Birks, R (On the Application Of) v Marcia Rigg-Samuel [2018] EWHC 807 (Admin) (13 April 2018)

Birks, R (On the Application Of) v Marcia Rigg-Samuel [2018] EWHC 807 (Admin) (13 April 2018)

The decision to refuse the claimant's resignation and maintain his suspension was unlawful because it was based on errors of law regarding the requirements of Article 2 ECHR and failed to properly consider the public interest in the prompt determination of disciplinary proceedings. Article 2 did not require disciplinary proceedings in this case, and the delay was indefensible. The decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 807 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Birks; First Defendant: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Second Defendant: Independent Police Complaints Commission (now IOPC); Interested Party: Marcia Rigg-Samuel
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Police Disciplinary Proceedings, Article 2 ECHR (right to Life), Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life), Article 9 ECHR (freedom of Religion), Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Police Law Police Disciplinary Proceedings Article 2 ECHR (right to Life) Article 8 ECHR (right to Private and Family Life) Article 9 ECHR (freedom of Religion) Judicial Review of Administrative Action +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Birks

Claimant

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

First Defendant

Independent Police Complaints Commission (now IOPC)

Second Defendant

Marcia Rigg-Samuel

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to permit the claimant to resign from the police and the maintenance of his suspension was lawful and rational
  2. 2 Whether Article 2 ECHR required disciplinary proceedings in addition to inquest and criminal investigation
  3. 3 Whether the delay in disciplinary proceedings breached statutory or Convention obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to refuse the claimant's resignation and maintain his suspension was unlawful because it was based on errors of law regarding the requirements of Article 2 ECHR and failed to properly consider the public interest in the prompt determination of disciplinary proceedings. Article 2 did not require disciplinary proceedings in this case, and the delay was indefensible. The decision was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Orders

  • The decision of 19 July 2017 refusing to permit the claimant to resign is quashed.
  • The matter is remitted to the First Defendant for reconsideration in accordance with the judgment.