The recent judgment in the case of R (on the Application of the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Independent Police Complaints Commission and Police Constable Lee Armstrong, makes it clear
The recent judgment in the case of R (on the Application of the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Independent Police Complaints Commission and Police Constable Lee Armstrong, makes it clear that the role of the Independent Police Complaints Commission ("the Commission") is purely investigative, and that the language used in reports by the Commission is just as important as the investigation itself.
In this case, the Commission had upheld the complaint that had been made and prepared a report stating that there was a case to answer in respect of an alleged "breach of the standards of professional behaviour". The report also specifically stated that the arrest by PC Armstrong had not been lawful, and that on the balance of probabilities the officer's force had been excessive and amounted to an assault.
The claimant Chief Constable applied to quash the Commission's report. The issue was whether the report had exceeded the lawful ambit of such reports under the legislation. The Chief Constable submitted that the Commission's function was investigative and it was required to "record" matters which "may" amount to criminal or disciplinary conduct. The Chief Constable submitted that the Commission should not determine criminal or civil liability.
The Judge concluded that the primary function of the Commission in this context is to investigate a complaint against the police under the 2002 Act. Such a complaint should be investigated with vigour and determination in order to maintain public confidence in such enquiries, however the function of the investigation is limited to recording matters which may constitute a crime or breach of discipline. It is not part of the function of the Commission to make definitive findings or rulings upon any issue. If appropriate the report may go so far as to assist the decision maker with whether there is a case to answer in respect of misconduct or a criminal charge but it is for the criminal court to determine the guilt or otherwise of any individual; for the civil courts to determine civil liability; and for the relevant police disciplinary body to institute and resolve disciplinary issues of a police officer. The Commission should not evaluate evidence or competing accounts. The Judge concluded that the report in this case was not merely evaluating evidence to enable a decision maker to make their decision; it was purporting to make findings of a kind it has no power to make. The report was found to be unlawful and was quashed. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted.
In this case, the Commission had upheld the complaint that had been made and prepared a report stating that there was a case to answer in respect of an alleged "breach of the standards of professional behaviour". The report also specifically stated that the arrest by PC Armstrong had not been lawful, and that on the balance of probabilities the officer's force had been excessive and amounted to an assault.
The claimant Chief Constable applied to quash the Commission's report. The issue was whether the report had exceeded the lawful ambit of such reports under the legislation. The Chief Constable submitted that the Commission's function was investigative and it was required to "record" matters which "may" amount to criminal or disciplinary conduct. The Chief Constable submitted that the Commission should not determine criminal or civil liability.
The Judge concluded that the primary function of the Commission in this context is to investigate a complaint against the police under the 2002 Act. Such a complaint should be investigated with vigour and determination in order to maintain public confidence in such enquiries, however the function of the investigation is limited to recording matters which may constitute a crime or breach of discipline. It is not part of the function of the Commission to make definitive findings or rulings upon any issue. If appropriate the report may go so far as to assist the decision maker with whether there is a case to answer in respect of misconduct or a criminal charge but it is for the criminal court to determine the guilt or otherwise of any individual; for the civil courts to determine civil liability; and for the relevant police disciplinary body to institute and resolve disciplinary issues of a police officer. The Commission should not evaluate evidence or competing accounts. The Judge concluded that the report in this case was not merely evaluating evidence to enable a decision maker to make their decision; it was purporting to make findings of a kind it has no power to make. The report was found to be unlawful and was quashed. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted.