Bad law, or a bad law, or bad laws may refer to:
– A law that is oppressive
– A law that causes injustice
– Dumb laws, those laws which are particularly bizarre
Appeal for Justice
Please support our appeal for crowdfunding for this very important cause.
Make NO mistake, this ruling affects EVERY force in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, every pensioner in receipt of an injury award, and EVERY serving officer who may find themselves, being injured on duty.
This appeal is for all serving police officers, all retired officers (with or without an injury pension), the families, friends and supporters of the police service and for anyone else that recognises the dangers that officers face on a daily basis. It is also for those, in the legal profession who recognise bad law, and the implications of allowing such law to remain unchallenged.
A recent court ruling places thousands of police officers up and down the country forced to retire through injury in a position where they have no option to consent on a regular basis to their forces trawling through their personal or private medical data from birth, or risk having their pensions reduced their lowest level. Those injured officers are now leading the fight on behalf of ALL future injured officers and those who are currently retired.
Police officers, on a daily basis, selflessly put themselves in harms way to protect life and property. We have all heard the expression of police officers running into danger when everyone is running away from it. They do this regularly without thinking of the personal consequences to themselves, and thankfully in the vast majority of cases they escape without any serious harm. We know all too well from the news, that on some very sad occasions, officers lose their lives, and there can be a fine line between these officers and those, who survive but end up with life changing injuries.
Many, having dedicated their entire lives to policing, will be forced to retire early with ill-health retirement as they are no longer able to perform operational duties. If their permanent injures affect their future earning capacity, they may be granted an additional injury pension to compensate for their inability to earn what they may have been able to, were it not for those injuries.
This additional pension is paid under the The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 (‘The Regulations’), and is only awarded after careful scrutiny by a doctor. There are four bands within The Regulations, with highest band being awarded to the most affected, and which in turn attracts a higher pension.
Once awarded, The Regulations allow police forces in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to periodically review these pensions to ensure that the correct level of award is maintained. We’ve yet to meet an injured pensioner who disagrees with being reviewed to ensure that they are given the correct level of award as long as the review is conducted properly, fairly and impartially. Sadly this is not generally the case and injured officers are mostly treated with contempt by the doctors.
The decision when to review is discretionary and down to each Chief Constable who act in a secondary role called the Police Pension Authority (‘PPA’). They appoint a doctor with a title of Selected Medical Practitioner (‘SMP’) to carry out a medical examination who have to determine whether there has been a ‘substantial change’ in the condition of the pensioner since their last examination. This period for consideration is already set out in existing case law.
We have, in recent years, seen a number of forces conduct a worrying trend of what can only be described as an unrelenting assault on these pensioners with review programs designed for only one purpose, and that is to reduce the pensions of these courageous officers in order to save money from their budgets.
There is notably a handful of Chief Constables, HR mangers, solicitors and SMPs who are constantly dreaming up inventive new ways to interpret, (or misinterpret we should say) The Regulations for no other reason than to reduce these pensions. How they sleep at night, we just don’t know.
We believe that members of the public would be shocked and disgusted, if they knew about some the way in which some of these unscrupulous individuals operate. The public seem to have this preconceived idea that police officers are well looked after by their forces should the worst happen to them and ‘they look after their own’. It causes us much dismay to shatter this illusion.
Whilst it is true that some pensioners, when no longer exposed to the policing environment may, to a degree recover, these are in the minority, and many have to battle with the scars of their physical and mental disabilities for the rest of their lives.
At the moment, it is a small number of forces that appear to have no respect for their former officers and one such force is Staffordshire. In April 2017, they sent out letters to every pensioner in receipt of an injury award, informing them that they were all to under go reviews. Despite this decision predating the appointment of a new Chief Constable it coincided with Gareth Morgan arriving at the force from the Avon and Somerset Constabulary who had themselves been conducting reviews for the previous three years. Was it any coincidence that as Gareth Morgan left Avon & Somerset, the new Chief Constable, Andy Marsh, brought reviews to a halt?
Despite The Regulations placing no obligation on the former officers under review to provide personal and private medical notes, Staffordshire Police demanded that they hand over a complete set of their doctors notes from birth. They also demanded that other personal and private information be disclosed in the form of a questionnaire.
The officers contested that these demands were wholly excessive and breached their human rights as they weren’t measured or proportionate to the purpose of the review. The only obligation that the regulations placed upon the pensioners was that they ‘submit [themself] to such medical examination or to attend such interviews’, which they all did by attending a prearranged medical appointment with a SMP. They also volunteered a letter from their own doctor stating that there had been NO change in their medical condition.
During the appointments, the SMPs (Dr’s Vivian, Yarnley and Nightingale) made NO attempt to medically examine the pensioners. They asked NO questions about their condition and for those with physical disabilities, made NO physical examination. All they demanded was access to full and non redacted medical records since birth. The reasons for this, we believe are three fold,
- Firstly, Staffordshire police have LOST the medical records of many of these pensioners over a period of time, therefore they desperately need to obtain a replacement set, otherwise they knew nothing of the background and history of the pensioner.
- Secondly, it has been common practice for some unscrupulous SMPs to forensically examine the entire patient history with to view to finding ‘something’ else that may allow them to reduce the pension.
- Lastly, we believe that these SMPs were setting these pensioners up to fail.
In April 2009, the Home Office released a paper entitled ‘Review of police injury benefits government proposals’. Para 6.6. states,
Although this requirement ensures that the applicant must provide the police authority with an opportunity to have him or her examined and interviewed as necessary, it does not provide the authority with any express power to require the disclosure of relevant documents and medical records. Although it is not suggested that a police authority should be given such a power, it is clear that refusal to comply with such a request will oblige the police authority or the SMP, as the case may be, to consider the case on the available facts, and it is also reasonable for them to conclude in such circumstances that the claimant has something to hide which would damage his or her case.
The Home Office, further acknowledged this fact, when in 2011 they drafted a new set of regulations which suggested replacing this section,
Refusal to be medically examined
33. If a question is referred to a medical authority under regulation 30, 31 or 32 and the person concerned wilfully or negligently fails to submit himself to such medical examination or to attend such interviews as the medical authority may consider necessary in order to enable him to make his decision, then—
(a) if the question arises otherwise than on an appeal to a board of medical referees, the police authority may make their determination on such evidence and medical advice as they in their discretion think necessary;
with this,
Refusal to co-operate in medical examination
32.—(1) This regulation applies where a relevant medical question is referred to a medical authority under regulation 29, 30 or 31 and the person concerned wilfully or negligently fails to—
(a) submit himself to a medical examination;
(b) attend an interview; or
(c) consent to the disclosure of medical records
which the medical authority considers necessary in order to enable him to make his decision.
It’s worth pointing out here, that Staffordshire Police, have acknowledged that there is no legal obligation for these pensioners to hand over their most personal and private of medical notes. They wrote to one of the pensioners solicitors with the following,
“It has been explained to your client that he does not have to give consent for access to his medical records the consent form states “you can refuse to give consent if you wish”
In addition to this the ICO also had a view on this stating,
20th April 2018 and the 5th September 2018 – “Although consent is not defined by the DPA, it should be freely given. Where an individual has no option but to consent to the processing of their personal data, it is unlikely that consent has been freely given. This therefore raises fairness concerns and in our view we do not believe that consent is an appropriate condition to rely on for the processing of sensitive personal data.”
It is probably worth noting here, that in May 2018, the Information Commissioners Office (‘ICO’), became involved in Staffordshire Police’s poor handling of data, and made the following number of recommendations for corrective action,
Urgent Priority recommendations – 5
High Priority recommendations – 52
Medium Priority recommendations – 37
Low Priority recommendations – 7
Despite the forces seeming inability to securely retain sensitive personal data, one of the pensioners even took a set of their doctors notes along to the appointment for the SMP to read, but unsurprisingly, the SMP refused to read them.
With this background in mind, what pensioner in their right mind would voluntarily hand over the medical history to a force that clearly had no right to demand it, and had a dreadful history of failing to secure or protect the integrity of sensitive information? It also became clear following numerous correspondence with the force that some medical data that had been submitted to the force was being trawled through the by HR staff, who had no right to do so. This is a serious data protection breach.
Mr Morgan wrote to the pensioners involved with a view to having a meeting. He withdrew from that meeting when the pensioners requested that their legal representative be allowed to attend. Such a strange decision if Mr Morgan was acting in good faith throughout the process.
Despite all the pensioners complying with the letter of the law, the Chief Constable deemed that the pensioners had failed to comply with The Regulations and invoked punitive measures under a different regulation, this being 33, thereby dropping every pensioner that had a physical disability to the lowest band, and those with mental disabilities by one band. Some pensioners have lost over £1,400 per month.
Whilst regulation 33 allows the PPA to make a decision, it has to be made ‘on such evidence and medical advice as they in their discretion think necessary’. NO evidence has been provided by the PPA to support the punitive decision that they’ve made. The decision to reduce still falls under regulation 37(1) where a ‘substantial alteration’ has to be found, and there is no such evidence to support the reductions. Instead, the reductions seemed to follow a pattern rather than looking at each case individually, and the PPA decided that many of the pensioners could perform the same full time role within the force.
With the assistance of IODPA and the Police Federation, the pensioners challenged the decision, which was heard on 15th and 16th July 2020 by Mr Justice Linden in the Administrative Court of England and Wales. His judgment was handed down on 16th September 2020.
You can read a copy of the judgment here –
Goodland, R (On the Application Of) v Chief Constable Of Staffordshire Police [2020] EWHC 2477 (Admin) (16 September 2020)
Unfortunately, the case was lost and the consequence of the judgment provides all police forces the ability to make unrestricted demands from all officers undergoing a review or they may face an incontestable financial penalty without the right of appeal.
We feel as though the judge in this case has ignored all the evidence, that there is no obligation in law for these pensioners to hand over their medical records. Had the judge applied the letter of the law, he would have come to the same conclusion that this is the case. We accept that this may cause a dilemma for the force, but this is for the legislators to resolve.
If this judgment, which we consider as ‘bad law’ is allowed to stand, ALL those in receipt of an injury pension will be at risk in the future, even if your force is not currently reviewing, although we are aware that a number of forces are looking at commencing reviews following this case being eventually finalised.
As a result of this, we have decided that we have no option, but to appeal this decision on behalf of all injured police officers around the UK. We understand that the Police Federation will not be financially supporting this appeal, although we would ask them to please urgently reconsider their position.
To give those in receipt of an injury pension an idea as to what they may lose, if this new ruling is applied across every force in the country we need to look at the impact upon their injury pension. The monetary awards in each band is not linear i.e. a band 4 pension is not exactly four times that of a band 1, but this method of calculation is a pretty good guide.
So if you’re on a band 2, your pension would be reduced by half, if you’re on a band 3, your pension would be reduced by two thirds, and if you’re on a band 4 your pension would be reduced by three quarters.
Now compare that huge reduction each and every month, for the rest of your life, with trying to get this decision overturned?
This ruling may even affect those on band 1 and whose condition worsens, as we believe that they will find it more difficult to secure an increase in their banding. Ironically Staffordshire Police had initially decided not to review those in receipt of a band 1 award. The cynical amongst us would believe that it it not possible to reduce them any further, and therefore it was a pointless exercise. It was apparent that this would have been unlawful not treat everyone with a disability the same, and so the policy changed, and they embarked on reviewing the band 1’s. Strange though it may seem, when Staffordshire wrote to the band 1’s they and asked if there had been any change in their condition, they accepted their word for it, when they said that there was none. However, they wouldn’t accept the word of anyone in bands 2, 3 or 4. Draw your own conclusions.
As a result, we have launched an appeal to raise £75,000 to cover the legal costs of taking this dreadful decision to appeal.
We have created a donation page, which we would encourage you to use and also, where possible, please indicate, if applicable that we can claim gift aid on your donation, which means that HMRC will give us another 25
The page can be found here – https:
Please support our appeal, and more importantly please support all those officers that had to leave their much loved career end through no fault of their own. If serving officers were fully aware of the way in which some forces consider their former officers are merely a financial burden, they may think twice before putting themselves in harms way.
I am a NARPO member, but not an injured officer, having safely completed my 30 years service. I have lifelong friends who were injured and had to retire early.
I am quite annoyed that I found out about this appeal through a third party, which I will be supporting and making a donation. When I contacted my local NARPO branch, they told me that a request had been made, but they had not informed me of this appeal because of an email that had been circulated from NARPO headquarters. The email was sent to all branches informing them (reading between the lines) not to support this appeal. It also stated that there were inaccuracies or untruths in the article.
I’ve had a long conversation with one of my injured friends over the phone, who explained the case to me in detail. I have not seen the email, but from what I was told, and what I now understand, I am shocked to find that the author of the email clearly does not understand the case and the effect that it may have on my former colleagues and friends.
This may be unkind, but I have to call into question the command structure within NARPO. Do any of the local branches have any say as to what is sent out to members, or is it an autocratic organisation with sycophantic branches?
I honestly believed that NARPO was better than this and there to support ALL retired officers when in need. I am questioning my NARPO membership as the only benefit I seem to get is a glossy magazine once a month, now in a see-through wrapper so that the postman and neighbours all know that I’m an ex police officer.
To quote Mr Justice Lane in the case of Evans, R (On the Application Of) vs Chief Constable Cheshire… “police officers who are required to retire on the grounds of permanent disability are entitled to a degree of finality in respect of their entitlement to pensions. A police officer who has to retire as a result of what is then considered to be a permanent disablement caused in the line of duty should not be at the mercy of a subsequent medical assessment, that he or she was not, in fact, permanently disabled. That applies to an injury pension, as much as it does to a disablement pension. In the absence of statutory wording to the contrary; there is no reason to treat the injury pension as more a fragile form of benefit.”
Moving forward, I read this blog with interest and your further comments. I also read with impartiality the ‘Goodland’ & ‘Wright’ case against the Staffordshire Chief Constable. I am also familiar with most of the Administrative and High Court ‘Police Injury Benefit’ judgements, along with having read all of the ‘upheld’ Police Injury Benefit Pension Ombudsman decisions.
What strikes me as obvious is the genuinely held mistrust (whether vindicated or not), of the; Police Pension Authorities (PPA), Selected Medical Practitioners (SMP), Police Medical Appeals Board (PMAB), Force Solicitors and to some extent, the Occupational Health staff (in their capacity as Pension Administrators) which is causing significant stress and financial harm to many. That mistrust has fermented over many years and now transformed into a unified collective consciousness, thanks to the hard work and partnerships of the Injury On Duty Pensioners Association (IODPA), National Association of Retired Police Officers (NARPO) and the National Police Federation, all of who seek to promote the interests of their members.
Through IOD pensioners, these organisations have experienced both legal victories and losses along the way, all of which came at a financial cost to both sides of the pension dispute. However, the real winners and losers were the pensioners who rely on their injury award benefit to support their future living and well-being. Regrettably though, because of the nature of civil actions, the legal successes appear all too short lived.
The mistrust that exists, was the driving force behind the ‘Wright’ claimant’s decisions for either refusing to complete the PPA’s questionnaire or complying with the SMP’s requests, and whilst I do not propose to comment on the merits of their decisions, what is obvious and irrefutable is that such action left them vulnerable and to the judgement and consequences that have since followed.
The conflict in law that exists between a Chief Constable’s responsibility to pay injury awards out of the same budget that they use to support front line services, means that injury award payments will always be on their financial agenda, and will always be subject to scrutiny.
Pension Regulations stipulate that Pension Authorities must act in the interests of their members, and in such a way as not to cause a loss of trust in the Pension Scheme. Paradoxically, this conflicts with their statutory obligation to ensure they make best use of public funds. However, given that Chief Constables are routinely held accountable to Police and Crime Commissioners and the Home Office for the management of their budget, but have never (to my knowledge) been held legally or personally accountable for breaches of Pension Regulations, it is easy to see which of their competing obligations takes precedence.
Despite the numbers of successful claims and appeals made against Police Pension Authorities, I am unaware of any case where either the Chief Constable, or any member of their Pension Administration has been held personally and legally accountable for any form of malpractice or breach of Pension Regulations. It would appear that the vast majority of finalised disputes were concluded (whether to the satisfaction of the pensioner or not) through the Regulation 32(2) & 32(3) reconsideration process, the PMAB appeals process, the Internal Dispute Resolution Process (IDRP), The Pensions Ombudsman (PO), the Crown Court or Administrative and High Court hearings, all of which are civil remedies and do not provide the adjudicator with a statutory power to punish the PPA for malpractice. Only The Pensions Regulator (TPR), the Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) or the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) have such a power, and a statutory duty to investigate the circumstances behind alleged pension malpractices, typically in response to a complaint of corrupt and improper practice.
The never-ending legal challenges between Pensioner and Pension Authority is reminiscent of the mythological battle between Hercules and the Hydra, a creature who when you cut off one head, more grew back in its place. Each time a pensioner is successful in securing favourable caselaw, a Pension Authority then attempts to overturned or circumvent that judgement, which brings me to my point…
The Hydra had but one mortal head in the middle (A.K.A the Police Pension Authority), which had to be removed to defeat it. Therefore, to bring about a meaningful and sustained change to the status quo, Chief Constables need reminding as to the gravity of their responsibility under Pension Regulations. If done properly, this should deter future attempts to manipulate or circumvent Pension and Injury Benefit Regulations for the benefit of their own alternative agenda. This ‘learning outcome’ can be achieved through the ‘complaint against police’ procedure via either the PSD or IOPC. It should be noted that in the face of investigating multimillion-pound pension scams, The Pensions Regulator is unlikely to undertake a single complaint of pension malpractice.
In certain circumstances, were a charity to raise a collective complaint (on behalf of its members), this is known as a ‘Super-Complaint’ and given greater weight by the IOPC in their severity assessment.
The PSD and IOPC are legally obliged to investigate all complaint allegations, and under the IOPC 2020 Statutory Guidance, there is no longer a time limit on how far back a complaint can go.
The complaint process should not be used as a mechanism to resolve the pension dispute, but used appropriately where there is evidence of criminal conduct and or a breach of the standards of professional behaviour, it is a powerful tool.
As the PPA is also legally accountable for the actions of their administrators (such as the Force’s Retirement Team), any breach committed by them also leaves the Chief Constable personally vulnerable to legal sanctions, and receptive to changing their working practices.
Going back to Greek mythology, unless appropriate criminal action is directly taken against those individuals responsible for the unwarranted, unjustified, unreasonable, and unlawful conduct that I read about all too frequently, then the heads of the PPA Hydra will continue to grow back and thrive.
Understandably, serving officers are unaware of the challenges they may face in retirement, not least from those within the organisation, who no longer view them as a valuable resource, but as a financial burden. The ignorance of Pension Regulations and caselaw extends to both the PSD and the IOPC who require enlightening as to what has been happening under their noses for many years, without scrutiny or detection.
To quote Mr Justice King in the case of Howarth, R (On the Application Of) vs Northumbria Chief Constable…“There is something fundamentally unattractive in the proposition that the authority should be entitled to thwart the claimant or any retired officer being paid what ex-hypothesis is the pension she is entitled to under regulations…”
I therefore encourage each of you and your representatives, to consider your particular situation and whether the making of a formal complaint against police is appropriate, but as former police officers, you know all too well that without victims coming forward, the problem cannot be addressed, and will continue.
Best wishes.
The SMP the forces use are Occupational Health practitioners, for only one reason.
My GP describes them as failed Doctors who couldn’t get a proper job 😀
Whilst the forces continue to use these people nobody will get a fair unbiased review from so called independent Selected medical practitioners,
who are not free from outside control; nor do they seem capable of thinking or acting for oneself.
This seems to be a miscarriage of justice and needs to be corrected by Judges who understand the regulations.
I have never had time for NARPO or the PFEW who bailed too early in this case imho.
As for the Chief Constable in this force, he has brought dishonour to the post and uniform I was once proud to wear with his behaviour towards former injured officers. Currently serving officers beware – Chief Constables speak with forked tongue.
David Gray alias gareth morgan, Andrew colon, or Marc dudson..
Nope none of the afore mentioned….intact a fellow injured on duty police pensioner….with nothing to hide thanks….not fearful of medical assessment ,review ,reassessment….as I said for those who read my whole remarks..those injured in the line of duty of course deserve an enhanced pension …..
I don’t think you understand the ruling take a good look! You may have nothing to hide but they will ask for more than you may be prepared to reveal. I doubt you are an IOD and don’t tell us you are from Staffordshire as that would be almost as big a whopper as being you being an IOD. Morgan is awful and a bully and yes I have had experience of his bullying arrogant ways.
Well well well, perhaps you would think it only fair and reasonable to ask those who receive tax payers money for an injury on duty to have there on going illness injury or disability assessed. To be fair to the SMP as a professional they would almost certainly need the full medical picture before making an assessment or reassessment, but for a few as you can see, most complied with this process and quite rightly continue to receive an injury on duty award at the appropriate banding.
So what is there to be frightened of, unless of course you have been over banded for some time ?….no one would ever argue that those injured in the line of duty should not be given an enhanced pension….but it’s tax payers money…more money for incorrectly banded iodp awards means less for policing…
Many have been assessed and reviewed multiple times. I don’t think you will find anyone that disagrees with you about a fair ‘legal’ assessment, however, many forces have been conducting these reviews unlawfully.
Check out the many JR’s they have lost. They also have all of our medical records from birth the moment we join, it is also worth noting that despite reports submitted that they don’t believe our consultants and gp’s that our injury circumstances may have changed and subject the person to further medically by an occupational health doctor who is not a consultant in the injuries sustained, The records send our information (medical records) which has been clarified in this court case to Human Resources Department and Legal Department prior to the SMP neither of which (Human Resources or Legal Department) are medically qualified yet produce reports telling the SMP what should be done before the SMP receives anything.
Hi David, I read your comments with interest not knowing your personal circumstances or why you subscribe to IODPA I would not presume to judge what motivates your specific point of view. I would say that as a member of the Avon and Somerset police and being one of the founders of what is now IODPA I too liked to believe in the best of the police service and to a large extent still do.. This view has evolved over time to view the management of the service as incompetent and driven primarily by the perceived need to save money no matter how achieved., much of this driven by non police personnel such as PCC’s (read the letter written by PCC Mountstevens to the Home Secretary of the time to obtain an informed view) The IODPA have won numerous cases defeating the attempt to predate injured officers pensions unjustifiably.
The regulations dictate how reviews are carried out all the IODPA is doing is holding to account the managers of police services to keep the process honest. Something all honest people should applaud.! I would say to you that no doubt there are some leads swingers claiming medical pensions however to post such an unbalanced biased opinion lumping everybody together makes me suspect that you have an agenda. I had to withdraw from active involvement in pre-IODPA activity because I found the facts too distressing to hear causing my own situation to worsen. I initially could not believe the service I had so proudly served could behave in such a dishonest and criminal manner. This latest case decision is a travesty and reminds me of a phrase in a piece of legislation “MAKES AN UNWARRANTED DEMAND WITH MENACES” this decision allows that to happen to all pensioners retired on medical injury pensions.
Honest reviews yes but we cannot rely on the powers that be to be honest,
Regards, Nigel Mee
David, in an honest world with fair and independent CC’s & SMP’s, you would be right.
However, this is not the case. There is a clear conflict of interest and a Chief Constable, whose job relies on him/her following the political appointment and agenda of the PCC. These CC’s are also supposed to act as the independent Police Pension Authority, but I’m sorry, you cannot see a CC standing up in times of financial hardship to a PCC and saying ‘No’. These are career animals, passing through numerous forces, with no loyalty to any of them, as they climb the greasy pole.
Then you have these supposed independent SMP’s, who are not in the slightest way, independent. They rely on the contracts they get from the forces and, as has often happened, if they don’t follow the true intentions of the force concerned, then they are out.
Now, ask yourself, why do the Fire Service, who have a very similar scheme, but only review once and then after 12 months, before leaving the IOD alone? Could it be that they have a strong union and the PCC’s are frightened of tgat, where police IOD’s are fair game, without a powerful union behind them.
You will not find one IOD who is not prepared to go through a FAIR & HONEST process, managed by a truly independent SMP.
If you hear of such a location, where this is happening, then please let me know, but please don’t endorse these blatently dishonest and corrupt reviews that are occuring at the moment.
Enjoy your index linked pension after being able to do your 30 years guarding paper clips and dodging members of the public that could or may have caused you harm. Think how lucky you have been never been sent single crewed where a crowd set on you and broke your spine and arms , kicked you repeatedly in the head and left you for dead. Your dead hard, so a broken spine would be nothing…….
I have always believed in Karma, let’s see if you would be happy after having paid 11%/14% of your salary into a pension in to a scheme (organisation) that promised to protect you and find out that very organisation (despite your injuries not lessening but progressing) wanted to take 3/4 of the pension that you have paid into away from you.
Do you honestly think it’s correct that civilian staff are earning many times the salary of a police officer (no matter what level police officer) and coming out with often many times the pension of officers, you have said there are of course those officer that have been involved in firearms, drugs, terrorist incidents, what about the officers dealing daily with child protection, rape, sex trafficking? Guess you are hard and macho and nothing impacts on you (which says more about you than those that have gone before you and the places no normal members of society believes exists) Let’s not even go into shiny arsed trousers senior officers of which one turned in the opposite direction when PC Palmer needed backup….
It’s ok to come out from your Mum’s bedroom now…….. you were obviously the ‘tap dancer’ of the shift, dance on the spot until the rest of the shift had passed you to take on the dangers,
Alias G. Morgan.. A. Colon.. M. Judson
Michael your comments are disgusting, I served many years as a serviceman (Northern Ireland for 2 yrs undercover, the first gulf conflict..yugoslavia Etc) none of which damaged me mentally at all, I saw and expected to see bad things.. I joined the police service afterwards and enjoyed a few good yrs doing what I joined the police to do.. Protect and help people in my community.. I can say this with Shame and hindsight.. I have met people who needed help there and then and I let them down at the time.. I thought they were shirkers or lead swingers.. You might be lucky enough to leave the police with no issues, I really hope you do.. I and many others through no fault of our own had to go under that old saying put out to pasture.. Any reason how you can justify your comments befuddle me..
Get a grip Michael.Before commenting and using a fallen officers name to make your point,TRY READING the regulations covering injuries on duty and the vindictive and spiteful way Staffs Officers are being treated by The Chief Constable,Gareth Morgan aided and abetted By The IPCC Mathew Ellis,both of whom are being investigated by The I O P C.Be in no doubt,if this misguided judgement is allowed to go unchallenged OPEN season has been declared on all Injured on duty police officers in The U K.Why Narpo either can’t or won’t offer any assistance I can only assume is Jealousy over awards.Regarding The Feds who had been very helpful until now,I can only say,”Think of your current membership and what inevitably is going to happen to some of them”.Why is there no press or media coverage of what can only be described as a National Scandal.Have they all been warned off.In addition.Where is Priti Patel and her supposed Covenant.Come on Home Secretary.You could put a stop to this shameful situation.Read the stories.Read The I O D Regs.Read about I O D officers who have taken Their own lives.The whole situation needs investigating at the highest level.
A terrible result and an obvious miscarriage of justice. The way injured retired officers are treated is shocking and leaves me lost for words. I hope that in time this matter will be resolved.
As a Police Officer of thirty years I have seen many genuine cases of people retired on ill health.Some had been shot,some seriously injured through despicable crimes and in the case of John Taylor lose his life.These people deserve and will always deserve to be recompensed.Against that I have also seen the bad back brigade who retired and then went on to play golf at a very good standard.There was a period in the late 80 early 90 s when people got ill retirement very easily.This was very annoying to watch.I for one if I had been retired through ill health would have no problem in allowing access to my medical records especially as the injury may be getting worse with age.Im not sure what the problem is
The problem is, Staffordshire Police are on a fishing excercise when asking for your medical records. Where they contact your GP after you have given consent for a medical ‘report’, then they request your complete medical records from birth!! This is purely so they can look for any incident during your life, I.e as simple as a fall from your bike as a child, and then state that you hurt yourself then, and that ‘injury’ has now overtaken your police injury….HR personnel, trawl through your medical notes, to which they have no right to,. On retiring with an injury, SP have access to your medical records, and indeed all of the officers involved in this debacle, have offered medical notes, specialist reports, and GP letters. None have been accepted…..
Morgan and Coley need bringing to task over this matter….it’s an absolute disgrace!
How fortunate you have been. I don’t think you must have been made aware that every IOD was subject to medicals, scans, X-rays which were read by consultants and it was on their recommendations if an officer was retired whether ill health or iod and many did not want to retire, only to be given time to make a recovery (if possible) Zzz Zzz
Likewise I also know many ex colleagues that have committed suicide AFTER being IOD, your point is?
Oh for the grace of god go you………
You Mike are lucky to have completed 30 years as Iod’s have had that stolen away from them and to make matters worse in most cases given little or no support from their respective forces. If you can’t see what the problem is then you must be thick! But then I assume you are on a mission to cause upset and problems for IOD’S. The problem is that forces and this is a quote from a force, “forensically examine GP records” they hope to find something going back years so they can discount the injury on duty. That being said forces have medical records when applicants join so if they do find anything why would they have employed the applicant in the first place? Then there is the fact that some people may not want all in sundry pawing over their private medical notes that may have conditions and other illnesses that cause a certain amount of embarrassment.
I hope that make it a bit simpler for you sorry but this comment does note allow pictures or crude drawings for the thick and stupid.
Shame on you Federation and Narpo.
But by the grace of God it could be yourselves that are targeted by cruel and heartless ACPO rank individuals.
If you are not there to help with the welfare of retired officers, then lock the door and leave the building. Your service is no longer required.
I know some of the individual officers concerned and they are genuine, honest, trustworthy people and more importantly part of our family. The comment above about Narpo and the PF being ACPO camp followers is hard, very hard, but it’s your chance to prove the critics wrong.
I doubt you will.
Good luck and best regards to all affected.
There is a Rule called Statutory Construction which should be applied by English courts. This is founded on the principle of treating others as you yourself want to be treated. This is a well established Maxim. So with that in mind please consider this ‘The golden rule of interpretation of Statutes ’ including Regulations. This in essence means that the words of a Statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the Statute are clear,plain and unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences.
SO IN THE JR JUDGMENT IT SEEMS THAT THIS PRINCIPLE OF LAW HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE .
And you qualified as a barrister or Judge in the High Court when….?….
Are you qualified? Or are you just a Police College, Home Office or Morgan’s lacky? One of the first thing I learnt in policing was never ever to underestimate or stereotype who you are speaking to their qualifications/training and experience of others. Are you in the Met? 😉
Why on earth would anyone inform David Gray of their qualifications or expertise? To be fair there was always one rocket that never saw daylight or indeed a member of the public on every shift…….
Yet the Government bring in a Police Covenant and we are treated disgracefully because of a loophole that allows forces to challenge you’re well being. My force forced me to retire with injuries, I did not leave voluntarily, I fought to keep my job. I have made a contribution. This Judgment must be challenged. Where are elected representatives when we need their help?
Since respective Chief Constables became responsible for paying IOD Pensions out of their budgets, these pensions have become a contentious issue in their financial housekeeping. Predictable strategies sure to evolve have been (a) Don’t award the IOD in the first place. (b) Keep the award low if granted. (c) Try and reduce those IOD Pensions already existing. A ‘pre-existing’ ailment if one is identified can be used to refuse the award of an IOD or to keep it to a minimum. A trawl of medical notes could perhaps confirm a ‘pre-existing’ ailment no matter how spurious, bringing under focus hereditary, background etc., – ‘eugenics’ springs to mind. Therefore, the recent ruling as handed down by the adjudicator must be challenged.
No doubt they were swayed by subtle disingenuous argument.
Support this appeal.
Anon N. Ireland
An extraordinary judgement. It goes against all reasonable and fair minded thinking!
The Police Forces involved should be ashamed of themselves for this malicious and vindictive assault on decent and vulnerable Officers.
If they are short of money, which, no doubt they are, they should make representation to the Government and show that representation in the media.
A disgusting attitude by the Forces mentioned above.
I hope current Officers realise the lack of support their employers give them when they need it most!
Never during my role as “Constable” did I know that getting injured and “Caste” would result in so much stress and uncertainty regarding my health and well being due to such measures the Forces use to save cash. Would I have put myself in the dangers I did knowing what I know now…no.
This is a disgrace.
I am not a lawyer, let alone a Judge but I am able to identify perverse logic when I see it. This judgement drives a coach and horses through previous case law which established a principle that a reviewing SMP’s SOLE purpose is to examine whether or not there has been a SUBSTANTIAL alteration in the degree of disablement since the last review/assessment. By allowing the SMP to demand full GP medical records, the judgement effectively forces the IOD pensioner to re-apply for his or her banding whenever the PPA sees fit. This cannot be right and the judgement must be challenged. I would urge all IOD pensioners to look at how much they stand to lose per month and make a donation accordingly as this affects all of us.
I am willing to help.
As I understand it, the Judge interpreted the law as what ‘he thought Parliament intended, when they drafted the law’, rather than as it is written. This puzzles me because if that’s how the law works, (and I am but a layman), then surely we should never ever see ‘loopholes!
The ‘Hip flask’ defence, so commonly used by drink drivers would not have been available, as Judges would have interpretered the law without the law makers having to close the loophole.
In addition, I still find it incredible that someone can be dropped from Band 4 to Band 1, by Morgan ,without any true evidence, either medical, or otherwise and just base on pure suspicion can never be right. If ‘hearsay’ is not allowed, then neither is this. T
This judgement is not right and an affront to natural justice.
This appeal must go forward and we must fund it, otherwise, 13,000 retired, but badly injured on duty police pensioners, no matter what age, or where they live, will be safe to this bad law decision and the injustice to come as all forces start to save money from attacking the weakest group.
Being an IODP myself, I find the action of the Judge concerned, very concerning. Obviously, I wouldn’t suggest any impropriety at all as to do so would risk rendering myself or anyone else doing so, liable to be attacked legally and it also seems fairly obvious that I could expect no support from either The PFEW or NARPO. I have to content myself with my own thoughts on the matter.
I have a few observations though:
Why, when the PFEW gave financial assistance to the original legal action brought by the IODPA, they have now decided NOT to offer ANY support in the challenge to this ‘Travesty of Justice’. What is behind your decision PFEW ?????? Again, having been a fully supportive member of the ‘Fed’ throughout my service (25yrs) I would not suggest any impropriety on their part BUT would dearly love to understand their thinking in coming to their decision. If the matter is not worthy of their support now, what has changed, can anyone tell me as I cannot for the life of me why ANY such supporting organisation would change direction mid litigation?????
To address the matter of the provision of Medical Records SINCE BIRTH:
For many more years than I care to think of, on application to become a Police Officer, all applicants are and have been required to, provide medical history (and at this point it would seem to justify – history since birth) and a demonstration that they do not suffer from any condition which would prevent them becoming a ‘Good and Efficient Police Officer’. That being the case, it is (in my view), the responsibility of the ‘Employing’ force to retain all such private information in a safe and responsible manner and that should they NOT do so, then they have no grounds to REQUIRE any Officer to provide it AGAIN, at any point. I use the word REQUIRE purposely, as any REQUEST accompanied by any implied sanction is NO LONGER A REQUEST but becomes a REQUIREMENT. The phrase ‘Unwarranted demand with menaces’ springs to mind!!!
In addition to my membership off the IODPA, I am also a member of NARPO. I was also, at one point, a member of my local NARPO committee and very proud to be so. However, to say that I am seriously disappointed with the lack of any substantial publicised action or support for IODP Officers from this organisation, understates my position considerably. Yes there has been some tacit support from the National Office but where has the support been from local branches for individuals concerned. Where are you STAFFORDSHIRE NARPO???
From a Legal point of view and from a common sense position, this BAD LAW has to be changed, not just challenged.
The Police Forces which people of my generation joined, in general, Worked Hard and Played Hard and we Supported Each Other (I don’t feel qualified to make any comments about current day organisations other than the obvious one). I’m sure we can all bring to mind, colleagues ( and Senior Colleagues) whose behaviour and decisions we all ‘wondered about’ BUT I think that in the main, we felt that should something really bad happen to us (On or Off duty) then we would be helped by those we worked with. I know that my family and I benefitted from this support more than once.
No apparent Public Support from the PFEW or NARPO (as far as I know) WHY???
Why is it that a small charity (born from the need to support Injured On Duty Officers, when no such support was forthcoming from recognised Organisations) is having to bear the FULL COST of challenging BAD LAW.
Surely both of these organisations should be looking towards supporting ALL of their members in a Full and Practical manner rather than just (apparently) supporting just those who are in less need. They both have a myriad of Influential Contacts, (as can be seen in their respective publications on a regular basis). Why aren’t they making use of such people for such an important and potentially ruinous situation???
So many questions BUT so few answers. Is it just not sufficiently important.
I fully support and am thankful for all of the work which current Police Officers do BUT, under the present circumstances and the sad prospects for any who get injured on duty, WHO WOULD BE A POLICE OFFICER TODAY?
These are my own views and of course, I could be wrong. I’m sure someone will tell me.
Hi David, everything you say is true and very well put. Regarding NARPO the experience in my old force is that NARPO is run by those former officers who showed very little support for welfare of the front line officers when they were in charge and tended to be “camp followers” of the ACPO ranks (as they used to be) and are now acting in the same manner the CC being the president. Unrealistic to expect these particular leopards to change their spots! Sadly the police service I knew and loved is long gone with direct entry at every level it seems there will be less and less sympathy or support for “the poor bloody infantry” who indeed would want to carry out the role of Constable today?!
Incredible that a Judge can so blatantly ignore and overule the specific wording of written law. They’ve interpreted the law as they would like it to be, not as it is explicitly written. A gross professional failing of the highest order.
The decision must be appealed, for it is indeed ‘bad law’.
It appears to form the principle that any authority or organisation which would like to trawl through a private individual’s medical and financial data can do so.
This would seem to apply to insurance companies, the HMRC, your Internet provider, British Telecom, your gas or electricity supplier and so on. Anyone who has any form of ‘contract’ with any individual and who thus has an interest in their health and finances could turn to this judgement to justify intrusion.
I fail to see in the judgement any mention of the safeguards guaranteed to citizens by the Data Protection Act. The Judge apparently thinks it reasonable for a police pension authority to ask to see certain records, but that is a long way from there being a right in law for a PPA or a SMP to go against a refusal by any individual to grant access to those records.
It might indeed be thought helpful that a SMP could access certain information, and I believe pensioners would, in well conducted forces, agree to strictly confined access. Here, they had lost all trust in the PPA and SMP to conduct a review of degree of disablement in a lawful manner. They feared low dealing and dirty tricks, and had very good reason to believe they would not get a fair review.
They sought to limit access to personal data as a means of constraining the PPA and SMP from acting unlawfully. They judged the character of the PPA (who is the Chief Constable) and the SMP very well, for in the event the PPA seems to have acted out of revenge by reducing pensions when there was no evidence whatever of any alteration in degree of disablement.
This judgement is suspect of being delivered by a judge who was less than even-handed. It is plain from the account of events that there is something very rotten in Staffordshire Constabulary where it is thought acceptable to treat disabled former officers, and their families with such disrespect and aggression.
This ruling is an insult to all vulnerable injured on duty pensioners.
It stinks of injustice and must be challenged
It is also a disgrace that our Police federation is not financially backing our challenge. We have all paid into the federation for decades for the very reason that if we needed legal assistance it would be there to help but sadly this is not the case.
It appeared to me, reading the judgement when issued, that it was contrary to the regulations and that it allows the unscrupulous to twist the spirit of the regulations to the advantage of the organisation at the expense of the individual. Never would I have believed that this could happen in Britain! You are right to fight this bad law in any way possible. Having been a Federation Representative I cannot believe the refusal to support at least in part this fight for justice. I shall be stopping my contribution to NARPO as they have been less than useless on this issue.I shall be donating to the cause. KEEP THEM HONEST FOR HEAVENS SAKE!
This is such an important challenge for ALL IOD pensioners and for all serving police officers who may be injured in the future so please dig deep and help as many families will be affected by this dreadful decision.