High Court dismisses judicial review challenging IOPC's police complaint investigation decision

In September 2025, the High Court delivered judgement in Mohan Dash Singh, R (on the application of) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, dismissing a judicial review challenge to the IOPC's handling of a police complaint investigation involving allegations of racial abuse.

Background and Initial Incident

The case originated from events on 1 February 2022, when Mr Singh attempted to return jeans at a Marks and Spencer store in Workington. Following a disagreement over the return, store staff alleged that Mr Singh had been verbally aggressive—an accusation he categorically denied. After leaving the premises, Mr Singh was followed by the assistant store manager (ASM), who allegedly subjected him to racial abuse during an altercation outside the store.

Both parties subsequently filed complaints with Cumbria Police. Mr Singh reported the alleged racist incident, whilst the ASM complained about Mr Singh's purported behaviour inside the store. The police investigation concluded with no further action being taken against either party.

IOPC Review Process

Dissatisfied with the police investigation, Mr Singh exercised his statutory right under the Police Reform Act 2002 to request an IOPC review. His primary concerns centred on the police's failure to secure potentially crucial CCTV footage and their decision not to formally interview the ASM despite the serious nature of the racial abuse allegations.

The IOPC determined that the police investigation had been conducted reasonably and proportionately. Whilst acknowledging that the failure to interview the ASM represented a "learning point," the IOPC concluded this did not constitute poor service warranting further action. The appeal was consequently dismissed, prompting Mr Singh to seek judicial review.

Judicial Review Proceedings

Mr Singh, appearing as a litigant in person, presented his case with notable clarity despite the emotional investment in the outcome. His challenge focused on a single ground: that the IOPC's conclusion regarding the failure to interview the ASM was irrational, particularly given the gravity of racial abuse allegations.

The defendant, represented by counsel, mounted a comprehensive defence of the IOPC's decision-making process, emphasising the reasonableness of the investigative approach adopted by both the police and the reviewing body.

Judicial Analysis

Mr Justice Stephen Davies examined the complaint within the framework of statutory obligations under the Police Reform Act and established principles governing police complaint investigations. The judgement emphasised the importance of assessing each complaint's individual circumstances when determining investigative adequacy.

The court recognised that whilst the IOPC's determination might not align with Mr Singh's expectations, it had been reached through reasonable evaluation of the investigative process. The judge noted that the police's decision-making, whilst subject to judicial scrutiny, ultimately fell within the discretion of investigating officers and the IOPC's reviewing authority.

Crucially, the judgement reinforced that dissatisfaction with investigative outcomes, however understandable, does not automatically establish grounds for judicial intervention where proper procedures have been followed.

Legal Implications

The dismissal of Mr Singh's application highlights the courts' reluctance to substitute their judgement for that of specialist investigating bodies where proper procedures have been observed. The case demonstrates the high threshold required to successfully challenge IOPC decisions on irrationality grounds.

The judgement also illustrates the complexities inherent in police misconduct investigations, particularly where competing allegations exist and evidence gathering presents practical difficulties. It underscores the balance courts must strike between community expectations regarding police accountability and the legal framework governing complaint procedures.

This decision reinforces established precedent that judicial review remains an exceptional remedy, available only where public bodies have acted beyond the bounds of reasonable decision-making rather than merely reaching conclusions with which applicants disagree.