Stephen Dalton, R (on the application of) v Chair of the Police Appeals Tribunal
[2024] EWHC 1116 (Admin)
IXF, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police
14 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2793 (Admin)
High Court
A man with mental health problems was arrested, and his mum complained about how the police treated him. The police reviewed the complaint, but didn't do it properly. The court said the police had to review the complaint again, but didn't find the police did anything seriously wrong otherwise.
Key Facts
- •On September 5, 2019, the Claimant (IXF), a known individual with mental health issues, was arrested by West Mercia Police after his father reported suicidal threats.
- •IXF's mother subsequently complained about his treatment, alleging unlawful arrest and degrading treatment.
- •West Mercia Police's internal complaint process did not uphold the complaint.
- •IXF appealed the decision, but the appeal was also rejected.
- •IXF then sought judicial review of the appeal decision.
- •IXF also filed a separate civil claim for damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.
Legal Principles
Judicial review is not for resolving factual disputes, but for reviewing the legality of decisions.
Judgment
Power to arrest without warrant is governed by section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
PACE 1984
Offence of persistently using a public communications network to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety (Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003).
Communications Act 2003
Article 3 ECHR imposes an absolute prohibition on torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
ECHR
State authorities have an investigative duty under Article 3 ECHR to investigate allegations of ill-treatment.
ECHR
Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010
Statutory Guidance for police complaints appeals (2015 version).
Independent Police Complaints Commission
Outcomes
Claim succeeds on Ground 1 (failure to properly consider the appeal).
The appeal panel failed to adequately consider the representations made regarding the decision to arrest, focusing instead on the handling of the complaint rather than the substance of the complaint itself. The decision letter lacked sufficient reasoning regarding the arrest.
Claim fails on Ground 2 (breach of Article 3 investigative duty).
The alleged conduct did not meet the threshold for Article 3, and the investigation substantially complied with any investigative duty.
Claim fails on Ground 3 (breach of PSED).
Insufficient evidence was presented to establish that the Claimant was disabled under the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. The issue of PSED was considered academic given the success of Ground 1.
Claim fails on Ground 4 (incorrect assertion of onward appeal right to the IOPC).
The Statutory Guidance only provides for one appeal, and the chief officer's decision not to refer the matter to the IPCC was reasonable.
The appeal decision of March 22, 2022, is quashed, and the matter is remitted to an Independent Appeals Panel for redetermination.
The appeal panel's decision was unlawful due to the failure to properly consider the appeal concerning the arrest.
Similar Cases
Kristina O'Connor, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2892 (Admin)
John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Independent Office of Police Conduct
[2022] EWHC 3307 (Admin)
The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, R (on the application of) v The Police Appeals Tribunal
[2024] EWHC 2348 (Admin)
McMahon v Independent Office for Police Conduct
[2024] EWCA Civ 994