Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

R (Independent Police Complaints Commission) v Assistant Commissioner Hayman [Administrative Court]

Police Law Reports Cited authorities 7 Cited in Precedent Map Related
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date28 July 2008
Date28 July 2008
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Neutral Citation:

[2008] EWHC 2191 (Admin)

Court and Reference:

Administrative Court, CO/10622/2006

Judge:

Mitting J

R (Independent Police Complaints Commission)
and
Assistant Commissioner Hayman
Appearances:

J Johnson (instructed by the IPCC) for the IPCC; P Ozin (instructed by the Metropolitan Police) for AC Hayman; K Baumber for PC B; M Westgate for C.

Issues:

Whether an officer conducting a review of the decision of a disciplinary panel erred in applying the criminal standard of proof; whether the decision should be quashed.

Facts:

In May 2004, an off-duty officer, PC B, was involved in a fracas, during which C was arrested, along with another man, and detained in a police station for a number of hours before being released without charge. C and another man complained about PC B's conduct. After an investigation concluded that there was inadequate evidence of wrongdoing by PC B, C complained to the IPCC; it directed disciplinary proceedings take place. The relevant Panel found proved 3 of 4 charges of misconduct, each alleging either the use of force or the abuse of authority, and decided that PC B should be required to resign. PC B applied for a review, which was carried out by Assistant Commissioner Hayman, who found the 3 charges not proved; he applied the criminal standard of proof. The IPCC challenged that decision by judicial review on the grounds that Assistant Commissioner Hayman applied the wrong

standard of proof in his review of the panel's decision.

Judgment:

1. On 15 May 2004 PC Bannister, off-duty, became involved in a fracas in Old Street, London, EC1. In the course of the fracas 2 members of the public - Mr Campbell and Mr Wilcox - were arrested. Mr Campbell was arrested by PC Bannister. Mr Wilcox was arrested by another officer, apparently after PC Bannister had indicated he had committed an offence of assault against him. Both men were taken to a police station and detained for a number of hours. Each was released without charge.

2. Both complained about PC Bannister's conduct. Their complaints were investigated by an investigating officer of the Metropolitan Police Service who prepared a detailed, but undated, report some time later. It concluded that there was inadequate evidence of criminal offences on the part of PC Bannister or of disciplinary offences and recommended that no action be taken.

3. Mr Campbell complained to the Independent Police Complaints Commission ("IPCC") who directed that disciplinary proceedings take place against PC Bannister. The disciplinary proceedings came before a panel of 3 senior officers who heard the case over 4 days, from 5-8 June 2006. There were 4 charges of misconduct, each alleging either the use of force or the abuse of authority as described in para 4 of Sched 1 to the Police Conduct Regulations 2004. There was no charge of want of honesty and integrity under para 1. The panel found 3 of the 4 charges proved and decided that PC Bannister should resign.

4. PC Bannister applied for a review of that decision, as was his right. The review was conducted on 25 August 2006 by Assistant Commissioner Hayman who found the 3 charges which had been found to be proved against him by the panel not to be proved, so quashing their decision.

5. The IPCC, supported by Mr Campbell but not by Mr Wilcox, challenged that decision in these judicial review proceedings. The basis of challenge is that Asst Commissioner Hayman applied the wrong standard of proof in his review of the panel's decision.

6. First, I deal with the statutory framework. Section 50(2)(e) of the Police Act 1996 permits the Secretary of State to make regulations for the conduct of efficiency and effectiveness of members of police forces and the maintenance of discipline. That is the section under which the 2004 Regulations were passed. Section 85 provides for a right of appeal by the police officer who is dismissed or required to resign to a Police Appeals Tribunal directly or, when, as here, a review is conducted by an assistant commissioner, after the review is conducted. Section 87(1) permitted the Secretary of State to issue guidance to police officers concerning the discharge of their functions under regulations made under s50 "and they shall have regard to any such guidance in the discharge of their functions".

7. Regulation 27(3) of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT