McMahon v Independent Office for Police Conduct

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for permission to appeal against an order made by Mrs Justice Lang on 14 March 2024, which refused the claimant's application for permission to apply for judicial review and also refused an application for specific disclosure. The underlying judicial review challenged a decision by the Independent Office for Police Conduct ("IOPC") dated 22 September 2023, which refused to review a reinvestigation conducted by Greater Manchester Police ("GMP") into a complaint made by the claimant. The claimant is dissatisfied with GMP’s handling of investigations related to the tragic death of her niece, who was found deceased at her home on 3 August 2021. The claimant's complaints focus on alleged police failings in investigating domestic violence allegations prior to and following the deceased’s death, including issues surrounding disclosure under the domestic violence disclosure scheme ("Clare’s Law"). The IOPC’s remit is limited to reviewing the police complaints process and does not extend to overseeing criminal investigations or instructing reinvestigations. The judge’s detailed 43-page judgment concluded that none of the grounds for judicial review had a real prospect of success, and no public law error or breach of the Human Rights Act was identified in the IOPC’s decision. The claimant seeks to challenge this refusal by way of appeal permission.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether any proposed grounds of appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review have a real prospect of success.
2. Whether there is any other compelling reason, such as a point of law of wider public importance, to grant permission to appeal.
3. Whether the judge erred in refusing the application for specific disclosure, particularly regarding body worn video footage.
4. Whether the IOPC’s decision to uphold the GMP reinvestigation was affected by public law error, including alleged failures related to Clare’s Law disclosure and deletion of evidence.
5. Whether procedural fairness was compromised during the judicial review hearing, including conduct of counsel and admission of evidence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The refusal to disclose body worn video footage of the police attendance at the deceased’s home was unfair and excluded relevant evidence, adversely affecting the fairness of the proceedings.
• The deletion or loss of body worn video footage of a police interview was suspicious, and explanations given by the police and IOPC were inconsistent and unsatisfactory, suggesting potential cover-up or administrative failings.
• The IOPC failed to properly consider all relevant evidence, including the disputed footage and contradictory information about the timing of the deletion and retrieval efforts.
• The police mishandled the Clare’s Law disclosure process, misinforming the deceased and failing to properly investigate domestic violence allegations, with the claimant asserting that the police were not truthful to the IOPC.
• There were procedural irregularities at the judicial review hearing, including alleged dishonesty by counsel regarding the timing of witness statement service and interruptions by counsel for GMP during submissions, which the claimant contends undermined fairness.
• The claimant contended that the judge should have personally viewed the disputed footage to assess its relevance and impact, arguing that the court failed to consider all credible evidence.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge exercised appropriate judicial discretion in refusing disclosure, applying the correct legal test requiring necessity for fair disposal of the issues, particularly given the limited scope of judicial review.
• The IOPC’s remit does not extend to re-investigating criminal matters or questioning the merits of police decisions; it reviews whether investigations were reasonable and proportionate.
• The footage was not relevant to the complaint under review, which concerned the police’s handling of domestic violence allegations rather than the circumstances of the death itself.
• The IOPC and GMP acted within their powers, and the judge correctly found no arguable public law error or irrationality in their decisions.
• Procedural fairness was maintained during the hearing; the judge managed interruptions and allowed the claimant to rely on her witness statement despite timing issues, with no objections raised by other parties.
• The explanations about the missing footage were credible and supported by evidence, and the judge was entitled to accept the IOPC’s evidence that it had never possessed or viewed the footage in question.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court’s analysis focused on whether the judge below applied the correct legal principles in refusing permission to apply for judicial review and in refusing disclosure. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review, which concerns the legality and procedural fairness of administrative decisions rather than their substantive correctness. The judge’s detailed and lengthy judgment was scrutinized for errors in law or fact.

Regarding disclosure, the court accepted the judge’s reasoning that the body worn video footage was not necessary to fairly resolve the issues raised, given that the complaint related to police investigation failings rather than the death itself. The judge’s fact-finding that the IOPC never possessed or viewed the footage was upheld as rational and supported by evidence. The court rejected the appellant’s contention that the footage’s relevance should have been assessed by the judge personally viewing it, noting that relevance is an objective matter for the decision-maker.

On the missing footage issue, the court found the IOPC’s explanation of administrative error credible and the judge’s acceptance of this explanation reasonable. The court held that conflicting evidence about the timing of the footage’s deletion was a matter for the investigating officer’s assessment and did not amount to a public law error.

Regarding the Clare’s Law complaint, the court noted the IOPC’s limited role in reviewing whether the GMP’s investigation was reasonable and proportionate, not to re-investigate or determine truthfulness of police evidence. The judge’s conclusion that the grounds lacked arguable merit was upheld.

On procedural fairness, the court acknowledged the claimant’s distress caused by counsel’s interruptions but found the judge took appropriate steps to ensure a fair hearing. The admission of the late witness statement was not objected to and did not prejudice the other parties. The court found no breach of fair trial rights.

Overall, the court found no error in the judge’s approach or conclusions that would justify granting permission to appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for permission to appeal on all grounds.

The direct effect of this decision is that the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review and the refusal of disclosure stand, thereby upholding the IOPC’s decision not to review the GMP reinvestigation. No broader legal principles or precedents were established by this ruling. The court expressed sympathy for the appellant’s situation but emphasized that sympathy cannot override the strict legal tests governing judicial review and appeal permissions.