Mark Moss, R (on the application of) v The Service Complaints Ombudsman of the Armed Forces (No 3) (Remedy)
[2024] EWHC 669 (Admin)
Mark Moss, R (on the application of) v The Service Complaints Ombudsman of the Armed Forces (No.3)
21 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3311 (Admin)
High Court
A soldier complained about the army's handling of his complaints. A judge ruled that the person reviewing his complaints made mistakes because they didn't consider important details, like the soldier's poor mental health and lack of support. The judge said the review needs to be done again correctly.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Moss, a former soldier, made multiple service complaints (SC1, SC2, SC3) against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) regarding medical care and terms of service.
- •SC1 and SC2 were closed after a meeting between Mr. Moss and Lt. Col. McCall, his commanding officer.
- •Mr. Moss subsequently filed SC3, alleging maladministration in the handling of SC1 and SC2.
- •The Ombudsman conducted investigations (IR1, IR2, IR3), with IR2 and parts of IR3 being challenged and quashed in previous judicial reviews.
- •This third judicial review challenges the Ombudsman's final decision (IR3) on the substance of Mr. Moss's complaints.
- •Key issues include the absence of an Assisting Officer at the crucial meeting, the adequacy of advice given to Mr. Moss regarding the consequences of closing his complaints, and the Ombudsman's reliance on post-meeting communications.
Legal Principles
Judicial review is a supervisory function, not an appeal. The court reviews the Ombudsman's decision for public law errors, not on the merits.
This case
The Ombudsman has a wide latitude of judgment and discretion in investigations, subject to reasonableness review.
Miller v Health Service Commissioner [2018] EWCA Civ 144
A public law error must be material to the outcome to justify judicial review.
This case
The 'duty of care' in this context is broader than a tort law duty of care; it encompasses legal duties and adherence to guidance like JSP831.
This case
Outcomes
The judicial review claim succeeds.
The Ombudsman's final decision (IR3) failed to withstand reasonableness review. The court found material public law errors in the Ombudsman's handling of the case, specifically concerning the absence of an Assisting Officer at a key meeting, the lack of adequate advice regarding the consequences of closing the complaints, and the inappropriate reliance on post-meeting communications to determine what Mr. Moss would have done had he received proper advice.
Similar Cases
L, R (on the application of) v The Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces
[2024] EWHC 1094 (Admin)
Flight Sergeant (ret'd) Barbara Eyton-Hughes & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Defence
[2024] EWHC 1932 (Admin)
Catherine Deborah Alexander v Legal Ombudsman
[2024] EWHC 886 (Admin)
Radoslaw Kaleta, R (on the application of) v The Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman
[2024] EWHC 1038 (Admin)