Royal Courts of Justice
Before:
MR JUSTICE SWIFT
B E T W E E N :
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF
OKOTURO Claimant
- and -
COMMISSIONER OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE Respondent
THE CLAIMANT appeared in Person.
MR A USTYCH (instructed by Directorate of Legal Services) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
J U D G M E N T
If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
MR JUSTICE SWIFT:
The underlying complaint in this application for judicial review arises from events on 8 October 2016, when police attended the Claimant in response to a complaint he had made against a third party. On that occasion, various pieces of information were recorded by the police officers, and the information was then placed on the Commissioner's Merlin database. The information having been recorded by the Commissioner was then disclosed to the London Borough of Lambeth, who had sought information from the Commissioner in connection with an application for employment the Claimant had made to the London Borough of Lambeth.
The recording of the information, and the disclosure of that information to Lambeth, resulted in a complaint by the Claimant to the Commissioner of 27 June 2017, which then resulted in a conclusion by the defendant in August 2017 to the effect that it did not consider that there had been any breach of professional standards.
The Claim Form was issued on 31 August 2017. It challenged the refusal by the police to delete references to various parts of the information recorded on 18 October 2018. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers on 31 October 2017. The application for permission was then renewed. The grounds for renewal included reference to the fact that the Claimant had commenced an appeal against the Commissioner's decision of 24 August 2017, an appeal to the IPCC.
The renewed permission application was heard on 28 November 2017 by Helen Mountfield QC, Deputy High Court Judge. The Deputy Judge ordered that the application be stayed pending the outcome of the complaint to the IPCC and pending also any complaint that the claimant might wish to make to the Information Commissioner about the retention of the information of the personal data by the Commissioner and about her disclosure of that data to the London Borough of Lambeth.
The position now is as follows. The complaint to the IPCC succeeded to the extent that the Metropolitan Police were required to undertake further consideration of the complaint the Claimant had originally made. That consideration resulted in a letter from the Commissioner dated 11 September 2018, which stated that following further investigation of the Claimant's complaint, the conclusion reached was that no case of misconduct was disclosed.
I am told by Mr Okoturo, and have seen documents confirming, that on 12 September 2018 he commenced an appeal against that decision to what is now the IOPC. Mr Okoturo also tells me that on 1 October 2018, he made a complaint to the Information Commissioner, relating to the recording and processing of the personal data recorded back in October 2016.
The issue before me today is whether the stay imposed by the Deputy Judge should continue, or whether it should be lifted so that this case can now be relisted for a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review.
My conclusion is that the stay should be lifted. The pursuit by Mr Okoturo of his appeal to the IOPC, and his complaint to the Information Commissioner, demonstrate not the need for a stay of these proceedings but rather the fact that there are other, perhaps much more appropriate courses of action that are available to Mr Okoturo in respect of his concerns and complaint about the information recorded by the Metropolitan Police and the use to which that information was then put. Having regard to those other options, it is entirely possible that these judicial review proceedings could be unnecessary. But in any event, there is certainly no need for these proceedings to be held in abeyance any longer.
In those circumstances, I lift the stay. I direct that the hearing should be listed for the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review, with a time estimate of one hour. I further direct that there should be a sequential exchange of skeleton arguments in respect of that hearing, the claimant's skeleton argument to be filed and served 7 working days before the date set for the hearing, the defendant's skeleton argument in response to be filed and served 4 working days before the date set for that hearing.
Is there anything else that either of you would like me to deal with today?
Yes.
THE CLAIMANT: Your Lordship, could I have a copy of your transcript, your short judgment, at public expense, please?
MR JUSTICE SWIFT: Yes. I direct that a transcript of the remarks I have just made should be provided to Mr Okoturo at public expense.
THE CLAIMANT: Thank you, your Lordship.
MR JUSTICE SWIFT: I should also say in relation to the costs of today, I assume that the correct order is no order as to costs, is that right?
MR USTYCH: No, my Lord. The reason why this hearing happened as opposed to the stay being lifted on the papers is because the claimant opposed the lifting of the stay.
And so in those circumstances, the Commissioner would seek his costs of today on the basis that the claimant is, in a position to the stay being lifted, was unsuccessful.
MR JUSTICE SWIFT: All right.
Mr Ustych, for the Commissioner, makes an application that Mr Okoturo should pay his client's costs of the hearing before me today. I refuse that application. I accept that the reason why this matter was not addressed conclusively on the papers was because at that point Mr Okoturo opposed the application to lift the stay. However, taking into account the fact that he appears in person and taking into account the useful progress I think that has been made in the course of the hearing today, it seems to me that rather than make an order for costs that is against one party the appropriate course is for there to be no order as to costs in relation to today's hearing. Thank you both very much.
CERTIFICATE Opus 2 International Ltd. Hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete record of the judgment or part thereof. Transcribed by Opus 2 International Ltd. (Incorporating Beverley F. Nunnery & Co.) Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers 5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF admin@opus2.digital This transcript is subject to Judge’s approval. |