Court rules that there are two sides to every story

IODPA would like to congratulate David Lock QC and Ron Thompson of Haven Solicitors for another successful judgement that was handed down last week by the High Court in the case of R (Michaelides) v Police Medical Appeal Board [2019] EWHC 1434 (Admin).

We have included the full judgement at the bottom of the article for you to read.

Robin Michaelides moved to Scotland in 2001 from South Africa where he was a police officer, and joined a Scottish force. He did well there, and passed the promotion exam for the rank of Sergeant, before transferring to Merseyside Police.

He was promised by Merseyside that his promotion qualification would be accepted, but that promise was soon broken. Robin also faced numerous incidents of racial abuse and discrimination from his fellow officers in Merseyside. Senior officers did nothing to address the concerns he raised and seem to have instead viewed him as a troublemaker.

Robin was given no assistance in getting up to speed with English law, and was posted to CID without any appropriate training.

His health suffered under the persistent abuse, and eventually in 2015 after several periods of sick leave he was made subject to an Unsatisfactory Attendance Procedure, the stress of which only served to worsen his mental health. Robin was retired from Merseyside by the Chief Constable in August 2015.

His application for an injury award was rejected, and Robin appealed the decision to a Police Medical Appeal Board, where it was again refused.

The matter was successfully challenged, and the decision of the court is that the matter should be remitted back to a (preferably new) PMAB.


David Lock QC had the following to say about the case –

The court affirmed (albeit on an obiter basis) the approach of the Court of Appeal in Boskovic to the Evans/Doubtfire point.  That, of course, may or may not remain good law depending on the outcome of the application for permission to appeal in Boskovic to the Supreme Court (which awaits a decision).

However, perhaps more significantly, the claim was successful because the Court affirmed the need for the PMAB to act as a proper fact finding tribunal where there are disputed facts.  Thus a PMAB which fails to act as a proper fact finding tribunal before exercising its medical decision making function will act unlawfully.”


This is an important case because there are often two version of events presented to an SMP or a PMAB, one from the officer, and one from the force. What it instructs the medical authorities to do is to consider all the evidence available regardless of the source and give sufficient consideration before dismissing one version or the other.


Court rules that there are two sides to every story
Tagged on:

17 thoughts on “Court rules that there are two sides to every story

  • 2019-07-05 at 10:04 pm

    PMABS be warned….you are no longer safe and you can no longer sell your souls to the government. You are all doctors who should be doing your best for the patient. It’s about fairness and equality. Something that has been lacking for a long time.

    DAVID LOCK QC, you are worth your weight in gold.
    RON THOMPSON, thank you for being there and believing in injured police officers. We need more of you out there.

  • 2019-07-05 at 8:26 pm

    Kudos to Robin for having the strength and determination to continue the fight against the PMAB. I hope he has a fair hearing at the next one. PMABs have always been a flawed system. Never should anyone think that heading to a PMAB will sort any issues out. Just as bent as police forces….IMHO.
    We were kept in the dark from each other for so long and now we are altogether. I will never be able to thank IODPA enough for being there for us all and for being the strength for us all.
    My very best wishes to Mr Thompson and Mr Lock for another success. There is no doubt that Mr Thompson doesn’t stand for any nonsense from rogue police forces.

  • 2019-07-05 at 4:10 pm

    PMABs have for a long time been under suspicion of bias in favour of forces. They are supposed to be independent, but are run by a commercial company which has to justify its fees. There is no independent oversight of PMABs – they work entirely unsupervised and unregulated.

    It was not long ago that PMAB’s tried to ban officers and former officers from having a solicitor present, and from recording the session. When people act like that it is usually a strong indication they have something to hide.

  • 2019-07-05 at 3:42 pm

    Congratulations to all concerned for another well deserved victory. It seems that it has now become the norm for anyone involved on the ‘official side’ in all matters concerning IOD pensions have to be dragged kicking and screaming in order for them to comply with the proper process.

  • 2019-07-05 at 11:31 am

    The whole system is corrupt and forced to be by the HO! It’s the very rare exception when you actually get a fair result from any official side.

    It’s an absolute disgrace that you are forced to have Solicitors and Barristers presenting good medical evidence in order to win your case!

  • 2019-07-04 at 10:44 pm

    Injured police officers are up against it from the very outset. Work, or namely the HR dept, works against the officer, the SMP works against the officer, PMAB is generally a kangaroo court. So it is a real pleasure for me to read that the PMAB have lost a JR and now have to explain their reasonings in future. And so they should. How can it fair that they dismiss evidence from an officer but happy to accept it from the police? All in it together. Well done to Ron and David. They make an excellent team. Well done to you IODPA for continuing to keep us updated on all the goings on in the murky world of IOD issues.

  • 2019-07-04 at 10:11 pm

    Another fantastic victory for Mr Locke QC and Avon solicitors , It never ceases to amaze me that the PMAB Seem to take the view biased of course against the on duty pensioner, in this case it was quite rightly so that the board was criticised for only listening to one side, furthermore failure to fully detailed in the report of their decisions. I just hope that the police forces are taking note rather than wasting money continually attacking former injured police officers. It’s sad to say that is a sign of the times and it’s just the start ruthless campaign to clawback money. All police forces stop this persecution of injured officers and it needs to stop right now

  • 2019-07-04 at 9:21 pm

    Another great win for David and Ron just shows you what can be achieved when we challenge the injustice against injured vulnerable pensioners.
    Why have the federation started us of Haven Solicitors the experts for injury on duty cases yet another injustice.
    A great win I sure well deserved

  • 2019-07-04 at 8:35 pm

    Another victory, the SMP’s and the PMAB’s hear what only their pathetic paymasters want to hear and only say what their pathetic paymasters allow them to say. The system is bent, corrupt and overtly biased get some of these quasi legal imbeciles and their paymasters in the dock and let them face real justice.

    • 2019-07-04 at 11:53 pm

      How many more times are disabled and badly treated former police officers going to be forced to go to law, to change a corrupt system?

      I believe everyone, including the Government, forces, SMP’s, the PLAN itself and individual victims know this, but nothing is done by those in power, because it will cost money. However, how much money does it cost to keep going to law? Vast sums, but as it’s not the PMAB’s, or that specific part of the Home Office, it’s not com8ng out of there pocket!

      Congratulations to David Lock QC and Solicitor Ron Thompson, yet again, you are providing true justice to ordinary people who are just pawns in this global money game.

  • 2019-07-04 at 8:22 pm

    Judge Kramer states “a PMAB which fails to act as a proper fact finding tribunal before exercising its medical decision making function will act unlawfully”

    Thanks to David Locke and Ron Thompson AGAIN maybe PMAB’s will now pull their socks up too! Congratulations and thank you and hopefully Robin will find justice this time and get his rights into place. .

    It is getting ridiculous now seeing how hard the PPA’s are making things for already shattered and exhausted IOD pensioners. I thank God that we have Dave and Ron to help us all out.

  • 2019-07-04 at 5:38 pm

    I would like to congratulate David Locke and Ron Thompon for winning this case, and thank them so much for being there for any and all IOD officers and IOD pensioners who are having to fight in court for their legal rights. Hopefully, one day, your constant winning of the battles will put things right and maybe result in any and all PPA’s, HR staff, SMP’s, PMAB’s, and Government depts such as HO having to really follow the IOD pension regulations to the ‘T’. I live in hopes that a serious investigation is done into these goings on and people ‘playing’ with those rules will be punished in other ways than the public funds they abuse by trying to support their corrupt and corrosive antics.

    • 2019-07-04 at 8:56 pm

      Good job done by Ron and David
      It always surprises me that when we were in the job we attended court and gave evidence and what we said was true and honest, now we are no longer in the job everything we say is looked upon as being untrue and dishonest and the people reviewing us seem to be believed and their word seen as the gospel. I know that during my review lots of things that were said we’re untrue, dishonest and unlawful, none of which came from me! Let’s have a level playing field and all be judged on the truth.

  • 2019-07-04 at 2:24 pm

    Well done to Mr Thompson and Mr Lock QC. Another successful conclusion for an unlucky officer.

    PMABs now need to take note and start consider everything that is put before them rather than cherry picking the bits that don’t suit them.

    • 2019-07-05 at 4:41 am

      There is one good thing that has come out of this, no longer can they bend regulations, act unlawfully lie, cheat and scheme, thanks to iodpa we have a clearer understanding of the Regulations. Personally I can’t wait to see the next move by the PFEW after the FBU success. Old saying never ‘kick as stone until you are sure what’s under it’ did they honestly thin we would sit back and let them

      I have some recommendations……..make some savings in your SMT finances…… look at your own grossly inflated salaries/pensions you are taking from disabled pensioners pensions averaging £12k a year (which they paid into) when you have pen pushers who have never seen or had to make life changing decisions often in seconds sitting with their grossly over inflated salaries, £100k p/a plus all the perks, first class travel, free corporate food, accommodation, vehicles…… Which begs the question what do they spend their money on?

      Well done Mr Thompson and Mr Lock. Interesting and court challenging times ahead……….

  • 2019-07-04 at 8:24 am

    One more round to the good guys.

  • 2019-07-04 at 8:02 am

    An interesting judgement and reading between the lines it appears that PMABs are bias towards the SMP and forces, I may be wrong with that assumption but sending it back to PMAB and telling them that they have to consider both sides makes me think I may be Mare right than wrong.
    To hear that a police force broke it’s promise about accepting a promotion qualification does not surprise me at all the whole system around promotion is bent and has been for years. I am sure many officers have said “how the bloody hell did they get promoted”
    I hope that the new PMAB hearing will come to the right decision now but I am sure they don’t like being told off by a higher authority.
    Another great victory for David and Ron, well done.

Comments are closed.