McMahon v Independent Office for Police Conduct
[2024] EWCA Civ 994
Lorna McMahon, R (on the application of) v Independent Office for Police Conduct
14 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 556 (Admin)
High Court
A woman complained about the police's investigation into her niece's death. A review body (IOPC) said the police did a good enough job. The woman sued, but the judge said the review body followed the rules and the police were not at fault. Some evidence was allowed to be looked at, but the main complaint was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Lorna McMahon sought judicial review of the Independent Office for Police Conduct's (IOPC) decision not to uphold her request for a re-investigation into Greater Manchester Police's (GMP) handling of complaints related to her niece's death.
- •The complaints concerned GMP's handling of domestic abuse allegations against Robert Chalmers, the identification of Teresa McMahon as vulnerable, the provision of Clare's Law disclosure, and whether GMP missed opportunities to prevent Teresa's death.
- •The IOPC conducted a review, not a re-investigation, determining whether GMP's actions were reasonable and proportionate.
- •McMahon challenged the IOPC's decision on grounds of illegality, procedural impropriety, and breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.
- •The IOPC implemented contact restrictions due to McMahon's persistent and demanding communication.
Legal Principles
The IOPC's role is to review the outcome of police investigations, determining whether it was reasonable and proportionate, not to conduct a re-investigation.
Police Reform Act 2002, Schedule 3, paragraph 25
Judicial review will only intervene where the IOPC's decision discloses a public law error (e.g., misdirection in law, irrationality, bias, procedural unfairness).
Judicial precedent (implied)
The IOPC is not responsible for reviewing criminal investigations.
Implicit in IOPC’s remit and judicial precedent (implied)
Disclosure in judicial review is governed by the duty of candour and the need to deal fairly and justly with particular issues, not general civil disclosure rules.
R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1994]
The Equality Act 2010 requires reasonable adjustments for disabilities, but this does not preclude contact restrictions if contact is unreasonably persistent or constitutes an unreasonable demand.
Equality Act 2010 and IOPC policy
Outcomes
Permission to apply for judicial review refused.
The court found no arguable public law errors in the IOPC's decision. The IOPC's application of its contact restriction policy was deemed lawful, and the procedural irregularities alleged did not cause prejudice to McMahon's case.
Application for disclosure of BWV footage from August 3, 2021, refused.
The footage was not considered by the IOPC and was irrelevant to the complaints reviewed.
Application for disclosure of the telephone recording from July 12, 2021, granted.
The recording was deemed necessary to deal fairly and justly with the challenge to the IOPC's decision regarding the vulnerability assessment.
Similar Cases
John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Independent Office of Police Conduct
[2022] EWHC 3307 (Admin)
Eileen Dunne & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Independent Office for Police Conduct
[2023] EWHC 3300 (Admin)
Kristina O'Connor, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2892 (Admin)
IXF, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police
[2023] EWHC 2793 (Admin)