The Queen (on the Application of the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police) v The Independent Office for Police Conduct
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Kramer |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 3169 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO 4782/2018 |
| Date | 2019 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Year | 2019 |
and
HH Judge Kramer sitting as a judge of the High Court
CO 4782/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
LEEDS DISTRICT REGISTRY
Introduction
The claimant challenges the decision of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IPOC) upholding the appeals of the interested parties against the Chief Constable's decision not to uphold their complaints and finding that Chief Superintendent Neill, a now retired police officer, had a case to answer for misconduct. Permission to proceed with the application on all grounds of challenge was given by HHJ Saffman on 4 April 2019.
Before me, the claimant, Chief Constable, was represented by John Beggs QC and the defendant, IPOC, by Anne Studd QC. The interested parties did not appear. Their solicitors emailed the court to say that had they had funding they would have been eager to take part.
The parties
The claimant is the ‘appropriate authority’ responsible for investigating certain complaints by members of the public about the conduct of Northumbria Police officers pursuant to paragraphs 2, 6 and 16 of schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002.
The IOPC, formerly the Independent Police Complaints Commission, is the relevant appeal body for certain appeals against the findings of complaint investigations by the appropriate authority pursuant to paragraphs 25 and 30 of schedule 3 to the 2002 Act.
The interested parties were arrested by officers of Northumbria Police on 25 th May 2013 upon the instruction of Chief Superintendent Neill. They complained to the claimant about their arrest and subsequent treatment. On the rejection of their complaints they appealed to the IPCC, as it then was, which upheld the complaints of all but Mr Vickers, finding that the claimant had not sufficiently evidenced the findings of the investigation and requiring a further investigation. As the evidence was the same in each case, the decision in the case of Mr Vickers was the subject of a judicial review and the decision quashed with the consent of the IPCC on 17 th August 2015. This resulted in a fresh decision in his case on 21 st December 2015 under which there was a direction for the claimant to re-investigate his complaint as well. The further investigation by the claimant again rejected Mr Vickers's complaint on 16 th April 2018. Similar investigation reports were produced with respect to the other interested parties, whose complaints were not upheld. In April and May 2018 solicitors for the interested parties appealed the claimant's decision in their cases. On 29 th August 2018 the IOPC took the impugned decision upholding some of the complaints in each of the interested parties' appeals, namely those relating to Ch Supt Neill. The claimant challenges the decisions in the cases of all interested parties although in its grounds it uses the case of Mr Vickers as an example applicable to all cases.
Background facts
Chief Superintendent Neill was the Silver Commander in charge of Operation Cygnet which was set up to police demonstrations due to take place in Newcastle upon Tyne on 25 th May 2013. The English Defence League (“EDL”) intended to march through the city and place a wreath at the Cenotaph. There were to be counter- demonstrations. The largest group of counter-demonstrators were members of, or affiliated to, a group called Newcastle Unite (“NU”). The leadership of that group liaised with the police so as to prevent public disorder. The interested parties were members of another group proposing to demonstrate against the EDL. The group goes under the name Fight Racism Fight Imperialism (“FRFI”) and also uses the name The Revolutionary Communist Group (“RCG”). This group declined to liaise with the police in relation to its proposed counter-demonstration.
Between 3000 to 4000 EDL supporters attended the demonstration in Newcastle. Chief Superintendent Neill described the city as being a ‘tinderbox’ that day with tensions heightened due to the recent murder of Drummer Lee Rigby as well as some recent convictions of Asian males for explosives and firearms offences, terrorist offences, and convictions and reports of sexual offences by Asian males upon white females. Such were the tensions that the EDL had been informed by the police that they would not be permitted to lay their wreath.
Shortly before midday the interested parties were in the Haymarket area of the city. At 12.15pm Chief Supt Neill instructed the Bronze Commander, Chief Inspector McKenna, to arrest them for conspiracy to commit a violent disorder if they did not comply with a request to move to an alternative designated protest site, Cow Hill, which is some distance from the Haymarket and the Cenotaph. Shortly after 12.40pm the interested parties were arrested by the Bronze Commander and colleagues and taken to Etal Lane police station. Their subsequent treatment, though the subject of complaints relating to other officers, need not be considered as it is not relevant to the challenge which is the subject of this claim. It is sufficient to relate that following investigation no criminal proceedings were brought against the interested parties.
Solicitors for the interested parties complained to the Chief Constable about the arrests. There were five complaints in total. Those relevant for present purposes were as follows:
“1. Officers had no reasonable grounds to suspect our client had committed the offence for which he was arrested.”
“2. In the event our client's arrest was based on intelligence received our client does not accept that Northumbria police officers correctly processed, evaluated or corroborated the information received in accordance with Northumbria police policies to assess the accuracy and reliability of the information.”
The regulatory regime and how it operated in this case.
The investigation of police complaints is governed by Part 3 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”). In accordance with that part the claimant recorded the complaints, directed that they be investigated, and appointed an investigator.
Paragraph 19B to Part 3 requires that where it appears to the investigator that the person under investigation may have behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings they must certify the investigation as one subject to special requirements. The paragraph goes on to require an investigator who has so certified to make a severity assessment in relation to the conduct of the person concerned. A severity assessment is defined in paragraph 19 B(4) as “ an assessment as to-(A) whether the conduct, if proved, would amount to misconduct or gross misconduct, and (B) if the conduct were to become the subject of disciplinary proceedings, the form which those proceedings would be likely to take.” Paragraph 19 B(6) obliges the investigator, on completing an assessment under the paragraph, to give a notice to the person under investigation in a prescribed form. The requisite form in such a case is that prescribed by regulation 16 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012. I shall look more closely at that provision when dealing with the claimant's first ground of challenge.
A regulation 16 notice was served on Ch Supt Neill on 2 October 2014 relating to the complaints of all the interested parties. The complaints were investigated by Detective Sgt Pollock. In relation to Mr Vickers he rejected the complaints in a report dated on 5 June 2015. Similar investigation reports were produced in relation to the other interested parties all of whose complaints were rejected. Following the events described in paragraph 4, above, the appeal in the case of Mr Vickers and the other interested parties was finally determined by an IOPC caseworker on 29 th August 2019. She upheld the appeal in relation to the two complaints set out above as against Ch Supt Neill, finding that he had a case to answer. She refused to uphold the appeals on the 3 further complaints and, thereby, the disciplinary process in the case of the other officers against whom complaints were made concerning the arrest and detention was exhausted.
A finding that there is a case to answer does not automatically lead to a misconduct hearing. The appropriate authority has the options of referring the case to misconduct proceedings or taking management action against the officer; regulation 19(5) of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012. In this case the claimant cannot do either as Ch Supt Neill had retired from the police by the time of the final IOPC decision and under the regulations then in force there was no power to continue such action against a retired officer.
Just to complete the story, on 25 January 2018 the interested parties Reay and Sherlock issued a claim against the Chief Constable of Northumbria in the County Court at Newcastle upon Tyne seeking damages for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, trespass, assault, misfeasance in a public office and breaches of articles 5,8,10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case was tried with a jury at Newcastle in October 2019 and, following the verdict of the jury, and the decision of the judge, all their claims were dismissed. As regards the claim for wrongful arrest, that must have been on the basis that the Chief Constable satisfied the jury that Ch Supt Neill and the arresting officers honestly believed the grounds upon which they relied to justify the arrest and the judge decided that these amounted to reasonable grounds to suspect that the interested parties had committed the offence for which they were arrested....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Julian Watson v Independent Office for Police Conduct
...IOPC, drew my attention to the decision of this Court in R (Chief Constable of Northumbria Police) Independent Office for Police Conduct [2019] EWHC 3169 (Admin). At [54]–[56], Judge Kramer, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, relied on the decision of the Visitors of the Inns of Court in......