PCD 1803 Request for authorisation to settle a portion of legal costs in relation to a judicial review claim against MOPAC

This paper seeks the approval of the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime to settle legal costs relating to a judicial review claim against MOPAC in accordance with the terms set out in Part 2 of this decision form. The claim for judicial review is in relation to MOPAC’s decision to extend it’s GPS tagging programme for a further two years and was issued against MOPAC and the Ministry of Justice.   

That the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime approves settlement of legal costs in accordance with the terms set out in Part 2 of this decision form relating to the judicial review claim against MOPAC.   

PART I - NON-CONFIDENTIAL FACTS AND ADVICE TO THE CEO 

1. Introduction and background  

1. In March 2024, DMPC Decision (PCD 1604) was made to extend MOPAC’s GPS tagging provision until March 2026. This included a two year extension to the GPS knife crime programme and a short extension to the domestic abuse GPS tagging pilot.  A judicial review claim was issued against both MOPAC and the Ministry of Justice (‘MoJ’) in relation to DMPC Decision (PCD 1604).  The claim was stayed and the parties agreed to participate in settlement discussions which have now concluded.    

2. The parties have reached agreement as to costs in accordance with the terms set out in Part 2 of this decision form which requires the approval of the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime. 

2.      Issues for Consideration  

1. These are covered within Part 2 of this decision form.  

3. Financial Comments  

1. MOPAC’s contribution to the legal costs is unbudgeted and subject to DMPC approval will be met from the budget resilience reserve.  

4. Legal Comments 

1.      MOPAC’s general powers are set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (the     

2011 Act). Section 3(6) of the 2011 Act provides that MOPAC must “secure the maintenance of      the metropolitan police service and secure that the metropolitan police service is efficient and effective.” In addition, under paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 of the 2011 Act, MOPAC has wide incidental powers to “do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of the functions of the Office.” Paragraph 7(2) (a) provides that this includes entering into contracts and other agreements. 

2.     Paragraph 1.4 of the MOPAC Scheme of Consent and Delegation (the Scheme) dated October 2016,               provides that there will always be operational decisions which are significant either in terms of 

           financial expenditure or public interest or which are in some other way novel or contentious. These    

           have either been expressly reserved to the DMPC by the Scheme or, where the decision would  

           otherwise, be taken by staff/officers, will be referred to the DMPC for decision.  

3.     The proposed settlement of legal costs for this claim is considered to be ‘novel or contentious’ and             therefore, in accordance with the Scheme, subject to a DMPC decision. 

5. Equality Comments  

1.      MOPAC is required to comply with the public sector equality duty set out in section 149(1) of the  Equality Act 2010. This requires MOPAC to have due regard to the need to: 

• eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010. 

• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. 

• foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. 

2. The protected characteristics are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. 

3. It is important to note that consideration of the Public Sector Equality Duty is not a one-off task. The duty must be fulfilled before taking a decision, at the time of taking a decision, and  after the decision has been taken. 

4. There are no equalities issues relating to the settlement of legal costs in these legal proceedings.  

6. Background/supporting papers 

8.1 DMPC Decision – PCD 1604 Title: Extension of GPS Tagging 2024-26