The claimant challenged the alteration of the PACE code of conduct to remove the mandatory requirement on an officer executing a stop and account or stop and search to record the self-defined ethnicity of the person so stopped, and also to challenge the decision of several chief constables to decide not to do so.
Held: Permission to bring a judicial review was refused: ‘ the policy is rational and complies with the SSHD’s equality duty, and as such is beyond challenge by judicial review . . the SSHD plainly did have due regard to the three equality aims set out at paragraph 26 above, and having taken such due regard, decided rationally, proportionately and lawfully that each Chief Constable should decide, again in the light of section 149(1) of the 2010 Act, whether to report Stop and Account. The SSHD will keep the matter under review, in the knowledge that each Chief Constable must himself keep under review any decision not to report Stop and Account.’
Stanley Burnton LJ, Parker J
 EWHC 2144 (Admin)
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 3
England and Wales
Cited – Roberts, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Admn 17-Jul-2012
The claimant challenged the legality of section 60 of the 1994 Act as an interference in her article 8 rights. She had been caught on a bus without her fare and gave a false name and address. A direction had been given authorising any person to be . .
Cited – JM and NT, Regina (on The Application of) v Isle of Wight Council Admn 11-Nov-2011
The claimants, disabled adults receiving community care services challenged changes to the eligibility threshold for such services.
When carrying out their functions, public authorities must have ‘due regard’ to six ‘needs’ identified in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.463169