<i>R (on the application of W80)</i> v <i>Director General of the Independent Office of Police Conduct</i>: Landmark Ruling or Business as Usual?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 5 July 2023 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in R (on the application of W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The issue before the Court was which test should be applied in assessing whether officers’ use of force amounts to misconduct; the criminal law test for self‐defence as the Divisional Court found; the test set out in the Police Conduct Regulations 2012 (ie that officers should only use force when it is ‘necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances’) as the Court of Appeal held; or the civil law test for self‐defence which the Supreme Court ultimately decided was the correct approach. The Court's affirmation that the criminal law test is inconsistent with the purposes of the police conduct system is to be welcomed. However, this case note argues that their Lordships’ reasoning in other regards was unconvincing and obscured deeper issues concerning police accountability which the recent Casey Review confirms need to be more openly addressed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".