Rose, R (On the Application Of) v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

For mandatory referral of a police complaint, the appropriate authority must assess the conduct alleged, assuming it to be substantiated, against the statutory guidance. It must not determine the complaint’s merits before referral. Once a recorded complaint alleges conduct falling within serious corruption, referral is mandatory and there is no additional exceptional-case discretion.

A complaint must be read as a whole, including its context and supporting documents. The court also held that relief is not barred under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 where it cannot be said that the outcome would highly likely have been substantially the same without the error.

The claimant challenged an Appeals Officer’s decision that his complaint about Greater Manchester Police was suitable for local resolution. He alleged that police officers had deliberately withheld or tampered with evidence, sought to prevent prosecution of relatives of a serving officer, and that a senior officer had deliberately concealed that conduct.

The central issues were whether the complaint alleged serious corruption requiring referral under the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012, whether an earlier complaint required referral, and whether relief was barred because a later complaint had already been investigated.

1. Construction of the referral provisions. A recorded complaint must be referred where it alleges conduct which, if substantiated, would constitute serious corruption under the Guidance. The assessment is objective and concerns the nature of the conduct alleged, not the merits of the complaint. Referral provisions operate before investigation; the IPCC determines whether investigation is necessary and its form. The guidance’s encouragement to refer where there is doubt supports that construction.
2. The court distinguished R (Yavuz) v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2016] EWHC 2054 (Admin), [2017] PTSR 228, because paragraph 19B decisions arise during an investigation and require consideration of available evidence. It likewise distinguished R (Shakoor) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2018] EWHC 1709 (Admin), which concerned whether a complaint involved a conduct matter and the potential disciplinary consequences.
3. The 2018 Complaint had to be read as a whole. Its allegations of a deliberate cover-up, protection of police officers’ relatives, and deliberate inaction by the senior officer amounted to an allegation of conduct capable of constituting an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The Appeals Officer’s narrower characterisation of the complaint as concerning only an MG3A form was unlawful.
4. The challenge concerning the 2016 Complaint failed. That complaint had already been determined and concerned the original investigation, whereas the 2018 Complaint concerned the later investigation by the senior officer. They arose from distinct incidents.
5. Section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 did not preclude relief. Although a further investigation was unlikely to establish corruption, the claimant had been deprived of IOPC consideration, a decision on the form of investigation, and a possible appeal. It was not highly likely that the outcome would have been substantially the same.
6. The decision was quashed. The court was minded to grant no mandatory order, subject to further submissions.