The Queen (on the application of Kohler) v Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Lindblom,Mr Justice Lewis
Judgment Date20 July 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] EWHC 1881 (Admin)
Docket NumberCase No: CO/532/2018
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Date20 July 2018

[2018] EWHC 1881 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

DIVISIONAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE Lord Justice Lindblom AND THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Lewis

Case No: CO/532/2018

Between:
The Queen (on the application of Kohler)
Claimant
and
Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime
Defendant

-and-

The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Interested Party

Mr David Wolfe Q.C. (instructed by Leigh Day) for the Claimant

Mr Jonathan Swift Q.C and Ms Heather Emmerson (instructed by Transport for London and Metropolitan Police Service) for the Defendant and the Interested Party

Hearing dates: 6 and 7 June 2018

Judgment Approved

Mr Justice Lewis

Lord Justice Lindblom and

INTRODUCTION

1

This is the judgment of the court to which both members have contributed.

2

This is a claim for judicial review of a decision of the defendant, the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (“MOPAC”), dated 31 October 2017, to close 37 police stations in London. The decision would include closing a police station at Wimbledon in the London Borough of Merton and transferring a front counter, open for 24 hours each day, where members of the public can report crimes or otherwise contact the police, to Mitcham, also in Merton.

3

The claimant, Professor Paul Kohler, challenges the consultation and decision-making processes. Initially, permission was granted on four grounds by Ouseley J. The claimant relied on three additional grounds at the hearing. These were set out in the claimant's reply dated 15 May 2018. We grant permission to argue those three additional grounds. In summary, the claimant asserts that the defendant applied unpublished criteria in making the decision, that those criteria were applied inconsistently, that inadequate information had been provided during the consultation process and that the defendant had not conscientiously considered the responses made during that process.

THE BACKGROUND

MOPAC

4

MOPAC is a body created by section 3(1) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (“the 2011 Act”) to oversee policing in the metropolitan police district. By section 3(3) of the 2011 Act, the Mayor is the person responsible for MOPAC's functions. Section 19(1) of the 2011 Act allows MOPAC to appoint a person as the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime and arrange for that person to exercise any function of MOPAC. Section 3 of the 2011 Act provides that MOPAC is to secure the maintenance of the Metropolitan Police Force and its efficiency and effectiveness. Section 6 imposes duties to issue a police and crime plan, that is a plan which sets out, amongst other things, objectives and the financial and other resources to be provided to the chief officer of police. A police and crime plan was made for the 2013 to 2016 period and a further plan was published on 20 March 2017 for the period from 2017.

The Consultation Exercise

5

In July 2017, MOPAC published a draft strategy document entitled “Public Access and Engagement Strategy” for consultation (“the consultation document”). The initial version of the consultation document was published on the MOPAC's web page on 14 July 2017 and on the Metropolitan Police website on 25 July 2017. The consultation period was to run until 5.30 p.m. on 6 October 2017. The consultation document asked 17 questions. It was replaced by an amended, second version on 8 August 2017. The text of the consultation document remained the same but the wording of the questions was different. There is evidence to suggest that some people continued to respond using the first version of the questions even after the second version was published. The defendant says that it assessed all responses to whichever version of the questions was used.

6

The “Foreword” to the consultation document explained, among other things, that the Metropolitan Police Service had already saved £600 million from its budget and now needed to make another £400 million of savings over the next four years, of which £200 million had been identified, but a further £200 million still needed to be found. The “Introduction” stated that the consultation document set out the current means of public access to, and involvement with, the police. The proposals were intended to bring together proposed new ways of reporting crime on-line, dedicated ward officers in every community equipped to work and engage with the public whilst they were on the move and also at notified times and places, and with one front counter open 24 hours a day, seven days a week in every borough. The “Introduction” noted that central to the proposed changes was the role of the dedicated ward officers. The number of such officers was being increased, and “new technology was to make them more efficient and effective as well as – crucially – more accessible”.

7

The consultation document included a section on “Contacting the Police”. This referred to plans to reduce the size of the Metropolitan Police estate and sell surplus property in order to invest in front line policing. The document noted that it was intended to provide sufficient places for officers to start their shift before being deployed on patrol. Later in the consultation document, it noted that the core of the proposed policing plans (referred to as the “new digital offer”) was the ability of the public to access policing on-line.

8

The consultation document then set out the various questions which the public were invited to comment upon. In the first published version of the Consultation Document, there were 17 questions. The relevant questions for present purposes were as follows:

“4. Do you agree that it is right that the Metropolitan Police Service prioritise police officers over poorly-used front counters?

5. In the five cases set out in this document, do you agree that it is right to swap which front counter will remain open in order to maximise savings and receipts?

6. Are there any front counters which should be retained, on the basis of demand, where the impact on budgets, savings and receipts can be limited?

7. Should we consider low-cost alternatives to front counters for communities over 45 minutes from their nearest front counter? What options should we consider?”

9

The relevant questions in the second version were phrased as follows:

“5. To what extent do you agree that flexible opportunities to contact police officers (e.g. Community Contact Sessions) are a suitable alternative to accessing the police via a front counter?

6. Please include any further comments – about flexible opportunities to contact police officers as an alternative to accessing the police via a front counter.

7. It is proposed some front counter locations are swapped across London, in order to maximise savings and capital receipts. To what extent do you agree that the following changes should take place?

8. After reading the draft strategy document, should we consider low-cost alternatives to front counters for communities over 45 minutes from their nearest front counter? What options should we consider?”

10

The structure of the consultation document is incoherent and unhelpful. Text relevant to particular questions is not included next to the question being asked but appears two or more pages earlier, often sandwiched between different questions. By way of example, the text relevant to questions 6 and 7 in the second version, which are the key questions, appears four pages before the questions themselves and immediately follows question 3, which deals with a different issue – namely replacing contact points with community contact sessions. That text itself begins with a discussion on safer schools officers, which is relevant neither to question 3 nor to the remainder of the text in this section. There then follows the discussion of front counters in police stations.

11

The discussion notes that front counters remain an important part of the way in which some members of the public want to contact the police, but their use had declined over recent years, so that crimes reported at front counters had declined by about three quarters over 10 years. Under the heading “Our Future Plans”, the consultation document said this:

“In order to ensure that we continue to provide front counters across London for those people who chose this method of communication with officers, or for those who need to use a front counter – for example to verify their identity, make payments or if they have a legal obligation to attend a front counter – while at the same time prioritise spending scarce resources on front line officers, we will retain one 24-hour police station in each borough. This follows similar decisions taken by many of London's local authorities to rationalise services into one single location for members of the public to visit.

The front counters being retained are, subject to a few exceptions set out below, generally London's busiest front counters, with three quarters of all of the crime reports at front counters taking place at 24/7 stations. In fact, no front counter with more than four daily crime reports is being closed. The large majority of those which will shut have fewer than two reports every day.

By closing the front counters at the remaining police stations we can exit the majority of these buildings, raising around £170 million of capital to spend on improving the technology available to officers on the front line and enhancing the remaining estate. We will also save around £10 million on front counter running costs alone, the equivalent of over 170 police officers, allowing us to deliver the Government's funding cuts without cutting deeper into the front line. Every pound saved by closing a poorly used front counter is a pound of savings that we do not have to find by reducing officers.”

12

There then follows question 4, which deals...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
1 firm's commentaries
  • Public Law Case Update - Consultation Edition
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 27 Noviembre 2018
    ...Board [2018] EWHC 1359 (Admin); Failure to consider the product of consultation: R (Kohler) v Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime [2018] EWHC 1881 (Admin); and R (WX) v Northamptonshire County Council [2018] EWHC 2178 (Admin). Consultation Duties and Many decisions made by public bodies h......

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