MT (R on the application of) v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF LINCOLNSHIRE POLICE and Anor

Permission for judicial review should be refused where the claimant cannot show an arguable case with a realistic prospect of success, subject to any discretionary bar. The permission judge must exercise the court’s supervisory jurisdiction independently and may assess the materials afresh. In a challenge to a police investigation, the court respects the police’s evaluative judgment on investigative steps, evidential sufficiency and whether to refer a case to the Crown Prosecution Service. Judicial review is not a mechanism for directing further investigation or ordering disclosure merely because the claimant disagrees with that assessment. Where the available complaint and review mechanisms have addressed the substance of the complaint, the court may consider those processes when assessing whether any public law duty was arguably breached.

The claimant sought judicial review concerning the closure of a police investigation into alleged abuse of a young child. She challenged the adequacy and discontinuance of the investigation, the application of the evidential threshold for prosecution, the decision not to refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service, and alleged inappropriate disclosures.

Earlier complaints had been partly upheld and a further forensic step had been undertaken. A review by the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commissioner was not upheld. A later complaint was also rejected. Permission was refused on the papers by HHJ Belcher, without a totally-without-merit certificate. The claimant renewed the application orally before the Administrative Court.

1. Permission test. The court’s function at the permission stage is supervisory. It must decide whether there is an arguable case with a realistic prospect of success. If that threshold is not met, permission should be refused because further proceedings would cause delay and expense without a realistic prospect of success. The court must form its own view on the materials, which may be considered afresh.
2. Criminal cause or matter. The claim was approached as a criminal cause or matter because its underlying subject concerned possible criminal trial and punishment. Accordingly, refusal of permission by this court would be the end of the judicial review proceedings, since the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in a criminal cause or matter.
3. Investigation and evidential assessment. There was no realistic prospect of establishing that the police had breached a public law duty in the investigation or its curtailment. The police had undertaken investigative and forensic steps, reviewed the investigation, considered the claimant’s recorded interviews, and assessed whether the evidence gave a realistic prospect of conviction. Those evaluative judgments were for the police, subject to public law standards of legality, reasonableness, procedural fairness and relevant human-rights justification.
4. Complaint and review mechanisms. The complaint-handler’s assessment, the further forensic step, and the Police and Crime Commissioner’s review were relevant to the central issue of investigative adequacy. The later complaint’s investigation strand had covered the same ground and was not separately reconsidered. The alleged disclosure strand had been considered under the complaints mechanism.
5. Disclosure and orders. The court refused the requested disclosure orders. The absence of disclosure at this stage did not materially affect the viability or prognosis of the claim. Permission for judicial review was refused, the disclosure applications and protective costs order application were dismissed, and the anonymity order remained in force.

The judgment describes earlier procedural orders in the same proceedings:

• Administrative Court: HHJ Davis-White QC directed that the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commissioner be joined and raised amendment of the grounds.
• Administrative Court: HHJ Belcher refused permission for judicial review and refused permission to amend the grounds on the papers on 11 November 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The renewed application was refused. The court dismissed the disclosure and protective costs order applications.