Judicial Review Decision in McMahon v IOPC Highlights Importance of Statutory Interpretation and Procedural Fairness

Citation: [2024] EWHC 556 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of Lorna McMahon v Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) demonstrates the administrative court’s application of legal principles in a judicial review. This analysis will dissect the decision in [2024] EWHC 556 (Admin), focusing on the High Court Justice’s application of statutory interpretation, procedural fairness, and the adherence to established policies concerning acceptable conduct by service users.

Key Facts

The key facts revolve around the plaintiff’s application for judicial review against the IOPC’s decision not to uphold her request for re-investigation of Greater Manchester Police’s (GMP) handling of her complaints largely surrounding the tragic death of her niece, Teresa McMahon (TM). The claims touched on issues such as adequacy of initial and subsequent police investigations, including whether TM was a victim of domestic abuse, the police’s duty to recognize her as vulnerable, and whether they should have provided her with information under Clare’s Law (a domestic violence disclosure scheme).

Judicial Review Grounds

The High Court applied several legal principles governing judicial review:

Illegality: Judicial review can annul decisions that have been made without legal authority. Specifically, the court considered whether the IOPC had a legal basis to assess GMP’s handling of the complaints. The court confirmed the IOPC’s remit under Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, explicitly stating that reviewing criminal investigations falls outside this scope.

Procedural Impropriety: This ground examines if a public body has acted unfairly or has failed in its procedural obligations. In this case, allegations of procedural impropriety were tied to the IOPC’s interaction with the plaintiff, particularly the handling of her disabilities and the alleged refusal by IOPC’s caseworker Ms. Watters to communicate by telephone.

Proportionality: As a subset of reasonableness, this principle questions whether the decision-making body’s action was proportionate to its aim. The court analyzed the IOPC’s conclusions against what would be considered fair and appropriate given the entirety of evidence.

Human Rights Act 1998: The court briefly considered whether there was any arguable breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, although this line of argument was not substantially developed by the plaintiff.

Equality Act 2010

Regarding the reasonable adjustments for disabilities under the Equality Act 2010, the High Court considered if the adjustments requested by the Claimant were reasonable and whether the IOPC’s response complied with the statutory requirement to make such adjustments.

Managing Unacceptable Service User Contact Policy

The application of the IOPC’s policy to manage unacceptable user contact was scrutinized to determine if it was lawfully applied to the plaintiff’s conduct, who had repeatedly emailed and called the IOPC excessively and, according to the IOPC, unreasonably.

Outcomes

The court concluded the following:

  • The IOPC acted within its statutory powers under the Police Reform Act 2002 in making its decision regarding the GMP’s reinvestigation.
  • The IOPC’s interaction with the plaintiff, including communication restrictions and the alleged procedural impropriety, did not meet the threshold for judicial review as they were considered within their policy and reasonably implemented.
  • The necessity for requested disclosure by the Claimant was assessed to determine if it was crucial for just and fair resolution of the legal issue before the court.
  • Allegations of breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 by the Claimant were not substantiated and therefore were discarded.

Conclusion

The decision in Lorna McMahon v IOPC illuminates key administrative principles, accentuating the importance of correct statutory interpretation and suggesting that judicial reviews of procedural impropriety demand clear evidence of breach of established policies or procedures. This case also underscores the necessity for public bodies to justify their stance, particularly when implementing policies that might affect parties with disabilities under the Equality Act 2010. While the outcome may not have been favorable to the Claimant, the legal pathways and protections were judiciously applied.