[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Bennett, R (on the application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission [2008] EWHC 331 (Admin) (04 February 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/331.html Cite as: [2008] EWHC 331 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		4th February 2008

1. MR JUSTICE PLENDER: I understand nobody is going to be present in Bennett. I am going to give judgment in open court.
2. On 4th March 2004 the applicant, John Bennett, a disabled man then aged 56, attended a Council meeting in Castlecombe. He states that at the meeting he made accidental contact with a police woman, PC Watson, and PC Watson and the applicant's brother, another police constable, used excessive force in arresting him and taking him to a police van.
3. The applicant, Mr Bennett, made a complaint against the Devon and Cornwall Police Force on 8th March 2004. The circumstances of the applicant's arrest were the subject of an investigation by the Devon and Cornwall Police. That investigation was reviewed by the Deputy Chief Constable, who submitted a memorandum to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
4. As that submission was made before 1st April 2004, consideration by the Independent Police Complaints Commission was governed by law and procedure that applied before that date. On 8th February 2005 the IPCC made the provisional conclusion that:

"The IPCC is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect that a Tribunal would find that the conduct of the officers fell below the required standard. We are therefore minded to conclude that misconduct proceedings cannot be justified."

5. The applicant submitted a response on 7th March 2005. The IPCC confirmed its original conclusion on 18th March 2005. By a handwritten application dated 30th April 2008, evidently drafted by Mr John Bennett and his wife in person, application was made for:

" . . . a quashing order on the grounds that if I get judicial review of the IPCC decision and have a chance to point out the discrepancies, I believe I will prove who is telling the truth. I believe there has been a miscarriage of justice."

6. The IPCC filed an acknowledgment of service setting out its summary grounds. The objections were as follows. The application did not identify an error of law on the face of the record. It contended that the IPCC's decision was erroneous in fact. Application for judicial review was not made within three months, but was made about three years after the enquiry in question.
7. It appears from the correspondence supplied to the court that the applicant wrote drawing attention to the alleged discrepancies between the material in the report and the material known to him. The IPCC responded that since the material the applicant supplied had not been referred to in the report, it was without relevance. If the applicant wanted those items to be mentioned in the report, he should write to the Information Commission.
8. Correspondence about this issue was then conducted between the applicant and the court service. By order dated 18th August 2008 Dobbs J refused the application for judicial review on the grounds that the application was not made within three months and was essentially a disagreement with the IPCC's decision on a point of evidence not law.
9. On 21st August 2008 Mr Bennett renewed his application for judicial review. The matter came before Foskett J on 24th October 2008 when he granted the application for permission to apply for judicial review and ordered that detailed grounds for contesting the claim should be served within 35 days. By letter, the IPCC informed the applicant that it did not propose to contest the matter and asked for his permission to deal with the matter without a hearing.
10. I have received a message this morning that the applicant is not content for it to be dealt with on that basis and he wishes to attend. Since, however, the respondent has consented to the quashing of the contested decision and has stated expressly that it will take a fresh decision, there is nothing that the applicant can say to improve his application for judicial review. The application will be granted, the decision of 18th March 2005 will be quashed and the IPCC will, as it has undertaken to do, proceed to making a fresh decision. It follows that the claimant shall be entitled to his costs, up to but not including the costs of today's hearing. Those costs are to be subjected to detailed assessment if not agreed. For that purpose, the claimant shall, within 30 days of today's date, supply a full breakdown of his costs incurred. I do not make an order against the claimant for payment of the costs of today's hearing, as I might have done had he attended, since I am not in a position confidently to judge whether there was any reason for him to attend today and thereby cause further costs to the IPCC. There will therefore be no order for the costs of today's judgment.
11. The claimant appears from his communication with the court to be under some uncertainty or misapprehension as to the stage the litigation has now reached. I therefore direct that a copy of this judgment shall be sent to the claimant and suggest that if he reads it with care he may be better informed about the progress of the application that he has made to the IPCC.