Chief Constable Of South Yorkshire Police, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court At Sheffield & Anor

Under the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, an injury pension is generally payable from the officer’s retirement date, unless the Regulations expressly provide otherwise. The medical assessment is made on the evidence available when the question arises, but that does not make the pension payable only prospectively.

The Crown Court’s jurisdiction under regulation 34 extends beyond the annual calculation of the pension. A refusal to admit a claim for a larger award may include a dispute about the period for which the award is payable. However, the power to make an order that appears just does not authorise an award of interest where the Regulations contain no provision for it.

The Chief Constable sought judicial review of a decision of the Crown Court at Sheffield dated 20 July 2018 on a statutory appeal under regulation 34 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. The Crown Court had held that Lloyd Patrick Kelly could appeal against the period for which his injury pension was payable and was entitled to payment backdated to his retirement, together with interest.

The claim challenged the Crown Court’s jurisdiction, the retrospective effect of the pension award, and the power to award interest. The central issues were whether a claim for payment over an earlier period was a claim for a larger award, whether regulation 43 required payment from retirement, and whether regulation 34 permitted interest.

The judicial review succeeded only in relation to interest.

1. Backdating. Regulation 43(1) identifies retirement as the date from which an injury pension is payable. Regulations 7(1) and 30(2) govern when and how disability and injury questions are medically assessed, but do not provide that payment must begin only when the assessment or determination is made. The construction requiring payment from retirement causes possible overpayment or underpayment, but that is an inherent consequence of the scheme. The reasoning in R(McGinley) v Schilling [2005] EWCA Civ 567 supported that conclusion. (paras 41–60)
2. Jurisdiction. Regulation 34 contains two relevant limbs: refusal to admit a claim to receive an award as of right, and refusal to admit a claim to receive a larger award than that granted. The latter is not confined to the annual amount calculated under Schedule 3. “A larger award” can include the total financial entitlement, including the period over which the pension is payable. The Crown Court’s power to make such order as appears just reinforces that broader construction. A narrow interpretation would create an unlikely and fragmented system requiring separate appeals and damages claims. (paras 61–71)
3. Interest. Regulation 34 permits an order for the larger award authorised by the Regulations. It does not permit the Crown Court to enlarge the statutory annual entitlement merely because it considers another amount just. Since the Regulations make no provision for interest, and a general equitable jurisdiction could not overcome that statutory scheme, the Crown Court had no power to award interest. (paras 72–76)

The Crown Court’s decision was therefore upheld on jurisdiction and backdating, but quashed to the extent that it awarded interest.

1. Crown Court at Sheffield: On 20 July 2018, allowed Mr Kelly’s regulation 34 appeal, ordered the injury pension to be backdated to retirement, and awarded interest.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): On judicial review, upheld the Crown Court’s jurisdiction and conclusion on backdating, but held that it had no power to award interest. ( [2020] EWHC 210 (Admin) )