Bonnard, R (on the application of) v The Cleveland Police Authority [2012] EWHC B24 (Admin) (16 November 2012)

Bonnard, R (on the application of) v The Cleveland Police Authority [2012] EWHC B24 (Admin) (16 November 2012)

The decisions taken by the Chair on 8 November 2012 were made on an incorrect legal basis, as there was at least a strongly arguable case that not all requirements of Regulation 21(1) had been complied with before time began to run for subsequent procedural steps. The proper approach is that time runs only upon substantial compliance with Regulation 21(1), and the sufficiency of compliance is a value judgment best made by the Chair, subject to administrative law principles. The stay of the impugned decisions is granted to allow the panel to reconsider the timetable afresh.

Citation
[2012] EWHC B24 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The Queen on the Application of Bonnard; Defendant: Drusilla Sharpling CBE; Interested Party: The Cleveland Police Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Interim Relief
Outcome
Stay of the Chair's decisions of 8 November 2012 granted; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Police Misconduct Proceedings, Interim Relief, Procedural Fairness, Interpretation of Regulations
Administrative Law Police Law Judicial Review Police Misconduct Proceedings Interim Relief Procedural Fairness Interpretation of Regulations

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the Application of Bonnard

Claimant

Drusilla Sharpling CBE

Defendant

The Cleveland Police Authority

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decisions of the Chair on 8 November 2012 regarding the timetable for police misconduct proceedings were taken on a correct legal basis under the Police Conduct Regulations 2008
  2. 2 Whether there was compliance with Regulation 21(1) before time began to run for subsequent procedural steps
  3. 3 Whether the Chair was required to consult the Claimant regarding the hearing date

Ratio Decidendi

The decisions taken by the Chair on 8 November 2012 were made on an incorrect legal basis, as there was at least a strongly arguable case that not all requirements of Regulation 21(1) had been complied with before time began to run for subsequent procedural steps. The proper approach is that time runs only upon substantial compliance with Regulation 21(1), and the sufficiency of compliance is a value judgment best made by the Chair, subject to administrative law principles. The stay of the impugned decisions is granted to allow the panel to reconsider the timetable afresh.

Court Disposition

Stay of the Chair's decisions of 8 November 2012 granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Stay of the decisions requiring the Claimant's response by 14 November and listing the hearing for 20 November 2012.
  • No order as to costs.