X, R (On the Application Of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Under criterion C2 of the Home Office Crime Recording General Rules, a recorded crime should be cancelled only where the decision-maker is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that no offence occurred. “Additional verifiable information” means reliable and accurate information which may be supported, or capable of being supported, by other information.

A specialist decision-maker’s conclusion attracts significant respect and may be quashed only where it is unreasonable or irrational. Nevertheless, the decision-maker must assess all relevant evidence and factors. A decision based solely on a speculative possibility of collusion, while failing to consider material evidence supporting cancellation, may be unreasonable.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Metropolitan Police decision to retain as a recorded crime a complaint by his adopted sister, T, alleging rape. The police had initially investigated the complaint and later received further witness evidence and a letter from T apologising for making the allegation. A Force Crime Registrar nevertheless concluded that he could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged offence had not occurred, partly because the contrary evidence came from the claimant and family members.

Permission to apply for judicial review had been granted by Collins J. By the hearing, the issue was the lawfulness of the Force Crime Registrar’s decision of 15 November 2016.

1. Interpretation of criterion C2. The court, rather than the police, had to determine the meaning of the Home Office Crime Recording General Rules. Criterion C2 required the decision-maker to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that no offence had been committed before cancelling a recorded crime. The reference to the balance of probability in the recording provisions did not impose the same standard on cancellation. The word “determines” pointed to the more exacting standard.
2. Additional verifiable information. Those words bore their natural meaning in context. “Verifiable” conveyed reliability and accuracy and could also indicate information supported, or capable of being supported, by other information.
3. Intensity of review. The Force Crime Registrar acted as a specialist tribunal, so his decision was entitled to significant respect. The court could nevertheless intervene where the decision was unreasonable or irrational. This was a comparatively rare case in which that threshold was met.
4. Application. The registrar’s only stated basis for doubt was the possibility that the claimant and his family had colluded to exonerate him. He failed to show that he had considered material factors, including T’s demonstrably false earlier complaints, her mental illness, her apology and retraction, the consistent statements of the claimant’s mother and sister, and the views of the investigating officer and the recommending senior officer. Taking those matters together, a reasonable decision-maker would have concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the claimant had not raped T.
5. The same reasoning also undermined the possibility that T had been raped by a stranger outside the home. The decision of 15 November 2016 was quashed. The court made no determination about what information might be disclosed in the future, and there was no order as to costs.

This was a first-instance judicial review. The claim was issued on 17 June 2016, and permission was granted by Collins J on 10 October 2016. The court quashed the Force Crime Registrar’s decision of 15 November 2016.