Stephen Dalton, R (on the application of) v Chair of the Police Appeals Tribunal

A Police Appeals Tribunal applies a statutory appeal standard that is less stringent than Wednesbury unreasonableness, but it must not substitute its own view merely because another conclusion is possible. Judicial review is not an appeal on the merits. A tribunal may assess credibility and evidence in the manner appropriate to its decision, and need not address every evidential point or adopt a party’s proposed framework. Reasons are adequate if, read in context, they show that the main issues were addressed and explain broadly why the decision was reached. Questioning by a panel member does not establish apparent bias unless, viewed objectively, it indicates a premature concluded view or a closed mind. A formal self-direction on good character is unnecessary where the material shows that good character was taken into account.

The claimant, a police officer, sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the Chair of the Police Appeals Tribunal’s decision dismissing his appeal under rule 11 of the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2012. His appeal concerned a misconduct panel’s findings that he had used excessive force against a detained youth, acted without proper respect and courtesy, and committed gross misconduct warranting dismissal.

The proposed judicial review grounds alleged inadequate reasons, apparent bias arising from questioning by an independent panel member, failure properly to assess evidence and character, and irrationality in dismissing the appeal. The central issues were whether those grounds were arguable and, alternatively, whether the statutory no-substantial-difference test applied.

1. Permission refused. The claimant’s proposed grounds had no realistic prospect of success.
2. The test of unreasonableness under rule 4(4) of the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2012 is not Wednesbury unreasonableness. It is applied in the context of an appeal to a specialist tribunal. Nevertheless, the appellate tribunal cannot substitute its own view unless it has first concluded that the misconduct panel’s approach or conclusions were unreasonable: R (Chief Constable of Durham) v Police Appeals Tribunal.
3. The Chair was entitled to conclude that the misconduct panel had considered the relevant witness evidence. The panel relied primarily on body-worn video and the claimant’s evidence, made overall findings of fact, and was not required to analyse every witness separately or write with the detail expected of a High Court judge.
4. The challenge to the order and sequence in which the panel discussed reliability and findings of fact sought impermissibly to reopen the merits. The structure of the panel’s decision did not establish that it assessed credibility before considering the evidence.
5. The fair-minded and informed observer test governed apparent bias. The independent panel member’s comments and questions were directly relevant to the allegations, were made in the context of the evidence, and did not demonstrate a settled view or unwillingness to be persuaded. A panel member is entitled to ask searching questions and express a provisional reaction to evidence.
6. There was no legal requirement for the panel expressly to repeat a good-character direction in its written decision. The submissions, the record of service and the surrounding material enabled the court to infer that the claimant’s good character had been taken into account.
7. Any inadequacy in the Chair’s reasons would not have justified permission because it was highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different, applying section 31(3C)–(3D) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.