Przybys v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police: High Court dismisses judicial review of police decision not to investigate alleged manslaughter

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by Grzegorz Przybys against the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police ("GMP"), finding that the decision not to investigate an allegation of gross negligence manslaughter following the death of his mother, Ludwika Przybys, was not irrational and had been made with reasonable promptness. The judgement, handed down on 15 May 2026 by Mr Justice Coppel, is a useful restatement of the wide discretion afforded to chief constables when deciding whether to open criminal investigations.

Background

Ludwika Przybys, aged 87, died on 4 January 2024 whilst in the care of the Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust at North Manchester General Hospital. Her son brought extensive evidence before the court, including clinical photographs, fluid balance records, blood laboratory analyses, and correspondence from the Trust itself acknowledging a series of treatment failures. These included incorrect recording of a diabetes diagnosis, failures in mental capacity assessments, and the non-administration of longstanding cardiac medications including Digoxin and Edoxaban.

The Senior Coroner for Manchester City, having made enquiries of the Hospital, accepted that the death was of natural causes and declined to open an inquest. Subsequent representations by the Claimant in April and December 2024 produced the same conclusion. The General Medical Council ("GMC"), to which the Claimant later complained, similarly determined that the issues raised did not warrant further regulatory action.

Police decision not to investigate

In February and March 2025, Mr Przybys formally reported the alleged crime to GMP, naming consultant Dr Anicia Ali as the principal suspect. GMP's response on 25 March 2025 directed him to continue pursuing the matter with the GMC. The incident log was closed with the notation "Not for police. Advised to proceed with GMC."

Permission to bring judicial review was granted on two grounds: that GMP had failed to investigate promptly and that the decision not to investigate lacked any rational basis.

The court's reasoning

Mr Justice Coppel rejected both grounds. On the question of rationality, he acknowledged that the officer's response in March 2025 was brief and that no evidence was filed explaining the officer's reasoning, which he described as "unfortunate." He nonetheless found the substance of the decision to be far from irrational.

The court emphasised the very high threshold for gross negligence manslaughter. Citing the Court of Appeal in R v Misra [2004] and Fordham J in R (Smith) v DPP [2024], the judgement confirmed that the negligence must be "truly exceptionally bad and so reprehensible" as to warrant criminal sanction. Serious mistakes and errors of judgement, however grave, do not meet that bar.

The court found it rational for GMP to adopt a "wait and see" approach where the GMC, as expert regulator, was actively considering a complaint against the named suspect. The police are not medical experts, and in the absence of any concern raised by the Coroner or the Trust's regulator, it was a legitimate exercise of discretion to defer until the regulatory picture became clearer. Crucially, the decision was not final: DCI Willis confirmed in his witness statement that GMP would have reconsidered had the GMC reported any indication of criminal conduct.

A subsequent and more detailed review by Inspector Hofmann, undertaken following a recommendation by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, further confirmed the original decision on rational grounds. Coppel J noted that even had the March 2025 process been found wanting, relief would have been refused in light of that fuller review.

On the promptness ground, the challenge fell away entirely. GMP had responded within three days of the Claimant's report through the appropriate online channel.

Significance

The judgement reinforces the principle, drawn from R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60, that only wholly exceptional cases on their legal merits will justify judicial review of a decision not to investigate. It also illustrates that a police force may lawfully take into account the involvement of specialist regulatory bodies before committing resources to a complex medical investigation, without that amounting to an unlawful delegation of its statutory functions.