Reckless, R (on the application of) v Kent Police Authority

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff applied for judicial review to challenge the appointment of an individual to the Kent Police Authority ("KPA") to fill a vacancy arising after 31 March 2009. The application followed a prior unsuccessful challenge concerning appointments made in the previous year. Initially, permission to challenge the 2009 appointment was refused by a lower court judge but was later granted by a higher court judge, who directed that the Court of Appeal hear the judicial review application. The Plaintiff seeks a quashing order of the appointment and a declaration regarding the appointment process for independent members of police authorities.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appointment to the KPA of the independent member was validly made under regulation 9 of the Police Authority Regulations 2008.
2. Whether the power to appoint independent members can be delegated by the existing members of the police authority to a selection panel.
3. The proper interpretation of the phrase "the existing members" in the context of appointment powers and whether all members must participate in the appointment decision.
4. Whether the procedure adopted, including the presentation of only one recommended candidate rather than the entire short-list to the existing members, complies with the statutory requirements.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appointment power is vested specifically in "the existing members" as individuals, not the police authority as a corporate body, and thus cannot be delegated to a selection panel.
• The use of a selection panel to effectively decide the appointment, with only a recommendation presented to the full members, undermines the statutory requirement that the appointment be made by the existing members from among the short-listed candidates.
• The appointment procedure was flawed because the full membership was not provided with the names and information of all short-listed candidates, resulting in a "rubber-stamping" of the panel's decision.
• The statutory language implies that all existing members should participate in the appointment decision, potentially requiring a full interview process and collective decision-making.

Respondent's Arguments

• The power to delegate functions to committees or panels is available under the Local Government Act 1972 and applies to police authorities.
• The phrase "existing members" is effectively synonymous with the police authority, and practical delegation to a selection panel is consistent with the statutory scheme.
• The appointment process complied with the Regulations because the selection panel prepared the short-list and recommended a candidate, with the existing members formally endorsing the appointment.
• There is no statutory requirement that all members interview candidates or that the full short-list be presented for reconsideration; the procedure adopted was fair and lawful.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the statutory framework governing the appointment of independent members to police authorities, focusing on regulation 9 of the Police Authority Regulations 2008. The core issue was the interpretation of "the existing members" and whether the appointment power could be delegated to a selection panel. One judgment emphasized a strict interpretation, distinguishing the members as individuals from the corporate police authority, concluding that delegation of the appointment power was not lawful. However, it recognized that the members could use smaller groups to gather information and make recommendations without delegating the decision itself.

The court considered whether the procedure requiring the full membership to appoint "from among" the short-listed candidates was satisfied when only one recommended candidate was presented. One view held that the members must have the full short-list and sufficient information to make an informed choice, and that the process was flawed when only a single candidate was presented, rendering the appointment invalid. Another view favored a literal interpretation, concluding that the selection panel's nomination of a candidate from the short-list and the members' formal endorsement constituted compliance with the Regulations.

The court acknowledged practical considerations such as quorum and the exclusion of members who were themselves candidates. It found no explicit statutory requirement for all members to interview candidates or for the entire short-list to be presented at the appointment meeting. The decision-making process must be fair, provide sufficient information for an informed collective decision, and not be a mere formality.

Holding and Implications

There is a split decision.

One judgment dismissed the appeal, holding that the appointment was validly made in accordance with the Regulations and that the procedure, while not perfect, complied with the statutory scheme. It emphasized that the selection panel's role in short-listing and recommending candidates was consistent with the Regulations, and the existing members made the final appointment.

Another judgment allowed the application, quashing the appointment on the basis that the existing members did not make the appointment "from among" the entire short-list as required, since only one candidate was presented and the others were effectively rejected by the selection panel, which lacked power to do so.

No broader precedent was established beyond the direct effect on the parties. The decision highlights interpretative tensions in the statutory scheme governing police authority appointments, particularly concerning delegation and the extent of member participation required in appointment decisions.