In the matter of various applications for judicial review brought by any/all of the Claimants named below

A court should exercise significant restraint when asked to control the conduct of a police investigation. Alleged investigative errors or complaints against investigating officers do not, without more, establish apparent bias or require removal of the officers or transfer of the investigation. The applicable standard is generally Wednesbury rationality, with substantial latitude allowed to the decision-maker. Challenges to decisions under the police complaints scheme are similarly subject to a restrained review. Repetitive and totally unmeritorious judicial review claims may justify a general civil restraint order where an extended order would be insufficient or inappropriate. The order must nevertheless be proportionate and may be confined to the parties and public bodies concerned.

The judgment determined nine renewed applications for permission to apply for judicial review brought by Ildar Sharipov, Online Currency Corp Ltd and Grizzio Ltd. The claims arose from Operation Kobus, a Merseyside Police investigation into suspected money laundering, related production and account-freezing orders, police complaints, and decisions of the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

The challenges concerned the allocation and suspension of complaint investigations, the continuation of the police investigation, decisions concerning production orders, the handling of complaints against police and IOPC personnel, and an IOPC appeal decision. The court also considered an application for a general civil restraint order and an application invoking the Hamid jurisdiction.

1. Judicial review applications. All nine renewed applications for permission were dismissed. The challenges to the production-order decision were unarguable: the Crown Court judge had addressed the statutory requirements, considered the relevant submissions, and reached conclusions reasonably open to him. The challenges to the police and IOPC decisions principally amounted to disagreement with evaluative judgments.
2. Police investigations and alleged bias. The apparent-bias test in Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 and AWG Group v Morrison [2006] 1 WLR 1163 applies to judicial or similar adjudicative decision-making. It does not govern the operational conduct of a police investigation. The relevant standard was Wednesbury rationality. A court must allow substantial latitude to the decision-maker in assessing evidence and deciding how and by whom an investigation should be conducted. Judicial intervention would be likely to succeed only in rare circumstances. An error during an investigation does not of itself establish that the investigating officers or force can no longer conduct it properly. The court should genuinely hesitate before controlling an investigation, consistent with R (Soma Oil and Gas) v DPP [2016] EWHC 2471 (Admin).
3. Police complaints. Under Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, the Director General had latitude to select the form of investigation and to determine an appeal from a local investigation. The decisions to use Merseyside Police, suspend an investigation temporarily, dismiss complaints as abusive collateral attacks, and direct reinvestigation by Merseyside Police disclosed no arguable legal error. Several challenges had also become academic or had been overtaken by events.
4. Civil restraint. The court applied the approach approved in Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police v Gray [2019] EWCA Civ 1675. Mr Sharipov had persistently issued claims certified as totally without merit, forming a campaign directed at disrupting Operation Kobus. An extended civil restraint order was insufficient or inappropriate. A proportionate general civil restraint order was therefore made against Mr Sharipov, restricting claims against Merseyside Police, the IOPC and their personnel without permission until 4 February 2024. It did not apply directly to Online Currency Corp Ltd or Grizzio Ltd, but prohibited Mr Sharipov from acting as their representative or McKenzie friend in claims within its scope. The Hamid application was refused and certified totally without merit.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier refusals of permission by King J, Sir Wyn Williams, Julian Knowles J, William Davis J, Collins Rice J and Mostyn J, but no appeal decision concerning the present applications.