Christopher Major v Chief Constable of Essex Police & Anor

Under the Police Pensions Regulations 2015, a medical report must decide the questions referred under regulation 81 and identify the medical condition or conditions causing the relevant unfitness. Where reconsideration reveals an additional underlying condition not identified in the original report, a fresh report is necessary and an appeal right arises once it is issued.

The Regulations also permit a fresh referral for a later decision on permanent medical unfitness where circumstances require it, such as the passage of time, a different underlying condition or deterioration. That power is subject to control against abuse. A later referral may nevertheless be treated as a reconsideration where that was the parties’ understood and assented basis.

The claimant, a police officer, challenged the refusal of his application for ill-health retirement. In 2019, the selected medical practitioner found him medically unfit for ordinary police duties because of recurrent anxiety with depression and PTSD, but not permanently unfit. The claimant did not appeal.

Following further medical evidence in 2023, including a diagnosis of alcohol dependence, the selected medical practitioner reconsidered the matter and again concluded that the claimant was not permanently unfit. The Chief Constable stated that the decision was not subject to regulatory appeal.

The claim raised whether the 2023 referral was a reconsideration or a fresh referral, whether a fresh report was required, and whether the claimant had an appeal right.

1. Ground 2 succeeded. The 2023 reconsideration identified alcohol dependence as an additional condition causing the claimant’s medical unfitness. That condition had not appeared in the 2019 report. It was therefore necessary for the selected medical practitioner to issue a fresh report under paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1 to the Police Pensions Regulations 2015. The claimant’s right of appeal to the appeal board would arise on receipt of that report.
2. A report under regulation 81 must contain a decision on the questions referred under regulation 81(1). Where the member is found medically unfit for ordinary police duties, the report must also identify the specific medical condition or conditions constituting that unfitness. The question whether that unfitness is permanent cannot properly be answered without that identification.
3. The documents prepared in 2023 were not themselves the fresh statutory report. Although described as reports and containing the additional diagnosis, they were not intended by the selected medical practitioner or the Chief Constable to be the statutory report. Treating them as such would improperly widen the appeal board’s task under paragraph 2(5)(a) of Schedule 1.
4. Ground 1 failed. The statutory scheme does not prohibit a fresh referral under regulation 81(1) after an earlier decision. Regulation 75(1), by referring to the member’s condition at the time the question is decided, contemplates a time-specific assessment. A fresh referral may be appropriate after the passage of time, where a different underlying condition has emerged, or where an existing condition has deteriorated. The Chief Constable may refuse a repeated referral where the process is abused.
5. On the facts, the 2023 referral was a reconsideration under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1. That was how the Chief Constable and Dr Cheng understood it, and the claimant had assented to that basis at the time. It therefore did not generate an automatic appeal under paragraph 2(1). The claimant nonetheless had an appeal right because a fresh report was necessary.
6. The court declared that Dr Cheng was required to issue a fresh report including the additional diagnosis of alcohol dependence, and that the right of appeal arose after receipt of that report. Grounds 3 to 5 were not determined.