Complaint against police officer - investigation by Police Complaints Authority - authority not required to disclose evidence to complainant

Regina (Green) v Police Complaints Authority; HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Carswell); 26 February 2004

The claimant was knocked off his bicycle and run over by a police officer driving an unmarked car.

He sustained severe injuries including a fractured femur.

He lodged a complaint against the police which was referred to the Police Complaints Authority and investigated by a neighbouring force.

Following an initial investigation the authority decided to review the case and look afresh at all the evidence and invited the complainant to submit any further evidence he might have.

He requested that all the witness statements and documents available to the authority be disclosed so that he would be in an informed position to make effective representations.

The authority refused.

The claimant commenced proceedings for judicial review claiming that the authority was under a general duty to disclose information to claimants unless there were good reasons not to do so and that lack of disclosure was contrary to the his rights under articles 1 and 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to have inhuman or degrading treatment against him subject to an effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.

The judge ordered the authority to disclose certain materials.

The Court of Appeal allowed the authority's appeal.

The claimant appealed.

Richard Gordon QC and Stephen Cragg (instructed by Howells, Sheffield) for the complainant; Stuart Catchpole QC and Steven Kovats (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the authority; Mark Shaw QC (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Home Secretary; Robert Smith QC and David N Jones (instructed by Legal Services, Police HQ, Sheffield) for the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police; Michael Harrison QC and Nicholas Johnson (instructed by Russell Jones & Walker, Leeds) for the police officer under investigation.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that section 80 of the Police Act 1996 contained a general ban on members, officers or servants of the authority disclosing any information received by the authority except in certain circumstances; that the aim of the authority in carrying out its functions was to satisfy the legitimate interests of both complainants and the wider public that the investigation of complaints against police officers, and any decisions on taking disciplinary proceedings should be, and should be seen to be, independent and thorough; that such aims would not be served by the disclosure of as much information as possible to both parties while the investigation was going on; that police officers investigating a crime did not share their information with the suspect or victim; that here was nothing in the scheme of the Act to suggest that the practice should be different for complaints against police officers; and that the degree of involvement of the complainant in the investigation of his complaint was sufficient to safeguard his legitimate interest and to meet the requirements of the convention.

(WLR)