Watson, R (On the Application Of) v Independent Office for Police Conduct

An IOPC appeal decision is unlawful where the decision-maker reaches a conclusion without giving an adequate reason, particularly where the absence of reasons leaves it unclear whether a lawful or unlawful approach was taken and causes prejudice. A court reviewing such a decision must not substitute its own assessment of the merits. It asks whether the decision was fairly and reasonably open to the IOPC, allowing an appropriate discretionary area of judgment. Where the IOPC concludes that conduct contrary to good practice does not amount to misconduct, it must explain why the conduct falls below the applicable threshold or why no case to answer exists. If the outcome might have been different had adequate reasons been given, the decision should be quashed and reconsidered afresh.

The claimant challenged the IOPC’s decision not to uphold his appeal against Hertfordshire Constabulary’s conclusion that Police Sergeant Solankee had no case to answer. The complaint concerned the claimant being dragged up external steps into a custody suite while handcuffed and while officers knew of his mobility disabilities. Other officers were found, or would have been found, to have a case to answer concerning the use of force.

The IOPC accepted that it would have been good practice for Sergeant Solankee to intervene and seek an alternative means of access, but concluded that this did not constitute misconduct. The issue was whether that conclusion was adequately reasoned and lawful on judicial review.

1. The claim succeeded. The IOPC’s decision that Sergeant Solankee had no case to answer was quashed and remitted for fresh consideration by a different decision-maker. The judgment did not require the IOPC to find that there was a case to answer, still less that misconduct had occurred.
2. The court reviewed the IOPC’s reasons as a whole, recognising that the decision-maker was neither a lawyer nor a judge. The court accepted the factual account of the evidence, including the CCTV footage and the evidence that Sergeant Solankee witnessed the claimant being dragged but did not physically touch him.
3. The conclusion that there was insufficient evidence that Sergeant Solankee personally used excessive force was legally unobjectionable. The separate conclusion that his failure to intervene did not constitute misconduct was merely asserted. No reason was given for it.
4. The absence of reasons was material. The decision could be understood either as a properly reasoned conclusion that the conduct, although contrary to good practice, did not meet the threshold for misconduct, or as an unlawful view that failure to prevent another officer’s excessive use of force could never support misconduct unless the officer personally used force or instructed its use. The reasons did not permit the court to determine which approach had been taken.
5. Where a decision-maker has a duty to give reasons, inadequate reasons may make the decision unlawful where they cause prejudice. The court must not substitute its own view of the merits. It asks whether the decision was fairly and reasonably open to the decision-maker, allowing an appropriate discretionary area of judgment. The high threshold for refusing relief under Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31(2A), was not met because it was unclear whether proper reasons would have produced the same outcome.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission was granted on 10 July 2019 by Clive Sheldon QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.