Glover v Staffordshire Police Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 October 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 2414 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/9002/2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 05 October 2006 |
[2006] EWHC 2414 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Manchester Crown Court
Crown Square
Manchester M3 3FL
The Honourable Mr. Justice Mccombe
Case No: CO/9002/2005
Mr. Richard KIMBLIN (instructed by Lichfield Reynolds ) for the Appellant
Miss Elisabeth LAING (instructed by Staffordshire County Council ) for the Respondent
Mr Justice McCombe:
(A) Introduction
This is an appeal by case stated from the decision of the Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent (His Honour Judge Eades, Ms. P Murphy JP and Mr. P. Hurley JP) made on 29 April 2005. The decision was itself made on an appeal to the Court under the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 ("the 1987 Regulations") against a decision of the Staffordshire Police Authority, the respondent to the present appeal. The appellant is Mrs. Carol Glover who claims entitlement to a widow's pension under the 1997 Regulations. That claim was rejected by the respondent and Mrs. Glover's appeal to the Crown Court was dismissed by the decision now under appeal. Mrs. Glover's claim was rejected because the respondent considered that the common law rule of forfeiture disentitled her to the pension. That rule precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from a acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing: see the statement of the common law rule in Section 1(1) of the Forfeiture Act 1982 ("the 1982 Act").
In 1999 Mrs. Glover pleaded guilty to manslaughter, having killed her husband in 1998. On 28 May 1999 at the Crown Court at Birmingham she was sentenced by Mr. Justice [John] Owen to two years' imprisonment for that offence. The judge's sentencing remarks reveal that she had stabbed her husband with a knife while she was drunk; she acted in temper but had no intention to cause him serious harm. It was not a provocation case. The judge concluded that the offence was not near to an accident, but was very far from a case of murder. At the time of his death Mr. Glover was retired sergeant of the Staffordshire Constabulary and was in receipt of a pension under the 1987 Regulations. On 6 July 1999 the respondent informed Mrs. Glover's solicitors that she was precluded from obtaining benefits under the pension scheme and therefore was not entitled to a widow's pension under it.
On 21 October 2001, upon a reference under the special jurisdiction provided for in section 4 of the 1982 Act, a Social Security Commissioner determined that the forfeiture rule would operate also to remove Mrs. Glover's right to a state widow's pension. However, he exercised his discretion under that Act to modify the forfeiture to allow her to receive 80% of that pension. In the light of that decision, Mrs. Glover's solicitors asked the respondent to reconsider its earlier decision. The respondent did reconsider the matter at a meeting held on 30 July 2001, when it decided again that Mrs. Glover was not entitled to the police widow's pension.
The respondent had before it a report from its clerk, including a summary of legal advice received. That advice expressed the view that the respondent had to take into account the Human Rights Act 1998 ("the 1998 Act") and, in particular, Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. In communicating its decision to Mrs. Glover the Deputy Clerk to the respondent stated that the respondent had considered the First Protocol but had decided that the "presumption of forfeiture" was not overridden by it. I shall return to this point a little later.
Mrs. Glover appealed to the Crown Court and her appeal was dismissed. She now appeals to this court.
(B) The legal framework
Mrs. Glover's right to a widow's pension (if any) arose under the Police Pensions Act ("the 1976 Act") and the 1987 Regulations. The issues that arise on the present appeal are as follows:
i) Whether the common law forfeiture rule is excluded by the terms of the 1976 Act or the 1987 Regulations;
ii) What is the effect on that position of the Pensions Act 1995 ("the 1995 Act) and the Occupational Pension Schemes (Assignment, Forfeiture, Bankruptcy etc.) Regulations 1997 ("the 1997 Regulations");
iii) Whether the 1982 Act applies, and if so, to what effect;
iv) What is the effect of the 1998 Act and Article 1P of the First Protocol to the Convention.
I address those questions in turn.
(C) The 1976 Act and the 1987 Regulations
Section 1 of the 1976 Act imposes upon the Secretary of State a duty to make regulations to make provision for the pensions to be paid to members of police forces "whether as of right or otherwise". Section 1(3) and (4) then goes on to provide as follows:
"(3) Regulations made under this section may contain such consequential or incidental provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient, including, in particular, provision as to the cases in which pensions are to be—
(a) varied, suspended, terminated or forfeited; or
(b) applied otherwise than by being paid to the persons to whom they were awarded;
and may provide for a pension to be forfeited wholly or in part and for the forfeiture to be permanent or temporary.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, the provision which may be made by regulations under this section in respect to forfeiture shall include provision by reference not only to the fact that a person to whom a pension has been awarded has committed and been convicted of an offence as specified in the regulations but also to the fact that the offence in question has been certified by a Minister of the Crown either to have been gravely injurious to the State or to be liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service. "
Pursuant to those powers the Secretary of State has made the 1987 Regulations. Regulation K5(1) to (4) provides as follows:
"(1) This Regulation shall apply to a pension payable to or in respect of a member of a police force under Part B or C or under Regulation E(1) (adult dependent relative's special pension ).
(2) Subject to paragraph (5), a police authority responsible for payment of a pension to which this regulation applies may determine that the pension be forfeited, in whole or in part and permanently or temporarily as they may specify, if the pensioner has been convicted of an offence mentioned in paragraph (3) and, in the case of a widow's pension, that offence was committed after the death of the pensioner's husband.
(3) The offences referred to in paragraph (2) are—
(a) an offence of treason;
(b) one or more offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1939 for which the grantee has been sentenced on the same occasion to a term of imprisonment of, or to two or more consecutive terms amounting in the aggregate to, at least 10 years.
(4) Subject to paragraph (5), a police authority responsible for payment to a member of a police force of a pension to which this Regulation applies may determine that the pension be forfeited, in whole or in part and permanently or temporarily as they may specify, if the grantee has been convicted of an offence committed in connection with his service as a member of a police force which is certified by the Secretary of state either to have been gravely injurious to the interests of the state or to be liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service."
It is Part C of the Regulations which deals with widows' pensions and, therefore, the forfeiture provision in regulation K5(2) and (3) applies to such pensions.
Regulation H1 provides that the question of entitlement to a pension shall first be determined by the police authority. It is regulation H5 that confers a right of appeal to the Crown Court in the following terms:
"Where a member of a home police force, or a person claiming an award in respect of such a member, is aggrieved by the refusal of the police authority to admit a claim to receive as of right an award or a larger award than that granted, or by the forfeiture under Regulation K5 by the police authority of any award granted to or in respect of such a member, he may, subject to Regulation H7, appeal to the Crown Court and that court, after enquiring into the case, may make such order in the matter as appears to be just."
In a careful and persuasive argument Mr. Kimblin, who appeared for Mrs. Glover, submitted that the forfeiture provisions to be found in the 1976 Act and the regulations made there under (as under the predecessor Acts of 1921 and 1948) had the effect of modifying the forfeiture rule at common law so as to allow for forfeiture of police pensions only in such cases as are expressly provided for in them. Mr Kimblin submitted that the statutory scheme for forfeiture of police pensions can be traced back at least as far back as the Police Pensions Act 1921; it was continued by the Police Pensions Act 1948. The relevant provisions in the 1948 Act were in Section 4, which was in the following terms:
"(1) Every pension … (whether described as a pension or as an allowance) granted under any of the enactments specified in Part 1 of the First Schedule to this Act shall be deemed to have been granted, only upon condition that it may be forfeited by the police authority in any of the following cases, that is to say, if the grantee—
(a) is convicted of any offence and is sentenced to penal servitude or to imprisonment for a term exceeding twelve months; or
(b) enters into or continues to carry on any business, occupation or employment which is illegal, or in which the grantee has made use of the fact of former...
To continue reading
Request your trial