Q, R (on the application of) v Q Constabulary & Anor

Q, R (on the application of) v Q Constabulary & Anor

The Defendant's risk assessment and decisions were not irrational or unlawful. There was no error of law or hard-edged fact requiring judicial intervention. The court will not usurp the Chief Constable's discretion in resource deployment absent clear unlawfulness.

Parties
Claimant: Q; Defendant: Q Constabulary; Interested Party: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Relief After Refusal on the Papers
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Witness Protection, Police Duties, Judicial Review, Right to Life
Public Law Human Rights Witness Protection Police Duties Judicial Review Right to Life

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Q

Claimant

Q Constabulary

Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Relief After Refusal on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant breached statutory and human rights duties by refusing to place the Claimant on the protected witness scheme and provide further protection measures
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's risk assessment was irrational or unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's risk assessment and decisions were not irrational or unlawful. There was no error of law or hard-edged fact requiring judicial intervention. The court will not usurp the Chief Constable's discretion in resource deployment absent clear unlawfulness.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed