When is a Cop Not a Cop? When He is Not in the Execution of His Duty: The Police Pensions Regulations 1987, Principles and Problems
| DOI | 10.1350/pojo.77.3.221.54089 |
| Published date | 01 November 2004 |
| Date | 01 November 2004 |
| Author | Alan Barron |
| Subject Matter | Article |
ALAN BARRON
Lecturer in Law, Aberdeen College, former Police Constable,
Dumfries and Galloway
WHEN IS A COP NOT A COP?
WHEN HE IS NOT IN THE
EXECUTION OF HIS DUTY: THE
POLICE PENSIONS REGULATIONS
1987, PRINCIPLES AND
PROBLEMS
This article examines the considerable body of caselaw that
has built up concerning the interpretation of the Police Pen-
sions Regulations 1987. Particular problems arise in relation to
the interpretation of the term ‘execution of duty’ and the
payment of disability pensions and benefits. Only if an injury
is received in the execution of duty will additional payments
become available to an officer retiring by reason of disability.
The interpretation of this term demonstrates one of the funda-
mental flaws in the Regulations, which is that medical practi-
tioners are required to decide questions of law. Further
problems in interpretation have arisen in relation to the avail-
ability of judicial review under the Regulations and what are to
be regarded as the ordinary duties of a police officer. A review
of these areas is also undertaken, leading to the conclusion that
the Regulations are ripe for reform.
In the recent case of Lothian and Borders Police Board v Ward1
the Court of Session in Scotland considered the question of when
a police officer suffers an injury ‘in the execution of his duty as
a constable’. This arose in the context of the Police Pensions
Regulations 1987 (‘the Regulations’) which, inter alia, provide
for the payment of pensions and other benefits if an officer has
become disabled from performing his or her duties on a perman-
ent basis. From the officer’s point of view, it is important that the
injury arose in the ‘execution of his or her duty’, as the officer
may become entitled to additional payments from the Police
Authority. In its decision, the court set out the correct test to be
applied and outlined certain cases where an injury pension and
related benefits will and will not be paid. The purpose of this
article is to review that decision together with those of other
Scottish and English authorities in order to determine whether
The Police Journal, Volume 77 (2004) 221
the lines drawn between successful and unsuccessful cases are
entirely coherent. It is submitted that perhaps they are not.
In addition, it has become apparent that the courts have
experienced other problems in interpreting the Regulations.
These problems will also be drawn out and analysed.
It is convenient to begin by outlining the relevant provisions
of the Regulations.
Police Pensions Regulations 1987
Under the Regulations, if an officer retires on the ground of
permanent disablement he or she becomes entitled to an ‘ill-
health pension’ if at the time of retirement he or she had five
years’ pensionable service2or became disabled as a result of an
injury received in the execution of his or her duty.3
If the officer’s disability occurred before he or she had
attained five years’ pensionable service or was the result of an
injury unconnected with the execution of his or her duty, the
officer becomes entitled to an ‘ill-health gratuity’.4
However, if the officer suffers permanent disability arising
from an injury received without his or her own default in the
execution of his or her duty, the officer is entitled to an ‘ill-
health pension’, an ‘injury pension’ and a ‘gratuity’.5It is clearly
in the officer’s interest to show that such injury arose in the
execution of his or her duty and that his or her disability is
permanent in order that that officer will receive three payments
rather than two. Equally, it is in the interest of the Police
Authority to establish that it was not since it will have to make
additional payments in respect of an officer who is no longer
serving.
The Regulations define an injury arising in the execution of
an officer’s duty as one that arises in his or her duty as a
constable,6which means that he or she received it while on duty
or on a journey to or from work,7or he or she would not have
received the injury had he or she not been known to be a
constable.8In addition, the Police Authority has a discretion to
deem an injury to have been received in this latter category in
borderline cases.9The term ‘injury’ includes physical injury and
mental illness.10
In the first instance, the decision whether an officer is entitled
to an award under the Regulations rests solely with the Police
Authority.11 However, where it is thought that an officer is
permanently disabled, this question is to be determined by a
selected medical officer who is required to examine the officer
and issue a certificate answering the following questions:
222 The Police Journal, Volume 77 (2004)
To continue reading
Request your trial