IOPC should ‘carefully’ consider costs against domestic abuse campaigner – judge

By Nina Massey, Reporter7th February 2025News EnglandCourts / Justice, Domestic Abuse / Violence, Manchester, News England, Victim Support

The police watchdog has been urged by a High Court judge to “very carefully” consider if it should seek costs from a woman who has the “admiration” of the Queen for working to combat domestic violence after the death of her niece.

Lorna McMahon, the aunt of ITV journalist Teresa McMahon (pictured), lost a bid to take legal action against the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) after they denied her request for the reinvestigation of her complaints against Greater Manchester Police (GMP) to be looked at again.

After losing the legal bid, Ms McMahon was ordered to pay £3,400 to the IOPC and £2,778.40 to GMP.

On Thursday she applied for the costs order to be set aside, or paused until all matters “in relation to the inadequate investigation into the sudden and unnatural death of Teresa McMahon had been concluded”.

Judge Matthew Butt KC, sitting at the High Court in London, denied the request, ruling that he did not have the power to make such an order.

He added that he was struck by the “dedication, eloquence and determination” of Ms McMahon, who is trying to ensure the full details of her niece’s death are disclosed and that lessons are learned for the future.

“I have also read a letter to the claimant from Queen Camilla in which she expresses how she is full of admiration for her work,” Judge Butt said.

In a letter dated November 26, 2024, the Queen wrote to Lorna McMahon, thanking her for her letter about her documentary Behind Closed Doors.

She added: “I was deeply touched by your kind words and very much hope that it has opened the eyes of many people who knew little about this appalling crime.

“Thank you for telling me about your own work to combat domestic abuse – I am full of admiration for you.”

Granada Reports news editor Teresa McMahon, 43, was found dead at her flat in Little Hulton, Salford, on August 3, 2021.

Last year senior coroner for Inner North London Mary Hassell concluded that she took her own life.

However, the inquest heard that weeks before she died, Ms McMahon was “mistakenly” told by GMP that she was not entitled to her partner’s alleged domestic abuse history.

She had made a Clare’s Law disclosure request on July 12, asking GMP to release information about any history of violence or abuse from her former partner, Robert Chalmers.

A junior officer told her on July 21 that she was not entitled to information under Clare’s Law because she was not currently in a relationship with Mr Chalmers, the inquest was told.

The inquest heard that GMP subsequently tried to get in touch with Ms McMahon to tell her she might be entitled to the information, but there was no response to their calls.

In September that year Lorna McMahon complained to GMP about the initial investigation, including claims that it had not adequately investigated the potential involvement of her niece’s former partner in her death.

Later she made a request to the IOPC for a review of GMP’s investigation, and it found that her complaint had not been “sufficiently” addressed, and should be looked at again.

The reinvestigation identified some organisational failings and errors on the part of individual officers, but the overall conclusion was that the service was acceptable.

The IOPC later refused a bid by Ms McMahon to have this reinvestigation reviewed.

In his ruling on Thursday, Judge Butt said: “I would urge the IOPC and GMP to consider very carefully whether in all of the circumstances it would be right to seek to enforce the costs order against Ms McMahon given the tragic death of her beloved niece, the recent death of Teresa’s mother, Barbara, the health problems Ms McMahon suffers from, and her limited means.”

A spokesman for the IOPC said: “We would always take into account an individual’s circumstances, while also taking into account the cost to the public purse, when deciding whether or not to enforce a legal costs order, and we will do so in this case.”