Introduction

In the case of Officer W80, R (on the application of) v. Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct & Ors ([2020] EWCA Civ 1301), the Court of Appeal for England and Wales addressed crucial issues surrounding police use of force and the applicable legal standards in misconduct proceedings. The case centers on the death of Mr. Jermaine Baker, who was fatally shot by armed police officer W80 during a police operation intended to prevent a potential violent escape from custody. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) recommended disciplinary action against W80 for gross misconduct, citing excessive use of force. The Commissioner of Police disagreed with this recommendation, prompting W80 to seek judicial review.

Summary of the Judgment

The Divisional Court initially quashed the IOPC’s decision, holding that the IOPC had incorrectly applied a civil law test in assessing W80's actions, whereas a criminal law test should have been used. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, affirming the IOPC's application of the conduct standard as outlined in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 and the College of Policing's Code of Ethics. The appellate court concluded that the IOPC was justified in determining that a disciplinary panel could find misconduct if W80's honest belief of imminent danger was deemed unreasonable, thereby upholding the use of an objective test of reasonableness in such proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key cases to delineate the differences between criminal and civil law tests for self-defense:

• Ashley v. CC of Sussex Police (Sherwood intervening) [2008] 1 AC 962: Distinguished between the presumptions in criminal and civil self-defense, emphasizing that the civil test requires the belief to be both honest and reasonable.
• R v. Keane [2010] EWCA Crim 2514: Restated the criminal law test emphasizing objective assessments of force used, aligning closely with reasonableness.
• Beckford v. The Queen [1988] AC 130: Highlighted that in civil law, an honest but unreasonable belief in self-defense fails as an excuse.

These precedents played a pivotal role in framing the legal context within which the court evaluated the appropriate standard for misconduct proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal focused on interpreting the relevant standards of conduct as stipulated by the Police Reform Act 2002 and the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012. Central to this interpretation was understanding the distinction between criminal and civil tests of self-defense. The appellate court determined that the IOPC was not bound to apply the criminal law test but could validly apply an objective standard of reasonableness as part of the conduct standard. The court emphasized that the Code of Ethics and related guidance did not explicitly mandate the application of the criminal test, thereby allowing for an objective assessment of the officer's actions.

Furthermore, the court addressed the argument that applying the civil test could deter officers from using necessary force, thereby impacting public safety. However, it concluded that maintaining an objective standard was essential for accountability and public trust in policing practices.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the application of the conduct standard in police misconduct proceedings, affirming that an objective test of reasonableness applies irrespective of the officer’s subjective beliefs. The decision clarifies that misconduct panels can assess whether an officer’s honest belief was reasonable, thereby ensuring that use of force is consistently evaluated against established professional standards. This has significant implications for future misconduct hearings, emphasizing accountability and the balance between officer discretion and public expectations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Self-Defense: Criminal vs Civil Tests

In criminal law, self-defense allows an individual to use force if they honestly believed they were in imminent danger, with an objective assessment ensuring the belief was reasonable. In civil law, particularly in misconduct proceedings, the focus is on whether the belief was not only honest but also reasonable under the circumstances. This case clarifies that police misconduct panels apply an objective test of reasonableness, similar to civil standards, when evaluating the use of force.

Conduct Standard

The conduct standard outlined in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 mandates that police officers use force only when it is necessary, proportionate, and reasonable in all circumstances. This standard serves as a guideline for evaluating police behavior in various situations, ensuring actions taken are justified and align with professional expectations.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in R (W80) v. Director General of IOPC & Ors affirms the IOPC’s authority to apply an objective standard of reasonableness in assessing police use of force during misconduct proceedings. By upholding the conduct standard as defined by statutory regulations and professional codes, the judgment ensures that police actions are subject to consistent and fair evaluation. This reinforces the balance between empowering officers to perform their duties effectively and maintaining stringent accountability to uphold public trust in law enforcement.