Colin Banham successfully represented a Derbyshire Police Officer whose sick pay had been reduced following a decision under Regulation 28 and Annex K of the Police Regulations 2003. The decision to reduce the officer’s pay was initially made by a Human Resources professional and then, on appeal, upheld by a Deputy Chief Constable [‘DCC’]. The DCC purported to make the decision on the basis that the absence arose from the officer’s status as a police officer, as distinct from a specific injury sustained in the execution of duty.

The injury had, at least in part, arisen from an incident during the execution of the officer’s duty which subsequently impacted on the mental condition of the officer. It was submitted that the DCC had erred in law, as it was not necessary to establish that being in the execution of duty was the sole cause of injury, R (app. of the Merseyside Police Authority v PMAB (McGinty) [2009] EWHC 88 (Admin) and the Court of Appeal, most notably in Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Stunt [2001] ICR 989, has repeatedly stated that the phrase ‘in the execution of duty’ should be afforded a benevolent interpretation. It was further argued that there was no proper delegation by the Chief Constable to the Human Resources professional. In the light of R (app. of Crudace) v Northumbria Police Authority [2012] EWHC 112 (Admin), in the absence of any arrangements for delegation, no authority existed to make the decision under Regulation 28. Having considered the submissions, the Force set aside the original decision and reinstated the officer’s pay from that date.