Cases summaries

Report: 6
Date: 18 October 2010
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report summarises the findings of two recent cases which were considered by the courts. These are:

1. The case of Jordan which concerns an application by the North Yorkshire Police Authority (“the NYPA”) for judicial review of the decision of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“the IPCC”) that the NYPA was required to record a complaint made against its Chief Constable.
2. The case of Jones which concerns an appeal against the decision of the Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee (“the PSCSC”) to forfeit 50% of his pension permanently and 15% temporarily, for a period of five years.

A. Recommendations

That members of the Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee review and consider the contents of this report and the attached cases. (Appendix 1 and 2).

B. Supporting information

1. Case: (i) R (on the application of North Yorkshire Police Authority) (Claimant) v Independent Police Complaints Commission (Defendant) & (1) Chief Constable of North Yorkshire (2) Anthony Jordan (interested Parties) [2010] EWHC 1690 (Admin)

2. The full judgment of this case which was considered by the Administrative Division of the High Court is contained at Appendix 1. For ease of reference, the case has been summarised below in chronological order.

Chronology

17.07.08: Mr Jordan (J) asks North Yorkshire Police (NYP) to investigate the treatment of his mother in a care home prior to her death and the manner in which this complaint about that treatment had been dealt with by other agencies.

04.09.08: DI Maud of NYP supervises an investigation but concludes that no criminal proceedings are justified.

07.10.08: J complains to NYP and the IPCC about DI Maud who carried out the investigation.

03.12.08: J formally requests the Chief Constable (CC) of NYP to investigate.

15.12.08: CC declines through a NYP solicitor.

18.05.09: J complains to NYPA about CC.

22.05.09: NYPA refuses to record on the basis of direction and control.

09.06.09: IPCC discontinues investigation against DI Maud.

26.06.09: J appeals to IPCC regarding decision of NYPA.

28.08.09: IPCC upholds his appeal. Their reasons are twofold: (i) the complaint against CC does not constitute direction and control; (ii) the issue of whether or not CC has been personally involved in making the determination is not of importance to the recording decision.

Unknown date: NYPA seeks a judicial review of IPCC’s decision.

08.07.10: The court dismisses NYPA’s appeal.

Summary of the judgement

3. In determining this case, the court considered two questions:

(i) Did J’s complaint relate to the conduct of the CC?

4. The court rejected the NYPA’s argument that the complaint could not relate to ‘conduct’ because it did not allege personal misconduct. It held that “the word ‘conduct’ in its ordinary or natural meaning, which is that of behaviour, does not carry with it the notion that the behaviour must be of a particular quality, whether good or bad.” It held that it could find no justification in restricting its meaning to bad behaviour, misconduct or personal misconduct.

5. The court held that therefore the IPCC was right to treat Mr Jordan’s complaint as one which related to the conduct of the Chief Constable.

(ii) If the complaint did relate to conduct, was it excluded from the obligation to record because it constituted direction and control?

6. The court noted that NYP’s own guidance classifies the decision not to prosecute a particular individual for a particular crime as not being a decision amounting to direction and control.

7. It held that direction and control was essentially concerned with matters of a general nature. A decision by a chief officer which was confined to a particular subject fell outside the scope of direction and control.

8. The court concluded that this did not relate to a matter of direction and control.

Case (ii) Hywel Jones v The Metropolitan Police Authority (A/2010/89), The Crown Court at Southwark, 28 July 2010 (Appendix 2)

9. Mr Jones appealed to the Crown Court under Regulation H5(1) of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 following a decision of the PSCSC to forfeit 50% of his pension permanently and 15% temporarily, for a period of five years. This decision was taken at its meeting on 8 February 2010.

10. The crux of the appeal was the severity of the sanction imposed by the PSCSC.

11. The court allowed Mr Jones’ appeal, reducing the forfeiture to 50% permanently. Whilst the court considered that Mr Jones offending was serious, it however did not consider that the level of offending was at the top of the scale.

12. In the course of its decision, the judge also looked at the value of considering the media as a factor in determining the seriousness of an offence.

D. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. There are no diversity and equality issues arising from this report.

Met Forward

2. The content of this report has the potential to impact on the following strands of Met Forward:-

• Met Connect – confidence in the MPS.
• Met Standards – holding the Commissioner to account.

Financial Implications

3. There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Environmental Implications

4. There are no environmental implications arising from this report.

Legal Implications

5. Matters concerning the conduct of senior officers in the MPS, which are brought to the attention of the MPA after 1 December 2008, are considered by the MPA in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002 (as amended); The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2004 (as amended); The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008; The IPCC Statutory Guidance (April 2010) and the Home Office Guidance on Police Officer Misconduct, Unsatisfactory Performance and Attendance Management Procedures.

6. An appeal against a decision of the Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee to forfeit any part of a former officer’s pension lies to the Crown Court by virtue of Regulation H5 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987.

Risk Implications

7. There are no immediate risk implications arising from this report.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report authors: Kalyanee Mendelsohn, MPA.

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendices to follow

Appendix 1: R (on the application of North Yorkshire Police Authority) (Claimant) v Independent Police Complaints Commission (Defendant) & (1) Chief Constable of North Yorkshire (2) Anthony Jordan (interested Parties) [2010] EWHC 1690 (Admin)

Appendix 2: Hywel Jones v The Metropolitan Police Authority, Harrow Crown Court, 28 July 2010, Case A/2010/89

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback