The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, R (On the Application Of) v Police Medical Appeal Board

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, as the former employer and Police Pension Authority of the Metropolitan Police Service ("the Police Service"), challenged the decision of the Defendant, the Police Medical Appeal Board ("the PMAB"), regarding the entitlement of the Interested Party, a former police officer, to an injury pension under regulation 11 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2016 ("PIBR"). The Interested Party had applied for an injury pension following his departure from the Police Service due to psychiatric injury and permanent disablement.

The PMAB concluded that the psychiatric injury and permanent disablement were received in the execution of duty, the relevant test under PIBR. The Plaintiff sought judicial review of this decision, asserting that the injury was not received in the execution of duty. The Defendant did not contest the judicial review and played no part in the proceedings.

The background to the injury involved multiple legal and disciplinary proceedings arising from an incident on 1 June 2007, where the Interested Party was involved in the arrest of individuals and subsequent investigations, prosecutions, and civil claims. Key issues included the late disclosure of CCTV evidence, disciplinary investigations into officers involved, and a Part 20 claim issued by the Plaintiff against the Interested Party.

The Interested Party was suspended, returned to restricted duties, went on sick leave with depression, and eventually retired on medical grounds. His application for an injury pension was initially refused by the selected medical practitioner ("SMP") but allowed on appeal by the PMAB. The Plaintiff obtained permission for judicial review challenging the PMAB decision on grounds related to the timing and nature of the injury and its causal connection to the execution of duty.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the PMAB unlawfully and/or irrationally found that an injury sustained while the Interested Party was suspended could amount to an injury received in the execution of duty.
2. Whether the PMAB unlawfully and/or irrationally found that an injury sustained in the course of criminal proceedings could amount to an injury received in the execution of duty.
3. Whether events or circumstances impacting the Interested Party after the conclusion of the criminal process and his suspension were "work circumstances" as defined in the leading authority.
4. Whether the PMAB erred in considering the Part 20 proceedings instituted by the Plaintiff against the Interested Party as a work circumstance relevant to injury causation.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The PMAB erred in law by concluding that injuries sustained during suspension or criminal proceedings could qualify as injuries received in the execution of duty.
• The disabling injury was caused by criminal and disciplinary proceedings, which do not qualify for injury pension under the relevant legal test.
• The assertion of malicious concealment of CCTV evidence was not a finding of the PMAB and should not be treated as evidence of injury in the execution of duty.
• The Part 20 proceedings were not work circumstances and thus could not be considered in the injury assessment.
• The PMAB's reliance on regulation 6(2)(b) PIBR, which covers injuries received because the person is known to be a police officer, was misplaced and inapplicable to the facts.

Interested Party's Arguments

• The PMAB correctly found that the cause of permanent disablement was linked to events after the criminal trial, especially the Plaintiff's handling of the late CCTV disclosure and unfair treatment related to the Part 20 claim.
• The Part 20 claim was an abuse of power used to pressure the Interested Party and should be considered a work circumstance.
• There is an exception for injuries sustained in disciplinary proceedings that are not well-founded, supported by obiter observations in relevant case law.
• The actions of certain officers maliciously preventing disclosure were because the Interested Party was a police officer, engaging regulation 6(2)(b) PIBR.
• Even if the PMAB had not found a direct causal connection, the regulation 6(2)(b) deeming provision would entitle the Interested Party to an injury pension, making the judicial review application ineffective.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the legal framework governing injury pensions under PIBR, focusing on the definition of injury received in the execution of duty and the requirement for a substantial causal connection to work circumstances. The court carefully analysed the PMAB's findings and the evidence presented, particularly the psychiatric assessments and the IPCC investigation report.

The court found that the PMAB erred in law by treating injuries sustained during suspension and criminal proceedings as qualifying injuries. It emphasised that an officer cannot be considered on duty during suspension and that injuries arising from disciplinary or criminal proceedings, including reactions to such proceedings, do not constitute injuries received in execution of duty as established in the leading authority Stunt.

The court further clarified the distinction between injuries caused by work circumstances (such as bullying or management failures directly affecting work) and injuries resulting from the officer's reaction to disciplinary or grievance processes. It concluded that the Interested Party's loss of trust and psychiatric injury were reactions to the Plaintiff's conduct post-trial and not to the execution of duty itself.

The court rejected the application of the deeming provision in regulation 6(2)(b) PIBR, finding no evidence that the actions were directed at the Interested Party because he was a police officer in the relevant legal sense. The court also found no basis for the PMAB to rely on the Part 20 proceedings as a work circumstance.

Regarding the remedy, the court declined to substitute its own decision for that of the PMAB due to uncertainties in fact-finding and the nature of the PMAB as not constituting a tribunal under the Senior Courts Act. Instead, the matter was remitted to the PMAB for reconsideration in accordance with the judgment.

On costs, the court applied the usual rule that the unsuccessful party pays, but ordered the Interested Party to pay only 75% of the Plaintiff's costs, reflecting partial success and procedural factors.

Permission to appeal was refused on all grounds, with the court finding no real prospect of success or compelling reasons to hear the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court quashed the decision of the Police Medical Appeal Board allowing the injury pension claim and remitted the matter back to the PMAB for reconsideration in accordance with the legal principles set out in the judgment.

The direct effect is that the Interested Party's entitlement to an injury pension is not established on the basis of the PMAB's prior decision, and the PMAB must reassess the claim applying the correct legal test. No new legal precedent was established beyond clarification and application of existing authorities. The ruling underscores the distinction between injuries sustained in execution of duty and injuries arising from disciplinary or criminal proceedings or reactions thereto, particularly during suspension.