The Chief Constable applied for anti-social behaviour orders, but the applications were made by his officers under purported delegated powers. The district judge rejected the applications saying that the power to make such an application could not be delegated. The Chief Constable appealed.
Held: He did have a general power of delegation of powers given to him under statute. He remained answerable for his choice of appropriate officers to carry out tasks so delegated. The court however could not interfere in the absence of some irrationality or other manifest error.
courtcommentary.com ‘Carltona’ principle does not depend on status of civil servants as alter ego of their minister. Chief Constable may discharge functions under ss (1) and (2) Crime and Disorder Act 1998 through any officer(s) judged suitable by him for whom he is answerable
Judges:
Lord Justice Sedley, Poole
Citations:
Gazette 11-Jul-2002, [2002] EWHC 1087 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 81
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Sheffield City Council v Ali Admn 7-Jul-2005
The taxi driver had been acquitted for making a false statement to support his application. The magistrates had found that the form he had been requested to use had not been approved properly by the authority. It was accepted that the information, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Magistrates
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.172186