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

The claimant judicially reviewed the decision of the Independent Appeals Panel dated 22 March 2022 which refused to uphold a complaint about his arrest and treatment by West Mercia Police. Key legal principles considered were the requirement in the Statutory Guidance for a genuine fresh consideration on appeal (paras 13.5, 13.94-13.98), the PACE power to arrest and necessity criteria (section 24 PACE 1984 and PACE Code G), the criminal offence relied upon (section 127 Communications Act 2003), the investigatory duty under Article 3 ECHR and section 6 Human Rights Act 1998, and the Public Sector Equality Duty in section 149 Equality Act 2010.

The court held that the appeal decision was unlawful because the decision letter failed to engage with the representations on appeal about the lawfulness and purpose of the arrest and did not give adequate reasons showing a fresh consideration of that issue. The claim succeeded on that ground and the appeal decision was quashed and remitted. The court rejected the other grounds: (1) there was no unlawful failure to refer the appeal to the IPCC/IOPC (the chief officer's decision not to refer was within the range of reasonable responses and the Statutory Guidance contemplates a single appeal route); (2) an Article 3 investigative duty was not engaged on the facts, and in any event the force had substantially complied with any investigatory duty; and (3) the claimant failed to prove he was a disabled person at the material time so the PSED/direct discrimination arguments failed and were academic in light of ground 1.

This is a first instance judicial review challenge to an Independent Appeals Panel decision dated 22 March 2022 which refused to uphold a complaint made by the claimant about his arrest on 5 September 2019 and alleged degrading treatment while detained. The claimant, a protected party acting by a litigation friend, sought a declaration that the appeal decision was unlawful and an order quashing it with a direction to refer the matter to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

Background facts and procedural posture:

• On 5-6 September 2019 the claimant, who had a history of mental-health related welfare calls, was visited by police after a family report that he threatened self-harm and had petrol in his property. He was arrested and detained overnight and bailed the next morning. His mother complained that the arrest was unjustified and that he had been treated degradingly while detained.
• The complaint was investigated by force professional standards staff, who concluded the complaint was not upheld. The claimant appealed and the Independent Appeals Panel reaffirmed the original decision on 22 March 2022. The claimant obtained permission for judicial review and brought this claim in the Administrative Court.

Nature of the claim and relief sought:

• The claimant sought a declaration that the appeal decision was unlawful and an order quashing the appeal decision and requiring referral to the IOPC.

Issues framed by the court:

• Ground 1: Whether the appeal panel gave a fresh consideration in accordance with the Statutory Guidance and provided adequate reasons, or whether the decision was irrational and inadequately reasoned in relation to the lawfulness and purpose of the arrest.
• Ground 2: Whether the appeal decision breached the defendant's investigative duty under Article 3 ECHR (and section 6 HRA) because the complaint alleged possible Article 3 ill-treatment.
• Ground 3: Whether the force failed to consider Equality Act issues and breached the Public Sector Equality Duty (s149 EA 2010), in particular whether the claimant was a disabled person at the material time.
• Ground 4: Whether there was a right of onward appeal to the IOPC or a duty to refer the appeal to the IPCC/IOPC under the Statutory Guidance.

Court's reasoning and conclusions:

• Ground 4: The court read the Statutory Guidance as providing a single appeal route (either to the chief officer or to the IPCC/IOPC) and concluded there was no separate onward appeal. The chief officer's decision not to refer the appeal to the IPCC/IOPC was within the range of reasonable decisions and not unlawful.
• Ground 1: The appeal decision letter was brief and focused on whether the complaint had been handled reasonably and proportionately rather than demonstrating a fresh independent consideration of the central issue on appeal: the lawfulness and appropriateness of arresting a person in mental-health crisis. The letter failed to address the appellant's specific representations about the arrest strategy and lacked adequate reasons on that central point. For that reason the court concluded the appeal had not been properly determined in accordance with the Statutory Guidance and quashed the appeal decision.
• Ground 2: The court held the allegations did not, on the material before it, reach the severity threshold to engage an Article 3 investigative duty. Even if such a duty had been arguable, the force had substantially complied with an investigatory duty: the investigator reviewed body-worn and CCTV footage and made findings, and remedial management action was suggested.
• Ground 3: A psychiatric report produced did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant was disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time; alcoholism appeared to be the predominant problem then and is excluded by regulation. Accordingly the PSED/direct discrimination claim failed and was academic given the remittal on ground 1.

Remedy: The court quashed the appeal decision of 22 March 2022 and remitted the appeal for redetermination by an Independent Appeals Panel, making the agreed draft order.

The claim for judicial review succeeded in part. The court quashed the Independent Appeals Panel's decision of 22 March 2022 and remitted the matter for redetermination because the appeal decision did not demonstrate a fresh consideration or provide adequate reasons in respect of the central complaint about the lawfulness and purpose of the arrest. The remaining grounds failed: there was no unlawful failure to refer to the IPCC/IOPC, no established Article 3 investigative duty nor infringing failure of investigation, and insufficient evidence that the claimant was disabled for Equality Act purposes so the PSED/direct discrimination claim failed.