Crompton, R (on the application of) v Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire & Ors

A police and crime commissioner may scrutinise a chief constable’s operational and other functions, but must respect the statutory framework of operational independence and co-operation. The commissioner must allow a margin of appreciation for reasonable professional judgments and cannot treat accountability as synonymous with suspension or removal. The relevant question is whether the chief constable’s conduct fell outside the range of reasonable responses available to him, and whether the commissioner could rationally conclude that it did. Detailed and reasoned views from the Chief Inspector of Constabulary require particular weight and departure requires cogent reasons. Where suspension or removal significantly affects reputation and private life, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is engaged and proportionality applies.

The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire challenged four decisions by the Police and Crime Commissioner following the Hillsborough inquest: suspension, continuation of the statutory removal process, maintenance of that decision after representations, and the final requirement that he resign. The challenges alleged irrationality, disproportionality, irrelevant considerations and breach of article 8. The court also considered delay, the statutory relationship between the Commissioner and Chief Constable, the effect of the Policing Protocol, and the weight to be given to views from HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary. The central issues were whether the Commissioner could rationally treat the Chief Constable’s second public statement as warranting suspension and removal, and whether the subsequent statutory decisions could stand.

1. Permission and time. Although the challenges to the first two decisions were issued outside the time required by CPR 54.5, time was extended under CPR Part 3.1(2)(a). The decisions formed stages in one statutory process, and there was good reason for waiting until the process was complete. Permission was granted for all four challenges.
2. Statutory framework and operational independence. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 gives the Commissioner wide responsibility to hold the Chief Constable to account for all his functions, including operational matters. The Policing Protocol nevertheless requires goodwill, professionalism, openness, trust and co-operation, and requires the parties to safeguard operational independence. The Commissioner must distinguish scrutiny from control.
3. Applicable rationality test. The Commissioner must ask whether the Chief Constable’s conduct was outside the range of reasonable responses available to him. The court reviews whether the Commissioner’s conclusion was lawful, procedurally proper and rational. The Protocol requires the Commissioner to allow a margin of appreciation for the Chief Constable’s professional judgment. Action based merely on disagreement is unlawful. Accountability is a continuum and is not synonymous with suspension or removal, as explained in Shoesmith v Ofsted [2011] PTSR 1459.
4. First decision. The decision to issue a second statement was within the range of reasonable responses. The statement, read in its immediate and wider context, did not fairly imply criticism of Liverpool supporters or rejection of the inquest verdict. The limited evidence available before suspension did not establish a significant adverse public reaction. The Commissioner’s decision to suspend was therefore irrational.
5. HMCIC’s views. The statutory requirement to have regard to the Inspector’s views required particular weight to be given to detailed, thorough and closely reasoned independent advice. Departure required cogent reasons. The Commissioner failed adequately to engage with the substance of HMCIC’s objections and his second decision was irrational.
6. Remaining decisions and proportionality. The third and fourth decisions could not stand because they rested on the irrational earlier decisions and failed to recognise their defects. In any event, suspension, continuation of the process and requiring resignation were disproportionate. Article 8 was engaged by the serious effect on reputation and private life. All four decisions were quashed.

Not stated in the judgment.