The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, R (On the Application Of) v Police Medical Appeal Board

For a police injury pension, a psychiatric injury must result from work circumstances in which the officer exercised his duty, rather than merely from an event directed at him because he was a police officer. Disciplinary, criminal or civil proceedings do not automatically qualify or disqualify an injury. The question is whether the injury was caused by the circumstances of the officer’s work, or by his reaction to proceedings or management action directed at him personally. More than one cause may exist, but a qualifying work-related cause must substantially contribute to the disablement. Suspension and sick leave are outside duty, subject to activities which remain part of the officer’s service. A deeming provision for injuries caused because the person is known to be a constable applies only where the officer is targeted because of that status. The PMAB’s decision was quashed and remitted.

The Commissioner of Police, as former employer and police pension authority, challenged by judicial review a decision of the Police Medical Appeal Board. The Board had allowed Neil Brown’s appeal and concluded that his psychiatric injury and permanent disablement had been received in the execution of his duty under the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2016.

The alleged causes included events following criminal proceedings, the handling and disclosure of CCTV evidence, management responses, disciplinary action against other officers, work placement, and a Part 20 claim. The principal issues were whether the Board had applied the correct distinction between work circumstances and events directed at an officer personally, and whether the court could substitute its own decision after quashing the Board’s decision.

1. Judicial review allowed. The PMAB’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.
2. Under regulations 6 and 8 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2016, a psychiatric injury may qualify in the same way as a physical injury. The injury must be caused by work circumstances connected with service as a police officer, and a qualifying cause must substantially contribute to the disablement. Multiple causes may operate together.
3. The distinction is between a reaction to circumstances in which the officer performs his duty and a reaction to an event directed at him as a police officer. The latter includes lack of vindication, disciplinary proceedings, inadequate investigation of complaints, sanctions imposed on colleagues, and the Part 20 claim. Those matters may be connected with employment or police status without being work circumstances.
4. An officer who is suspended or on sick leave is not on duty for this purpose. The fact that an event occurred during a disciplinary or criminal process is not itself determinative; the legal question remains whether the event affected the circumstances in which the officer exercised his duty.
5. The observations in Merseyside Police Authority v Police Medical Appeal Board concerning baseless allegations were obiter and did not create an exception to R (Stunt) v Mallet. The PMAB had treated loss of trust and the aftermath of the CCTV disclosure as qualifying work circumstances, but those were reactions to the Claimant’s conduct rather than injuries caused by the circumstances of Mr Brown’s work.
6. Regulation 6(2)(b) did not apply. The evidence did not show that Mr Brown was targeted because of the office he held as a constable. The court also declined to substitute its own decision under section 31(5A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, since the PMAB was not shown to be a statutory tribunal for that purpose and there was not only one possible lawful outcome.
7. The Interested Party was ordered to pay 75% of the Claimant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment. Permission to appeal was refused on all grounds.

not stated in the judgment.