Examining the scope of the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s review function

Executive Summary 

The High Court dismissed a judicial review claim where the claimant argued his complaint had been inadequately handled. The police’s internal complaints investigator is only required to examine the specific compliant raised, not conduct a wider inquiry. The role of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (‘IOPC’) is to assess whether the outcome of the complaint investigation was reasonable and proportionate. 

Background

The claim relates to an incident that occurred outside a retail store. Following the incident, the claimant and the assistant store manager both reported allegations to Cumbria Police. The claimant alleged he had been racially abused, and the assistant manager alleged the claimant was verbally aggressive and threatening. 

Cumbria Police separately investigated both allegations. The investigation included reviewing CCTV and witness statements and interviewing the claimant under caution. The assistant manager was not interviewed. No further action was taken in relation to both allegations. 

The claimant complained to Cumbria Police about the handling of the investigation and the decision reached. His complaint was two-fold; firstly, that the CCTV had been destroyed and secondly, that the assistant manager had not been interviewed. 

Cumbria Police investigated the claim internally and deemed the level of service provided to be acceptable, albeit a learning point was identified in relation to each point. 

The claimant sought review by the IOPC, who upheld the complaint outcome was reasonable and proportionate.  

Judicial Review 

The claimant sought judicial review of the IOPC’s determination, bringing the following grounds:

1. The IOPC inappropriately and irrationally used the local procedure and/or wrongly failed to conduct a full investigation.
2. The IOPC’s conclusion that there was no evidence of corrupt or deliberate conduct by Cumbria Police was irrational.
3. The IOPC’s conclusion that Cumbria Police’s failure to interview the assistant manager was a learning point, but did not constitute poor service, was irrational. 

The claimant was granted limited permission and allowed to proceed with ground three only.

Decision 

The court held that the claim failed on ground three and dismissed the claim. The court held that in the context of the specific complaint, the decision of the internal investigator, that failing to interview the assistant manager did not in itself amount to unacceptable conduct, was not unreasonable. 

Further, the court held the IOPC was only obliged to address the specific complaint raised, not to conduct a broader inquiry into all other complaints that might be feasible during the course of the investigation. Such a requirement was deemed to be too exacting, and no such duty is mandated by the law. The Judge stated the IOPC was entitled to conclude that the outcome was a reasonable and proportionate decision. 

Comment 

The case tested the scope of the IOPC’s review function and whether it is required to scrutinise potential deficiencies in the wider investigation or only assess whether the specific complaint had been handled reasonably and proportionately. It highlights the court’s role is not to decide whether they would reach the same determination of the complaint, instead being limited to deciding whether the IOPC’s decision was lawful. 

This insight is authored by Solicitor, Molly Fletcher. molly.fletcher@weightmans.com