Key Facts
- •Claim for judicial review against the Police Remuneration Review Body (PRRB) and the Home Secretary concerning a £1,900 flat-rate pay increase for police officers.
- •Challenge based on alleged breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) due to disproportionate impact on older, higher-ranked officers.
- •Issue of candid disclosure and whether 'substance' of undisclosed documents suffices instead of producing the documents themselves.
- •Permission-stage assurance provided by counsel that undisclosed material would not assist the claim.
- •Pay increase implemented despite the challenge, with a subsequent Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) conducted.
Legal Principles
Standard Disclosure Principle
CPR PD54A §10.2, Hoareau §§19-20
Just Disposal Principle
Tweed §3, R (Bredenkamp) v SSFCA [2013] EWHC 2480 (Admin) §19
Candid Disclosure Principle
Huddleston, Bancoult §192, Hoareau §20
Information-Too Principle
Belize §86, Citizens UK §106(4)
Relevant Material Principle
Graham §18, Quark §50, Citizens UK §106(3), Hoareau §20, Downes §21
Non-Selectivity Principle
Taylor §60, Graham §18, Hoareau §21
Best Evidence Principle
Tweed §4, Hoareau §24, National Association §§47, 49
Redaction Principle
Tweed §33
Permission-Stage Principle
Terra Services §§9, 14, R (Sky Blue Sports & Leisure Ltd) v Coventry City Council §25
Unpleaded-Grounds Principle
De Smith’s Judicial Review (9th edition) at §16-026, Treasury Solicitor’s Guidance [2010] JR 177 at §1.2, R (K, A & B) v SSD §11
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review refused.
Claim lacked realistic prospect of success; PSED duty was complied with.
Application for specific disclosure refused.
Home Secretary's error was a good faith misunderstanding, corrected by the judgment; assurance provided by counsel; claim lacked merit.
Association to pay £8,000 of the Review Body's costs.
Review Body raised unsuccessful preliminary objections, increasing costs.