Chief Constable of Avon And Somerset Constabulary v Police Medical Appeal Board

For an injury to be received in the execution of police duty, there must be a substantial causal connection between the injury and the officer’s service as a constable. It is insufficient that the officer was merely on duty or suffered injury because of the fact of being a police officer. The relevant connection may arise from the duties undertaken or the conditions and circumstances in which they were undertaken. The test must be applied as stated, although it is fact-sensitive and may encompass a cumulative drip-drip effect. A medical appeal board must not replace that test with a generally benevolent approach. Management failings may be relevant factual context, but cannot be used as an independent basis for treating an injury as received in the execution of duty.

The Chief Constable sought judicial review of a decision of the Police Medical Appeal Board dated 17 May 2018 under the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. The Board had concluded that Mr Middleton’s chronic adjustment disorder was an injury received in the execution of his duty and therefore capable of supporting an injury award.

The challenge alleged that the Board had misunderstood the authorities on the meaning of execution of duty and had wrongly relied on management failings concerning Mr Middleton’s deployment. The central issues were whether the Board had applied the correct causation test and, if so, whether the court could substitute its own conclusion on the facts.

1. The claim succeeded. The Board’s decision was quashed. It had misdirected itself by treating the authorities as establishing two opposing approaches, one benevolent and one strict, and by applying a benevolent approach to the legal test itself.
2. The governing principles, approved in Stunt and derived from Kellam, require a substantial causal connection between the injury and the officer’s service as a police officer. The connection must be with service as a constable, rather than merely with the officer’s status or the fact that he was on duty. It may arise from the duties undertaken or the conditions and circumstances in which those duties were undertaken. The authorities illustrate different applications of one test, not divergent legal tests.
3. The Board had not clearly identified or applied that test. Its reasoning did not adequately determine whether the chronic adjustment reaction was caused by the circumstances of Mr Middleton’s service or merely by his frustration at not obtaining a permanent role.
4. The Board also erred in relying on admitted management failures to support a benevolent characterisation of the claim. Those failures were not needed to resolve causation and could not themselves establish the required connection between injury and execution of duty.
5. Although the decision was unlawful, substitution was inappropriate. The report, read as a whole, contained potentially material findings concerning repeated redeployments, inadequate training, long journeys and other cumulative circumstances. It was not clear that only one lawful conclusion was possible.

The matter was left for further submissions on whether relief should include a fresh determination or a wholly fresh hearing. The declaration sought was refused.

This was a first-instance judicial review of the Police Medical Appeal Board’s decision dated 17 May 2018. The Administrative Court granted judicial review and quashed that decision, declining to substitute its own conclusion and reserving further relief and directions.