not establish that the arrest or detention was unlawful.
5. The investigation of the search and seizure was insufficiently thorough because plainly relevant material, including material bearing on the seizure of diaries, was not considered. However, the material was not privileged as against the claimant and there was no evidence of an actual breach of privilege. The court therefore granted no remedy on this aspect.
6. The delay complaint was inadequately investigated. It was a complaint against the IPCC, not merely against its Commissioner, and the evidence overwhelmingly established marked and unwarranted delay. The IPCC’s failure to conclude that the delay was unreasonable was itself unlawful.

The parties were invited to make written submissions on the form of order.