The Department of Justice v Bell (Patricia) and Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Gillen LJ |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] NICA 69 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 07 November 2017 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2017] NICA 69
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: GIL10444
Delivered: 7/11/2017
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_______
Between:
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Respondent /Appellant;
-and-
PATRICIA BELL
Applicant/Respondent;
-and-
POLICE OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
Notice Party.
_________
Before: Gillen LJ, Deeny LJ and Sir Paul Girvan
________
GILLEN LJ (giving the judgment of the court )
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by The Department of Justice (“the Department “) against
the judgment of Maguire J, delivered on 24 March 2017, declaring that the
Department acted unlawfully by failing to provide a sufficient level of funding to the
Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (“PONI”) to enable it to carry out its
statutory obligation to investigate the applicant’s complaint, within a reasonable
period of time.
[2] Mr Peter Coll QC appeared on behalf of the appellant Department with
Mr Philip McAteer. Mr MacDonald QC appeared on behalf of the respondent with
Mr Sean Devine. Ms Fiona Doherty QC appeared with Professor Gordon Anthony
2
on behalf of the Notice Party, the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland (“the
PONI”). We are grateful to counsel for their helpful written and oral submissions.
Background
[3] The precise factual background was summarised by the appellant (to which
no objection was taken by the respondent or the PONI) and is contained in the
Chronology appended to this judgment.
The grounds of appeal
[4] Mr Coll contended that the learned trial judge erred in law in the following
respects:
• In concluding that underfunding of the PO was “most directly” the result of a
failure by the Department to provide adequate resources to the PONI.
• In his approach to the definition of the Department’s duty of funding of the
PONI under Paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 to the Police (NI) Act 1998.
• In that whilst he held that the Department is not obliged to provide to the
PONI the funding wanted by the PONI, that is the effect of the judgment.
• In finding that the Wednesbury principle has been breached and that the
Department failed to act rationally on the facts of this case for the reasons set
out in the judgment.
• In failing to afford the Department sufficient latitude and breadth of
discretion in making its determination as to the level of funding to be
provided to the PONI in accordance with its statutory discretion.
• In failing to properly recognise and find the width of discretion provided by
the legislature to the Department with regards to the statutory duty to fund
the PONI that arises from the statutory formulation of “such sums as appear
to the Department to be appropriate”.
• In failing to take into account adequately or at all the Department’s own
limited and finite funding requiring distribution to meet a number of funding
pressures in considering the balance that the Department had struck in
determining the level of funding to be provided to the PONI.
• In failing to treat the various demands on the Department’s budget and or its
own limited budget as relevant considerations to take into account in
determining whether it had behaved in a Wednesbury unreasonable fashion in
determining the level of funding to be provided to the PONI.
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
Wilson (Eileen) Application for Judicial Review and Kitchen (May) Application for Judicial Review and Eileen Wilson and (1) Department of Health for Northern Ireland (2) South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust (3) The Health and Social Care Board The Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland
...Appeal recognised that decisions about resources are polycentric in nature and taken in the “real world.” In Department of Justice v Bell [2017] NICA 69, which involved a case about delay in an investigation by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Gillen LJ said at para [38]: “[28] Wh......
-
McNern (Jennifer) and Turley's (Brian) Application
...considered the competing arguments in this case, and having regard to the valuable legal guidance given by Gillen LJ in the case of Bell [2017] NICA 69 I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate to declare that the failure of the Executive Office to provide a grant of funds to the desi......
-
Ni Chuinneaghain's (Caoimhe) Application
...parallels with high level judicial decisions in both this jurisdiction and that of England and Wales. Illustrations are found in Re Bell [2017] NICA 69 at paras [41]–[43] especially (per Gillen LJ) and R v Cambridge Health Authority, ex parte B [1995] 1 WLR 898 at 906D-F. Decisions such as ......
-
The Children's Law Centre's Application
...or ‘macro-economic’ and therefore non-justiciable. Reliance is placed on the Court of Appeal decision in Department of Justice v Bell [2017] NICA 69 in which Gillen LJ held: 16 “(a) Normally, the question whether the Government allocates sufficient resources to any particular area of state ......
Request a trial to view additional results