Court Rules the Decision of West Mercia Police's Appeals Panel Unlawful, Emphasizing the Importance of Proper Evaluation of Arrest Rationale and Mental Health Considerations

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2793 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

The High Court’s decision in IXF, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police [2023] EWHC 2793 (Admin) addresses several key topics within administrative and human rights law. This analysis distils the substantive legal principles applied by HHJ Worster and links them to specific aspects of the case. The focus is on the lawfulness of police actions, the interpretation of statutory duties, and the correct approach to complaints and appeals, touching on the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under the Equality Act 2010 and potential breaches of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Key Facts

In this case, the claimant was arrested and held overnight by the West Mercia Police for “persistent use of a public electronic communications network to cause annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety”. The claimant’s mother filed a complaint, which led to an internal investigation and subsequent dismissal by the Professional Standards Department of the West Mercia Police. The claimant appealed, and the Independent Appeals Panel upheld the original decision.

The claim before the High Court challenged the appeal decision on four grounds, focussing on the rationality and reasoning behind the decision, breach of investigatory duties under Article 3 ECHR, failure to comply with statutory guidance, and the assertion that there was no onward right of appeal to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

Judicial Review and Rationality

The case engages the principle of judicial review, assessing whether an appeals panel considered the complaint afresh as required by statutory guidance. A central point was whether the decision to arrest was irrational (“a ‘corrective’ or a ‘deterrent’ against individuals with mental illness”) and inadequately reasoned.

Article 3 ECHR and Investigative Duty

The claim also involved Article 3 ECHR, which guards against torture and inhumane or degrading treatment. An investigative duty arises from allegations of such treatment. The Court examined if the alleged police conduct crossed the requisite threshold of severity, which would necessitate investigatory action.

Equality Act 2010 and Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

Under section 149 EA 2010, public authorities must give due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality, and fostering good relations across different demographics. This was particularly relevant given the claimant’s mental health issues and whether they were adequately considered during the complaint and investigative process.

Police Powers and the Statutory Threshold for Arrest

The case also explores the arrest powers under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the necessity criteria under Code G, and the offence under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, highlighting the importance of correct legal grounding for police actions.

Right of Appeal

The claimant contended that an onward right of appeal existed post Police Appeals Tribunal decision. However, the Court scrutinized the statutory guidance from the IPCC, which articulates the appeal process and the roles of the appropriate bodies.

Outcomes

The Court held the appeal decision unlawful on the first ground. HHJ Worster observed that the appeal panel failed to meaningfully engage with the arrest’s rationale and the broader context of the claimant’s mental health issues. As such, the decision was quashed and remitted for redetermination. On the second ground, the Court did not find that the duty under Article 3 ECHR was reached or breached. On the third ground, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the claimant was disabled under the Equality Act at the time in question, therefore allegation regarding breaches of PSED failed. Lastly, the Court rejected the claim of an onward right of appeal from the Independent Appeals Panel to the IOPC.

Conclusion

IXF, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of West Mercia Police is significant for delineating the parameters within which complaints against police conduct ought to be reviewed, specifically in the context of mental health considerations. It emphasises the need for a meticulous and evidence-based decision-making process while balancing individual rights with procedural finality. Moreover, it serves as a reminder of the detailed statutory compliance required in complaint investigations, including adherence to the appropriate statutory guidelines and ECHR obligations.