Paul Squire, R (on the application of) v Police Medical Appeals Board

Under the Police Pensions Regulations 2015, the medical question is whether an officer is permanently medically unfit for any ordinary duty of a constable, including operational duty. That question is distinct from the chief officer’s later discretion whether to require retirement. Basic adjustments which routinely enable an officer to perform ordinary duties may be considered by the medical decision-maker. More complex alterations to how duties are performed generally fall within the chief officer’s discretion. A medical appeal board may reach a final decision on the evidence available where it considers that an officer is more likely than not able to perform operational duties with treatment or basic adjustments. The court dismissed the challenge to the board’s decision that the officer was not permanently unfit.

The claimant, an Inspector in Essex Police, sought judicial review of a Police Medical Appeals Board determination that he was not permanently medically unfit for the ordinary duties of a police officer. He suffered hearing loss and had been moved from a custody-suite role to adjusted, mainly office-based duties.

The claimant argued that the board had conflated the medical fitness question under regulation 81 of the Police Pensions Regulations 2015 with the chief officer’s retirement discretion under regulation 82. He also argued that the board had relied on irrelevant current duties and had reached an irrational, speculative or incomplete conclusion about the effect of hearing aids. The central issue was whether the board had lawfully and rationally determined permanent medical unfitness.

The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

1. The medical decision under regulation 81 of the Police Pensions Regulations 2015 concerns whether the officer is permanently medically unfit to perform any ordinary duty of a constable. This includes front-line operational duties. It is distinct from the chief officer’s wider discretion under regulation 82 to require retirement or continued service. A positive finding under regulation 81 creates neither a right nor a requirement to retire.

2. The board was entitled to consider basic adjustments which might enable an officer to perform ordinary duties. It would be artificial to disregard routine equipment or adjustments which could remedy the relevant incapacity. More complicated adjustments involving alteration of the manner in which police duties are performed fall more naturally within the chief officer’s regulation 82 remit. The dividing line is fact-sensitive.

3. Read as a whole, the board had applied the correct test. Its reference to whether retirement would be appropriate did not establish material misdirection, because it expressly addressed permanent medical unfitness for ordinary police duties and considered the relevant operational duties and guidance.

4. The board was also entitled to consider the claimant’s current work and employment history. That evidence was relevant, although it was not determinative and could not replace medical examination. The board was entitled to prefer its own medical examination and professional assessment of mild hearing loss over earlier workplace assessments.

5. The conclusion was not irrational or speculative. The board considered it more likely than not that the claimant could perform operational duties with hearing aids and appropriate support. It was not required to obtain further evidence before declining to find permanent unfitness. A later material deterioration or inability to function with hearing aids could support reconsideration under Schedule 1 to the Regulations.

The judgment was a first-instance judicial review of a Police Medical Appeals Board determination promulgated on 22 December 2023. The court dismissed the claim and declined to quash or remit that determination.