R Campbell v Independent Police Complaints Commission
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Goss |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 3424 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/1580/2015 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 06 November 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 3424 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Goss
CO/1580/2015
CO/2635/2015
CO/2873/2015
In the Matter of an application for Judicial Review
In the Matter of an appeal by way of Case Stated
In the Matter of an application for Judicial Review
The Claimant appeared in person
Ms F Whitelaw appeared on behalf of the Independent Police Complaints Commission
Mr J Byrne appeared on behalf of the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis
Mr Byrne, this concerns you. It does not actually concern Ms Whitelaw directly. I have received since the hearing on 22 October a total now of four letters from Mr Campbell. I do not know whether you have copies of those.
MR BYRNE: I have got copies.
You have got copies of them, thank you very much.
MR BYRNE: There is nothing I need to say in response to those.
There is nothing I want to ask you in relation to them but I just wanted to put it on the record that I have received them, and the last one today bearing yesterday's date.
MR BYRNE: Yes.
I have them all here and they will obviously form part of the case papers.
Mr Campbell, so you understand, I have received all those. I shall refer to them in my judgment. I also received an enquiry from you as to whether you could record the judgment that I am giving. The short answer is, and I hope you were told this, you may not record, no-one may record, any proceedings that take place in court. There will be a record of exactly what I say. The judgment will be transcribed and so it will be available for you.
THE CLAIMANT: I see, okay. There was just one issue that I failed to put to you and that was the issue of Mr Byrne stating that I had not made an application for judicial review in relation to the search warrant. I did, and at the last hearing I didn't have the paperwork with me but I've got the paperwork with me now, so you can see I did make that application.
What happened to that application?
THE CLAIMANT: This was the application that Mr Justice Blake refused initially then Mrs Justice McGowan refused.
So it is the one that is already referred to in the papers?
THE CLAIMANT: Yes.
It is not a separate one?
THE CLAIMANT: No, and Mr Justice Lewison, I think his name is.
Lord Justice Lewison, yes.
THE CLAIMANT: Lord Justice Lewison. So I have got the claim form and the grounds and so on, so that you can see what I actually put to the court. I don't know whether you wanted to —
No, it is all right, thank you very much indeed.
1. There are three case before the court. All arise out of the consequences that flowed from the execution of a search warrant by officers of the Metropolitan Police at the home of Desmond Campbell (to whom I shall refer as 'the Claimant' even though he is the appellant in one set of proceedings) on 10 January 2014 and the seizure of money during the search. In chronological terms, the first case is the Claimant's application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the Independent Police Complaints Commission ("IPCC") challenging the Commission's decision in determination of the Claimant's appeal concerning investigations of the Metropolitan Police Service ("the Metropolitan Police") into his public complaints relating to the Police behaviour when executing the warrant and subsequently. The second is his appeal by way of case stated against the decision of District Judge Hunter sitting in the Bromley Magistrates' Court on 27 March 2015 ordering that the sum of £7,720 in cash seized in the search on 10 January 2014 (plus accrued interest) be forfeited pursuant to section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (referred to hereinafter as " POCA"). The third is an application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the Bromley Magistrates' Court (to which I shall refer as "the Court") and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in relation to a number of case management decisions, evidential rulings and final decisions of the Court. I heard oral submissions relating to the three cases on 22 October 2015. Subsequently, I received three letters from the Claimant dated 23 October 2015, 25 October 2015 and 27 October 2015 respectively. I have, this morning, accepted delivery of a fourth letter dated 5 November 2015. Exceptionally, and in fairness to the Claimant, who has represented himself throughout these proceedings, I have read all those letters and the attachments.
Chronology
2. In order to address all the issues raised it is necessary to summarise the sequence of primary events and facts relating to all three cases. This chronology is not a comprehensive recitation of every event, merely those relevant to issues falling to be considered.
1. On 10 January 2014 the Metropolitan Police executed a search warrant at the Claimant's home address. The warrant had been issued under section 96B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 by District Judge Fanning at Bromley Magistrates' Court on 8 January 2014. Application for the warrant was made by Superintendent Neil Evans, and the warrant authorised DC Panchenko to execute it. During the course of the execution of the search warrant, a quantity of cash was seized from the Claimant's property and he was arrested on suspicion of money laundering and taken into police custody.
2. On 11 January 2014 the Claimant made a number of complaints to the police concerning the circumstances of the execution of the search warrant. These were recorded on Form 3352 by Inspector James Weston. His complaints were summarised as being that:
(i) Officers (DC Panchenko was named) were aggressive and threatened to "do him" and made him walk out of the house to the van only wearing socks in the wet and cold weather;
(ii) Officers (DC Panchenko was named) cut the cords to his tracksuits bottoms, ruining them;
(iii) Officers (DC Panchenko was named) pushed him several times in the chest whilst in custody;
(iv) He was not given a record of the property that had been seized by police (PS Hill being named).
3. By letter dated 20 January 2014, the Claimant wrote to the IPCC alleging Inspector Weston had failed to record full details of his complaint and had not provided with him with the names of all of the officers who had attended his address. The IPCC forwarded the letter to the Police by email dated 21 January 2014, confirming that it was the responsibility of the Force to record the complaint.
4. In response to communications from the Claimant, the IPCC wrote to the Metropolitan Police by email on 3 and 4 February 2014 asking the Metropolitan Police to contact the Claimant to clarify his complaints, as he had expressed concerns that not all of his complaints had been recorded.
5. On 18 February 2014 the Claimant wrote a 6-page letter addressed to both the Metropolitan Police and the IPCC again setting out his complaints.
6. On 19 February 2014, on application by the Metropolitan Police, and having heard representations from the Applicant, the Bromley Magistrates' Court ordered further detention of the seized money for 1 month.
7. On 20 February 2014 the IPCC sent an email to the Metropolitan Police attaching the letter of 18 February 2014, requesting that the Metropolitan Police review the complaints, and indicating its view that the investigation into some of the complaints could proceed.
Investigations into the Claimant's Complaints
8. By letter dated 7 March 2014 the Metropolitan Police wrote to the Claimant explaining that some of his complaints (given the reference PC 1361/14) would be investigated whilst some of his complaints (given the reference PC 351/14) were sub judice and could not be investigated immediately. The letter identified those respective complaints. In short, the investigation into the complaints of violence and mistreatment would be investigated whilst those relating to the unlawfulness of the warrant, seizure of the money, search and harassment were deferred.
9. On 14 March 2014 a further order for detention of the seized money for a period of 3 months was made.
10. By a letter dated 27 March 2014 the Claimant wrote to the IPCC again setting out his various complaints.
Investigation reports
11. A draft Investigation Report into the violence and mistreatment complaints was completed on 12 June 2014. That report failed to include the allegations that the Claimant was threatened with violence, and that he was forced to walk out of his address without shoes, a coat or his medication. The report does refer to two additional complaints, not originally noted, namely that the Claimant was kept a long time in the waiting area outside custody and that DC Panchenko repeatedly lied to the custody officer about cash found at the Claimant's home address.
12. The report investigation had examined CCTV of the custody area and the accounts of DC Panchenko, DC Tannett (who made an account of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fresh View Swift Properties Ltd v Westminster Magistrates' Court
...of Director of Assets Recovery Agency v John [2007] EWHC 360 (QB) and R (on the application of Campbell) v Bromley Magistrates' Court [2015] EWHC 3424 are not analogous and do not tell me what these words are to be taken to mean. Further, the authorities on Part 2 of the Act in my judgment......
-
Desmond Campbell v Bromley Magistrates' Court The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis (Interested Party)
...OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Mr Justice GOSS [2015] EWHC 3424 (Admin) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Before: Sir James Munby PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION — and — Lord Justice McFarlane C......
-
R Shakoor v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police
...v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2014] EWHC 1458 (Admin) at [36] and Goss J (no relation) in R (Campbell) v IPCC [2015] EWHC 3424 (Admin) at [5]. 34. While the principle at (1) has been affected by R (Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police) v IPCC [2014] EWCA Civ 1367, [2015......