E had been restrained and arrested after an off duty PCSO had seen him arguing with his girlfriend and throwing juice cartons at her. He made various complaints about the excessive force of the police
E had been restrained and arrested after an off duty PCSO had seen him arguing with his girlfriend and throwing juice cartons at her. He made various complaints about the excessive force of the police officers who arrested him, which were initially rejected by Essex Police. He then complained to the IPCC, which upheld his appeal in two respects. The IPCC directed that Essex Police should conduct further enquiries and provide a further investigation decision to E. Essex Police investigated further, but again, found the two complaints unproven.
E again appealed to the IPCC, but the IPCC did not uphold his appeal, concluding that the nature and extent of the use of force by one officer, Acting Police Sergeant Roberts, was proportionate to the level of the perceived threat from E (who, it was alleged by the officer, was trying to bite) and that in relation to the other officer, Acting Police Sergeant Fisher, his use of force was also justified because of the strength, demeanour and actions of E.
E sought to challenge the IPCC's decision by way of judicial review, arguing that the two decisions were irrational, that one was illegal in that it failed properly to apply the law, failed to take into account relevant factors and took into account irrelevant factors, and finally that the IPCC misapplied the law in relation to its previous decision (ultimately this latter point was not pursued as a stand alone ground, but was put forward as evidence of the confusion in the mind of the second IPCC decision-maker).
Phillip Mott QC, in considering the case, held that the IPCC's decision that the use of force by Acting Police Sergeant Roberts was not irrational, because there was an imminent and real risk of attack and it was an attack of such a nature as justified that degree of force. In relation to Acting Police Sergeant Fisher, Phillip Mott QC held that the IPCC was also entitled to conclude that the force used was reasonable.
In respect of the claim that the IPCC misapplied the law in relation to its previous decision, Phillip Mott QC noted that the decision-maker was well aware that she took a different view from the previous decision-maker at the IPCC and set out her reasons for differing from those views very carefully and fully. He therefore rejected this ground, and ultimately therefore concluded that there was no basis for a challenge to the second IPCC decision.
E again appealed to the IPCC, but the IPCC did not uphold his appeal, concluding that the nature and extent of the use of force by one officer, Acting Police Sergeant Roberts, was proportionate to the level of the perceived threat from E (who, it was alleged by the officer, was trying to bite) and that in relation to the other officer, Acting Police Sergeant Fisher, his use of force was also justified because of the strength, demeanour and actions of E.
E sought to challenge the IPCC's decision by way of judicial review, arguing that the two decisions were irrational, that one was illegal in that it failed properly to apply the law, failed to take into account relevant factors and took into account irrelevant factors, and finally that the IPCC misapplied the law in relation to its previous decision (ultimately this latter point was not pursued as a stand alone ground, but was put forward as evidence of the confusion in the mind of the second IPCC decision-maker).
Phillip Mott QC, in considering the case, held that the IPCC's decision that the use of force by Acting Police Sergeant Roberts was not irrational, because there was an imminent and real risk of attack and it was an attack of such a nature as justified that degree of force. In relation to Acting Police Sergeant Fisher, Phillip Mott QC held that the IPCC was also entitled to conclude that the force used was reasonable.
In respect of the claim that the IPCC misapplied the law in relation to its previous decision, Phillip Mott QC noted that the decision-maker was well aware that she took a different view from the previous decision-maker at the IPCC and set out her reasons for differing from those views very carefully and fully. He therefore rejected this ground, and ultimately therefore concluded that there was no basis for a challenge to the second IPCC decision.