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

The court considered a claim for judicial review challenging a Police Medical Appeals Board (PMAB) decision that the claimant was not permanently unfit for the ordinary duties of a police officer under the Police Pensions Regulations 2015. The key legal principles were (i) the distinction between the medical question under Regulation 81 (permanent medical unfitness) and the wider managerial discretion under Regulation 82 (whether to require retirement), (ii) the obligation to assess the member's condition at the time of the report under Regulation 75, and (iii) the proper scope for a medical tribunal to take account of reasonable adjustments which are straightforward and within medical competence.

The claimant argued that the PMAB misdirected itself by conflating Regulations 81 and 82, took irrelevant account of the claimant's current non-operational duties, and reached an irrational and speculative conclusion that hearing aids might enable operational duties. The court rejected these grounds and held that the PMAB applied the correct legal test, made appropriate factual findings (including comparison with recruitment hearing thresholds and an examination by an ENT member), and was entitled to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the claimant was not permanently medically unfit.

Background and parties: The claimant is a serving Essex Police inspector and member of the police pension scheme who sought to quash a PMAB determination that he was not permanently medically unfit to perform ordinary police duties. The Police Medical Appeals Board was the defendant (neutral stance) and the Chief Constable of Essex Police was an interested party opposing the claim.

Nature of the application:

• The claimant applied for judicial review seeking quashing of the PMAB decision of 22 December 2023 and an order remitting the case to a freshly constituted PMAB.

Facts and procedure: The claimant has longstanding hearing problems. He returned briefly to operational duty in January 2022, experienced difficulties in a custody role and was moved to adjusted, largely non-operational duties. The force referred him for ill‑health retirement; the selected medical practitioner reported the claimant was unable to work in an operational environment but not permanently so. The claimant appealed to PMAB which, after examination (including by an ENT consultant), concluded he was not permanently unfit and dismissed the appeal.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the PMAB materially misdirected itself by conflating the Regulation 81 medical question with the Regulation 82 managerial discretion to retire;
• Whether the PMAB took irrelevant matters into account (such as current adjusted duties) or failed to assess incapacity against the ordinary duties set out in PNB guidance;
• Whether the PMAB's conclusion was irrational, speculative or unsupported by the evidence.

Court's reasoning and conclusions: The court explained the two-step statutory scheme under the Police Pensions Regulations 2015: Regulation 81 requires a medical finding of permanent unfitness; only then may the chief officer exercise the Regulation 82 discretion about compulsory retirement. The court accepted that a medical board can and should consider straightforward medical adjustments which are within its expertise but that more complex workplace adjustments fall within the chief officer's remit. Reading the PMAB decision as a whole, the court concluded the board applied the correct legal test, considered the claimant's condition against the duties in the PNB guidance and recruitment thresholds, and performed its own examination. The board's finding that it was likely the claimant could manage operational duties with appropriate audiological and force support (for example hearing aids) was a permissible evaluative judgment and not speculative. Late medical evidence not before the PMAB could not found the public law challenge. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

Wider context: The court noted it would be artificial for a medical tribunal to ignore basic adjustments within medical competence, but stressed the dividing line between medical assessment and managerial decisions will depend on facts; it also observed the statutory scheme allows reconsideration where force and officer agree, and that operational redeployment problems discovered later can prompt reconsideration under the Regulations.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that the PMAB applied the correct legal test under Regulation 81 of the Police Pensions Regulations 2015, did not materially conflate that medical question with the chief officer's Regulation 82 discretion, properly considered relevant evidence (including an ENT examination and recruitment hearing thresholds), and was not irrational or speculative in finding, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant was not permanently unfit to perform ordinary police duties.