IXF, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police

An appeal under police complaints guidance requires a fresh consideration of the complaint. It must address the substance of the allegations and the appellant’s representations, rather than merely review whether the earlier investigation was reasonable and proportionate. Adequate reasons must explain why each material complaint is upheld or rejected.

An Article 3 investigative duty depends on the seriousness of the alleged treatment, assessed by reference to all the circumstances. The duty is engaged by the nature of the allegations, not by the eventual factual findings. The public sector equality duty applies to individual decisions and must be performed with substance and rigour.

The claimant challenged an Independent Appeals Panel decision dated 22 March 2022, which had not upheld his complaint about his arrest, overnight detention and alleged degrading treatment by West Mercia Police.

He argued that the appeal had been conducted contrary to the police complaints statutory guidance, that the defendant had failed to investigate an alleged breach of Article 3, that the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 had been breached, and that the matter should have been referred to the IOPC.

The central issues were whether the appeal panel had reconsidered the complaint afresh, whether its reasons were adequate, and whether the remaining public law and human rights grounds were made out.

1. Ground 1 succeeded. The appeal panel’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted to an Independent Appeals Panel for redetermination.
2. The statutory guidance required a fresh consideration of the case. An appeal was not merely a quality check of the earlier investigation. The panel had to consider whether the conclusions were supported by the evidence, whether the allegations had been adequately addressed, and whether the correct decisions had been reached.
3. The decision letter adopted a confused approach. It focused on whether the complaint had received a reasonable and proportionate response, rather than clearly reconsidering whether the complaint should have been upheld. More importantly, it failed to engage with the substantial representations concerning the decision to arrest and the alleged strategy of arresting and detaining a person with mental health difficulties. The absence of adequate reasons on that central issue was sufficient to make the decision unlawful.
4. The court did not determine whether the arrest itself was lawful. That issue remained for the redetermining appeal panel and might also arise in the claimant’s civil claim.
5. The alleged treatment did not, on balance, reach the minimum threshold of seriousness required to engage the Article 3 investigative duty. That threshold depended on the nature and context of the treatment, its manner and duration, its physical or mental effects, and the claimant’s state of health. In any event, the defendant had substantially complied with any investigative duty.
6. The claimant had not proved that he was disabled for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 in September 2019. His claim based on direct discrimination therefore failed. The public sector equality duty under section 149 remained relevant to the further consideration required after the quashing of the appeal decision, making that aspect of the claim academic at this stage.
7. The statutory guidance provided one appeal route. It did not create an onward appeal to the IOPC. Any challenge to the allocation or conduct of the appeal lay by judicial review.

This was a first-instance judicial review. Permission was granted by HHJ Tindal on 19 January 2023. The court quashed the Independent Appeals Panel decision dated 22 March 2022 and remitted the appeal for redetermination.