Circular 007/2012: guidance on police injury award reviews
Published 30 March 2012
© Crown copyright 2012
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-police-injury-award-reviews/circular-0072012-guidance-on-police-injury-award-reviews
The relevant parts are:
- Home Office circular 46/2004: in annex C the section entitled ‘Review of injury pensions once officers reach age 65’
- guidance on medical appeals: paragraph 20 of section 5, entitled ‘Degree of disablement after age 65’
The High Court gave a decision on 21 February 2012 in the judicial review case of Simpson. This judgment concerns guidance on police injury award reviews, principally that contained in Home Office Circular 46/2004 concerning reviews of the injury awards of former officers who have reached age 65. The court concluded that the relevant guidance on this particular issue is inconsistent with the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 and unlawful.
Under Regulation 37 of the 2006 Regulations, the responsibility for such reviews lies with the relevant police authority. (Note. This is subject to amendment by the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011/3063), in consequence of changes made by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and the introduction of police and crime commissioners in 2012.) We would advise, in the event that such reviews are being conducted or considered, that police authorities should satisfy themselves that they are acting in accordance with the regulations and the relevant case law in the light of the decision in Simpson.
We are currently considering the further implications of the court’s decision and will provide further information and advice as appropriate in due course.