R (Independent Police Complaints Commission) v Chief Constable of West Mercia (PC Walton (interested party))
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Keith |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 1035 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3844/2006 |
| Date | 04 May 2007 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2007] EWHC 1035 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Mr Justice Keith
Case No: CO/3844/2006
Mr Jeremy Johnson (instructed by Julia Chittenden, Legal Services Directorate, Independent Police Complaints Commission ) for the Claimant
Mr John McGuinness QC and Mr Brian Dean (instructed by Russell Jones & Walker ) for the Interested Party
Hearing date: 30 March 2007
Introduction
The claimant, the Independent Police Complaints Commission ("the Commission"), directed the defendant, the Chief Constable of West Mercia, to bring disciplinary proceedings against the interested party, PC David Walton. However, when those proceedings were brought, the panel of officers appointed by the Chief Constable to hear the case decided that the proceedings should be stayed. In this claim for judicial review, the Commission challenges that decision. The Chief Constable has not taken any part in these proceedings, the opposition to the claim having come from PC Walton.
The facts giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings
On 3 April 2003, PC Walton decided to arrest Robert Hall in Shrewsbury city centre for being drunk and disorderly. In order to effect that arrest, PC Walton took Mr Hall to the ground. When he did so, Mr Hall's head struck the pavement. He was handcuffed and taken to Shrewsbury Police Station. While there, he was examined by the force medical examiner, who certified that Mr Hall was fit to be detained. He was checked at regular intervals, but on one of those checks he could not be roused. It is now known that when he struck his head on the pavement, he suffered internal bleeding. He was taken to hospital where he later died. The cause of death was extradural haemorrhage and blunt-force head injury.
An investigation into the circumstances of Mr Hall's arrest was carried out under the supervision of the Commission and its predecessor, the Police Complaints Authority. Concerns had been expressed in some quarters about the nature and extent of the force used by PC Walton. The findings of the investigation were sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. They decided that criminal proceedings were not to be brought.
In due course, an inquest took place into Mr Hall's death. Since there was reason to believe that Mr Hall's death had "resulted from an injury caused by a police officer in the purported execution of his duty", the coroner was required by section 8(3)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act") to summon a jury. Their verdict had to be certified by them in an inquisition which, among other things, had to set out "how, when and where the deceased came by his death": see section 11(5)(b)(ii) of the 1988 Act. However, the extent to which they had to address how Mr Hall had died was affected by the need for the inquest to satisfy the UK's obligation under Art. 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to provide what the European Commission has called "a mechanism whereby the circumstances of a deprivation of life by the agents of a state may receive public and independent scrutiny". If an inquest is to be the mechanism by which this obligation is to be discharged – as it was in Mr Hall's case – the inquest had to "culminate in an expression, however brief, of the jury's conclusion on the disputed factual issues at the heart of the case": see R (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner [2004] 2 AC 182 at [20].
The effect of that, as Middleton went on to explain at [36], is that the traditional short form of verdict may not be appropriate in some cases. An expanded verdict may be necessary. That can be done by asking the jury to provide a narrative form of verdict in which their factual conclusions are briefly summarised. Alternatively, it can be done by asking the jury to answer factual questions put to them by the coroner. But as Middleton went on to confirm at [37], however the jury's verdict was conveyed, there was to be no infringement of rule 42 of the Coroners Rules 1984, which prohibited any verdict from being framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of criminal liability on the part of a named person, or any question of civil liability.
The inquest into Mr Hall's death was on any view a most thorough investigation of the circumstances in which he died. It addressed not only the nature and extent of the force used to subdue Mr Hill, but also the nature and professionalism of the way he was looked after by custody officers at Shrewsbury Police Station. In all, the inquest lasted 14 days from 24 January to 17 February 2005. 55 witnesses gave oral evidence, and the statements of a further 21 witnesses were read to the jury. The presenting officer was later to inform the panel of officers hearing the disciplinary proceedings against PC Walton that there was no criticism of "the quality of the factual investigation made by the coroner during the inquest in any way".
The jury was asked to answer a series of factual questions put to them by the coroner. The questions, together with the answers the jury gave, were as follows:
"(1) When was the fatal injury suffered by Mr Hall sustained?
At time of arrest.
(2) (a) Was the force used to effect the arrest reasonable?
Yes.
(b) Was it then justified to take Mr Hall to Shrewsbury Police Station and not call an ambulance?
Yes.
(3) The medical opinion is clear that at some time prior to 20.29 hrs on 3 April 2003 Mr Hall's condition became irretrievable. Can you say at what time prior to 20.29 hrs that was?
No.
(4) Whilst in custody at Shrewsbury Police Station, prior to such time as you consider his condition became irretrievable, was appropriate action taken by custody staff as to: (a) assessing and reviewing Mr Hall's care,
No.
(b) seeking medical attention?
No."
The disciplinary proceedings
PC Walton's conduct was referred to the Police Complaints Authority on the day of Mr Hall's death. The statutory regime in place at the time under the Police Act 1996 ("the 1996 Act") was to apply to any subsequent disciplinary proceedings brought against PC Walton, notwithstanding the subsequent repeal by the Police Reform Act 2002 of the part of the 1996 Act which dealt with disciplinary proceedings against police officers. That is the effect of Art. 2 of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (Transitional Provisions) Order 2004.
PC Walton is a member of the West Mercia Constabulary. After considering the views expressed by the jury, the Chief Constable of West Mercia decided not to bring disciplinary proceedings against PC Walton. The Commission took the view that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against him, and pursuant to section 76(1) of the 1996 Act it recommended that such disciplinary proceedings be brought. The Chief Constable expressed his unwillingness to do so, and the Commission therefore exercised its powers under section 76(3) of the 1996 Act and directed him to do so.
The disciplinary proceedings were governed by the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999. Reg. 18 provided that they were to be heard by a panel of three senior officers appointed by the Chief Constable. Reg. 23(2) required the panel "to review the facts of the case and decide whether or not the conduct of the [officer] concerned met the appropriate standard, and if it did not, whether in all the circumstances it would be reasonable to impose any, and if so which, sanction". The "appropriate standard" was the standard set out in the Code of Conduct contained in Schedule 1 to the Regulations. Para. 4 of the Code of Conduct provided that officers "must never knowingly use more force than is reasonable", and para. 5 provided that they "should be conscientious and diligent in the performance of their duties".
The disciplinary charges which PC Walton faced were as follows:
"(A) Charge 1 –Use of force and abuse of authority. Being a member of the West Mercia Constabulary on the 3 rd of April 2003 in Shrewsbury you knowingly used more force than was reasonable when you took Robert Hall to the ground in an uncontrolled manner and thereby caused his head to hit the ground with considerable force.
(b) Charge 2 –Performance of duties. Being a member of the West Mercia Constabulary on the 3 rd of April 2003 in Shrewsbury you were not conscientious and diligent in the performance of your duties in that you knew or should reasonably have suspected that Mr Hall had struck his head on the ground during his arrest by you but you failed to:
(1) call an ambulance
(2) arrange for police transport to take Mr Hall to hospital
(3) inform the custody officer at Shrewsbury Police Station that Mr Hall had or may have hit his head on the ground during his arrest."
Charge 1 plainly reflected para. 4 of the Code of Conduct, and charge 2 mirrored para. 5.
The disciplinary hearing took place in private. A preliminary point was taken on behalf of PC Walton when the hearing began. The skeleton argument which contained the submission on the point described the point in its heading as "a submission to dismiss this case as an abuse of process". It was argued on PC Walton's behalf that the issues which the disciplinary proceedings had to address were the same as those which the jury had determined at the inquest in favour of PC Walton. Although the nature of the proceedings were different – the inquest having been inquisitorial in nature and the disciplinary proceedings...
To continue reading
Request your trial