Home Office consultation: Improving police integrity: reforming the police complaints and disciplinary system The Police Foundation s response The Police Foundation is the only independent charity focused entirely on developing people's knowledge and understanding of policing and challenging the police service and the government to improve policing for the benefit of the public. The Police Foundation acts as a bridge between the public, the police and the government, while being owned by none of them. Founded in 1979 by the late Lord Harris of Greenwich, The Police Foundation has been highly successful in influencing policing policy and practice, through research, policy analysis, training and consultancy. The Police Foundation has long been concerned about the complaints system. There is an on-going difficulty with a system whereby the majority of complaints against the police are investigated by the police themselves. Research for the IPCC found that out of 25 complainants interviewed, 15 thought the Local Resolution process was unfair and lacked impartiality, with one interviewee stating; It is a fundamentally flawed system when officers investigate each other. This process has damaged irreparably my view of and respect for the police. 1 This is reflected in the findings of the recent internal review, which found 35% of people lack confidence in the ability of the police to deal with their complaints fairly. We have responded to a number of consultations on this area over the years, including: March 2013 IPCC: Oversight and strategy consultation January 2013 IPCC: Review of the IPCC s work in relation to cases involving a death March 2012 IPCC: Consultation on Article 2 on the European Convention on Human Rights In the above consultations we have consistently called for more independence in the police complaints system; for all complaints to be recorded; for one point of contact to be created to assist complainants; and for the police to adopt a less defensive, more constructive attitude to complaints, seeing them as useful feedback from which they can learn, rather than simply criticism. We welcome the body of work being undertaken in this area by both the IPCC and the Home Office and we are pleased to learn that the IPCC has been given further resources to enable them to deal with serious and sensitive complaints. 1 Hearnden I and May T 2013 Local Resolution of Police Complaints: The Views of Complainants A report to the Independent Police Complaints Commission
1. Do these proposals strike the right balance between local flexibility and ensuring consistency in how complaints are dealt with throughout England and Wales? We support the proposal to give greater responsibility to PCCs over low-level complaints, in terms of recording all complaints; allocating complaints; acting as a point of contact and overseeing the Local Resolution of complaints. PCCs, with a responsibility for holding their local forces to account, are well placed to ensure that complaint handling is taken seriously, and that Local Resolution procedures are followed. This system should allow for a degree of local flexibility; good PCCs ought to understand and engage with their communities well, knowing the issues that concern residents and the style of policing adopted by local officers. With regard to consistency; there is currently wide variation in how well individual officers and forces deal with complaints, with many officers adopting a defensive, dismissive attitude to complaints and complainants. Under the new system we would hope the PCC would be able to collate information on how their local force handles complaints compared to other similar forces, helping to create a more consistent system. In order to fulfil this role, it will be important for PCCs to understand the value of good complaint-handling and to be aware of how complaints can enable forces to improve the service they offer. To this end, all PCCs should receive a copy of the Learning the Lessons bulletin and of IPCC Guidance, and should be informed when IPCC recommendations are made to their local force. Their attention should be drawn to the findings in the IPCC report Oversight and confidence Casework and Customer Service pilot projects 2013, which lists best practice for Local Resolution. Although we support the proposal, we would like to see some oversight of the system. In our view the PCC should also be responsible for producing an annual report listing all complaints recorded, to which body the complaint was allocated, and the outcome of complaints. 2. Do you agree PCCs should be given responsibility to consider appeals on the outcomes of complaints dealt with through Local Resolution? Recently, the system of appeal was changed by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to allow a right of appeal against the outcome of Local Resolution in relation to a conduct issue (but not a direction and control issue.) Responsibility for these appeals is shared between the IPCC and local forces, with the IPCC dealing with appeals against the conduct of a senior officer and local forces dealing with appeals against the conduct of more junior officers. As we understand the consultation document, the proposal is to give PCCs the power to deal with those appeals which are currently dealt with by chief officers (i.e. those appeals
against the conduct of junior officers). We would support this; however, we believe the IPCC should continue to deal with those appeals which relate to senior officers. We welcome the increased involvement of the PCC in low-level conduct cases. This should free up chief officer time and will also provide a greater degree of independence. As the consultation states, the PCC would merely have the power to challenge a decision of the chief officer and to order a review, but would not have the power to order a course of action. In this respect, we support giving PCCs the power to refer low-level cases to the IPCC where the PCC strongly believe the decision made by the chief officer is flawed. As the IPCC notes: an increasing proportion of local complaints decisions made by police forces are inadequate: this year in total, we upheld 46 per cent of appeals, compared to 44 per cent in 2012/13, and this included a much higher proportion of inadequate local investigations, which has risen from 31 per cent to 44 per cent over the past three years In over half of all cases (53 per cent), we disagreed with the conclusions reached; in 20 per cent of cases, not all the allegations had been addressed; in 19 per cent of cases, the decision had been poorly explained, with a lack of information to the complainant. 2 The IPCC attributes this to a lack of understanding about the complaints system, combined with an often defensive approach. This is great cause for concern, and it is important for confidence that PCCs are able to refer cases to the IPCC where a decision is flawed. However, we are concerned about the resourcing for this. The current proposal suggests the referral should be at the expense of the PCC. We have misgivings about this aspect. It is not clear from the consultation document how much such a step might cost, and placing the budgetary burden on PCCs might provide a disincentive for PCCs to refer cases. 3. Should the government consider going further to streamline appeals? for example (i) by removing the need for the IPCC to hear appeals on cases that they have referred back to police forces to consider and/or (ii) handing these appeals from the IPCC to the PCC for misconduct cases that fall below dismissal? In our view, the government should refrain from giving greater responsibility to PCCs for appeals until the current changes have had a chance to be embedded and evaluated. 4. Should HMIC s remit be extended to include inspection and judgement of the effectiveness of staff working for PCCs responsible for the components of the complaints system set out above in 2.28? Although HMIC currently has no role in inspecting PCCs, it does have an important role to play in inspecting the Professional Standards Departments of police forces; indeed, it has a statutory duty to keep itself informed about the handling of complaints against the police, as set out in Section 15 of The Police Act 2002. If PCC offices are to be responsible for a section of the police complaints system, it follows that HMIC ought to be able to inspect the effectiveness and legitimacy of those PCC staff dealing with complaints. 2 Annual Report and Statement of Accounts 2013/14 IPCC HC 373
5. Do you agree with the proposal to extend the definition of a complaint to cover the following? (a) Policing practice (b) Service failure (c) Both We support the proposal to extend the definition of complaint to cover both policing practice and service failure. Indeed; An important lesson to be learned from the Lawrence inquiry is that insufficient attention to complaints which arise from unacceptable police policies can have disastrous long-term consequences for police legitimacy and democratic policing principles. 3 The Patten report recommended a police ombudsman be able to look at clustering in patterns of complaint and, based on this, make recommendations for change to police management and policy. In Northern Ireland, where a complaint investigation reveals a weakness in policing policy, the Police Ombudsman may make a change of practice recommendation. The Australian Law Enforcement Ombudsman has a similar power to investigate and draw conclusions from clustering in patterns of complaints. We would very much welcome a route for complaints about policing practice and service failure, allowing citizens to express concerns about the way they are policed, for example, the police use of stop and search. 6. Do you agree with the government s proposal that all complaints should be recorded? IPCC research on Confidence in the Police Complaints System shows 64% of people are not confident the police would treat a complaint seriously. This concern continues to be a significant barrier to complaining. We believe part of this issue relates to the system whereby police forces themselves are responsible for deciding whether or not to record a complaint. In 2011 the IPCC upheld over half of appeals from people whose complaints should have been recorded, and were not. In the annual Police Foundation lecture, IPCC chair Anne Owers viewed this figure as unacceptably high. We welcome the proposal to record all complaints and we support responsibility for this being passed to the PCC. This should provide one contact point for complainants and may create a feeling of distance between the complainant and the local force, potentially increasing confidence in the complaints system. 7. Should the terms discontinuance and disapplication be replaced with the decision to end an investigation into a complaint? We would support this; it makes the system simpler for complainants to understand. 3 Smith, G (2004) Rethinking Police Complaints British Journal of Criminology 44(1) 15-33
8. What more can be done to make the system easier for the public to understand? We would recommend a greater emphasis on involving the complainant in the process; through a clear plan informing the complainant of how the complaint will progress. In 2011 the IPCC looked at the reasons behind appeals and found that communication was a significant barrier, with the research showing that in 24% of appeal cases the complainant felt that the police had not sufficiently explained the Local Resolution process; in 22% of cases the police failed to carry out agreed actions and in 21% of cases the complainant had not given the police informed consent. 4 When a complaint is first made, a complainant should be provided with a clear, easy to understand leaflet or online account of the complaints process. As the IPCC states: For Local Resolution to be successful, there should always be an auditable action plan that has been agreed with the person making the complaint 5 One point of contact should be created, with the complainant being made aware of whom to speak to if s/he needs help or support with the complaints progress. The IPCC recommends meeting face-to-face. 6 The complainant should understand what to expect from the complaints process, including that Local Resolution will not result in an officer being disciplined. This latter point is particularly important, given that although IPCC research shows a significant motivating factor in the making of a complaint was to ensure an officer would be disciplined, in fact only 32% of complainants were told this could not be an outcome of Local Resolution. 7 We also suggest that, after a complaint has been resolved, the PCC should send the complainant a follow-up questionnaire asking how the complainant found the process of complaining. This is common practice in both private and public organisations. The questionnaire could cover issues such as speed of response, attitude of force, whether the complainant was satisfied with how the complaint was resolved, whether the force provided support throughout the process, and whether the complainant would advise a friend with a similar complaint to complain. This should assist in exposing areas of concern or misunderstanding. 9. What should the government do to make it easier to determine whether a complaint is persistent and vexatious? Deciding which complaints are frivolous/vexatious is a difficult balancing act. Issue 2 of Focus, produced by the IPCC 8, sets out useful guidance, including that officers must assess the complaint itself, rather than the complainant. 4 Learning from appeals: A statistical and thematic analysis of appeals upheld in 2009/10 IPCC 2011 5 IPCC Oversight and confidence Casework and Customer Service pilot projects 2013 6 IPCC Oversight and confidence Casework and Customer Service pilot projects 2013 7 IPCC Oversight and confidence Casework and Customer Service pilot projects IPCC 2013 8 Available at https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/focus/focus_june_2014.pdf
Although vexatious and persistent complaints do take up officer time, it is worth remembering that the vast majority of people (around 89%) who are dissatisfied with the police do not complain. Care needs to be taken to assess vexatious complaints fairly and sensitively. It may be that the recording of complaints by PCCs will help in this respect, creating a sense of independence and allowing complainants to feel less personally offended if their complaint is not recorded. 11. Should the government introduce a super-complaints system for policing? We agree that there is a greater role for civil society to play in bringing systemic issues in policing to light and we support the idea of a super-complaints system, whereby organisations could identify trends in complaints, and raise complaints on behalf of groups of people. We would like to be given more information on which bodies would be considered designated organisations for this purpose and whether a body could apply to become designated. 12. Is the IPCC the correct body to receive a super-complaint? We would support the IPCC handling super-complaints. In addition we would like to see a system where the identification of a trend fed into HMIC inspections. In this respect we are pleased to see that work has begun on a concordat between IPCC, HMIC and the College of Policing.