Simpson, R (on the application of) v Police Medical Appeal Board & Ors [2012] EWHC 808 (Admin) (21 February 2012)

Simpson, R (on the application of) v Police Medical Appeal Board & Ors [2012] EWHC 808 (Admin) (21 February 2012)

The Home Office Guidance and Medical Appeals Guidance are unlawful because they introduce a presumption that, absent a cogent reason, former officers over 65 should be placed in the lowest band of disablement, which is not supported by the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. The Regulations require an individual assessment of earning capacity and a neutral approach to whether there has been a substantial alteration in disablement. The Guidance's approach is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and unlawfully reverses the burden of proof.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 808 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Simpson; First Defendant: Police Medical Appeal Board; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Third Defendant: Northumbrian Police Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment in Administrative Court
Outcome
Claim allowed. Declaration granted that the relevant sections of the Guidance and Medical Appeals Guidance are unlawful and inconsistent with the Regulations. Costs awarded to claimant, to be assessed if not agreed, with an interim payment of £20,000. No indemnity costs.
Legal Topics
Police Injury Pensions, Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Review of Guidance, Disability Assessment, Public Authority Discretion
Administrative Law Pensions Law Public Law Police Injury Pensions Statutory Interpretation Judicial Review of Guidance Disability Assessment Public Authority Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simpson

Claimant

Police Medical Appeal Board

First Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Defendant

Northumbrian Police Authority

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment in Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Home Office Guidance 46/2004 and related Medical Appeals Guidance are inconsistent with the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 and therefore unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the Guidance unlawfully introduces a presumption or test not found in the Regulations for officers over 65
  3. 3 Whether the Guidance mistakes earnings for earning capacity in the statutory test

Ratio Decidendi

The Home Office Guidance and Medical Appeals Guidance are unlawful because they introduce a presumption that, absent a cogent reason, former officers over 65 should be placed in the lowest band of disablement, which is not supported by the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. The Regulations require an individual assessment of earning capacity and a neutral approach to whether there has been a substantial alteration in disablement. The Guidance's approach is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and unlawfully reverses the burden of proof.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Declaration granted that the relevant sections of the Guidance and Medical Appeals Guidance are unlawful and inconsistent with the Regulations. Costs awarded to claimant, to be assessed if not agreed, with an interim payment of £20,000. No indemnity costs.

Orders

  • Declaration that the section in the Guidance headed 'Review of Injury Pensions Once Officers Reach Age 65' and paragraph 20 of the Guidance on Medical Appeals are inconsistent with the Regulations and unlawful.
  • Costs to be paid by the second defendant to the claimant, to be assessed if not agreed.