Jones v Birmingham City Council and another
[2023] UKSC 27
R (on the application of Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct and others
5 July 2023
[2023] UKSC 24
Supreme Court
A police officer shot someone, claiming self-defense. The question was whether to judge his actions based on what he *believed* happened (criminal law) or whether his belief was also *reasonable* (civil law). The Supreme Court said we should use the 'reasonable belief' standard (civil law) in police misconduct cases, because it's better for learning and keeping the public's trust in the police.
Key Facts
- •Officer W80 shot Jermaine Baker, who was unarmed, believing Baker was reaching for a firearm.
- •The IOPC initiated gross misconduct proceedings against W80, applying the civil law test for self-defence.
- •W80 challenged the IOPC's decision, arguing that the criminal law test should apply.
- •The Divisional Court quashed the IOPC's decision, finding the IOPC had applied the wrong test.
- •The Court of Appeal overturned the Divisional Court's decision, adopting a test of 'necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances'.
- •A public inquiry into Baker's death found W80 held an honest belief that Baker posed a lethal threat, although this belief was mistaken.
Legal Principles
Self-defence has two limbs: the trigger (the individual's genuine belief) and the response (the reasonableness of the response).
Common law, codified in s 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (criminal proceedings) and Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (civil proceedings)
In criminal proceedings, a genuinely held belief justifies self-defence regardless of whether it was mistaken or unreasonable.
s 76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008; R v Morgan; R v Williams (Gladstone); Beckford v The Queen; R v Keane
In civil proceedings, a mistaken belief justifies self-defence only if it was reasonable.
Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police
Police officers can use reasonable force in exercising their powers (s 117 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and s 3 Criminal Law Act 1967).
s 117 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; s 3 Criminal Law Act 1967
The standard for use of force in police disciplinary proceedings is 'necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances' (Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012).
Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012
Outcomes
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
The Court held that the civil law test for self-defence should apply in police disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the importance of learning, development, and maintaining public confidence.
Court of Appeal allowed the IOPC's appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that the relevant standard was whether the use of force was necessary, proportionate, and reasonable in all circumstances, and that this did not require the application of either the criminal or civil law test for self-defence.
Divisional Court allowed W80's claim for judicial review.
The Divisional Court found that the IOPC had erred in applying the civil law test and should have applied the criminal law test for self-defence.
Similar Cases
Director of Public Prosecutions v Sidney Price & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2864 (Admin)
Stephen Dalton, R (on the application of) v Chair of the Police Appeals Tribunal
[2024] EWHC 1116 (Admin)
Kristina O'Connor, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2892 (Admin)
Edwin Afriyie v Commissioner of Police for the City of London
[2024] EWCA Civ 1269