Impact of the introduction of Independent Police Complaints Commission on the MPA

Report: 8a
Date: 12 January 2004
By: Clerk

Summary

This report outlines the implications for the Authority of the introduction of the Independent Police Complaints Commission on 1 April 2004, including the recruitment of independent members to sit on conduct panels.

A. Recommendation

1. agree the job description, person specification and exclusions for independent members on the MPA panel list; and
2. agree a daily rate of £192 or £96 for a half day.

B. Supporting information

1. To increase public confidence, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was created under Police Reform Act 2002 and will replace the Police Complaints Authority on 1 April 2004. The system will change in accordance with the following principles.

• The IPCC will have responsibility for complaints against
  • police officers and members of the special constabulary
  • ACPO officers
  • police staff (including contracted staff) and PCSOs.
• IPCC can call in any internal ‘conduct matter’.
• Definition of ‘complainant’ expanded to include those indirectly involved; complaints can be inferred direct from civil actions. Referrals via gateway organisations will be included.
• IPCC may decide whether an investigation will be: independent; managed; supervised or local.
• Investigations will be more proactive, robust and independent.
• Complainants will be more involved. There will be a presumption of maximum and regular disclosure to complainants and interested parties; it can only be refused if it ‘will cause harm’.
• It will be the responsibility of the chief officer (police authority for ACPO complaints) to inform complainants of the outcome of investigations as opposed to the PCA in the current system.
• Quicker resolution is aimed for.
• Local Resolution will replace and invigorate Informal Resolution. The IPCC will place much greater emphasis on conciliation with creative conflict management, mediation and restorative interventions expected as a means of resolving complaints.
• Investigators will have the powers of a constable.
• IPCC will have powers of entry to police buildings and access to documentation.
• New caution will apply (to police officers only) and inferences from silence may be drawn.
• Complainants can appeal against the outcome of an investigation, the decision not to record a complaint and lack of disclosure.
• Hearings may be in public.

Impact on MPA – complaints generally

2. Section 15(2) Police Reform Act places a general duty on police authorities to keep informed in relation to all aspects of complaints matters; on this basis the existing oversight arrangements should not change.

3. Section 15 also requires police authorities to support the appointment of officers to conduct IPCC investigations. It will be necessary to monitor the level of abstractions to ensure that it is equitable and does not have an undue impact on other areas.

4. A requirement that will have a significant impact is the need for police authorities to compile and maintain lists of independent people to sit on misconduct panels. The statutory framework in this area is limited but follows a ministerial decision that there should be a change in the constitution of a panel for a misconduct hearing. Thus the Act provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations conferring a right to participate in, or to be present at, disciplinary proceedings on such persons as may be specified in regulations. The relevant regulations are the draft Police Misconduct Regulations 2004, which set out that the third member in a misconduct hearing should be selected by the police authority from a list of candidates maintained by the police authority for the force concerned. The draft regulations are expected to receive parliamentary approval by the end of February 2004. This means that in future, an independent person will replace one of the three police officers on the panel.

5. It should be noted that independent members will only be required in misconduct hearings arising from a complaint or conduct matter to which Part 2 of the Act applies. These concern incidents involving the death or serious injury of any person and those in which a member of the public has been adversely affected. The Home Office has made clear that as long as the overarching goal of providing lists of independent members to sit on misconduct panels is achieved, they are content for police authorities to have local discretion on the means by which they carry this out.

6. A timetable to deliver this by 1 April 2004 is attached at Appendix 1. In order to achieve this the following must be approved to enable advertising

• The job description, person specification and exclusions at Appendix 2.
• The daily rate for panel members; the APA suggest linking it to the daily rate for independent members of standards committees. In the MPA this is £134.42 (£67.21 per half day) but there is some doubt that this will attract sufficient numbers of qualified candidates in London. The alternative, which is recommended, is the rate for Police Appeals Tribunals, which is £192 or £96 for a half day.

Impact on MPA – ACPO complaints

7. Set out below are the main changes that will impact on ACPO complaints procedures within the Authority.

Implementation issues for MPA

Revision of internal processes

8. The MPA will have to conform to the general IPCC requirements and general approach to handling complaints and should probably link with MPS processes for handling data, management information etc. Such revisions may include processes for

• Professional Standards and Complaints Committee deciding on and the recording of complaints and notification to IPCC (especially as the IPCC may take a narrow definition of ‘direction and control’).
• Referral of cases by the Crown Prosecution Service.
• Appointing Investigating Officers.
• Decisions and recommendations on discipline issues and proceedings.
• Communication with complainants.
• Appeals procedures.

IT resources

9. The new system to handle complaints will be based on PITO product ‘Centurion’ which will require secure AWARE hardware and electronic data transfer capacity.

Training

10. Administrative staff will need training on complaints system generally, in completing form 3552 and on Centurion software.

11. It was also be necessary to decide who in the Authority will undertake mediation to deliver Local Resolution. Past experience shows that to be successful that requires substantial amounts of time and effort. Training in mediation, conflict management and restorative intervention will be required.

C. Equality and diversity implications

1. The new system will improve public confidence and access to the police complaints process. The widening of the interpretation of a complainant and the anticipated re-definition of a complaint and conduct matter will give people a greater opportunity to voice their concerns about policing issues.

2. The recruitment of independent panel members will be conducted in accordance with approved MPA policy.

D. Financial implications

Previous conduct cases, to which Part 2 of the Act applies, indicate an annual need for 100 independent members days resulting in a cost of £19,200 pa. This amount will be come from within existing MPS budgets and will be contained within existing estimates but will be offset by the opportunity savings accruing from two rather than three ACPO officers sitting on panels. The MPA will meet the cost of the recruitment campaign, which will be about £15,000. New IT requirements for the MPA will cost £5000.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Keith Dickinson

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: Selection Procedure: Suggested Timetable

Appendix 2: Job description: Independent panel member

Role

• To assist misconduct panels in coming to fair and evidence based judgements about a particular officers’ conduct and deciding on an appropriate sanction;
• To ensure that there is an independent and impartial voice on such panels;
• To provide assurance to the community that conduct matters are treated seriously and that misconduct proceedings are being properly investigated and adjudicated.

Responsibilities

• To attend and participate effectively in misconduct hearings as required;
• To constructively challenge accepted facts and views in these hearings where appropriate;
• To prepare for such hearings by considering in advance relevant papers, reports and background information;
• To take advantage of any training offered that is relevant to the role, and to take a proactive approach to considering what additional development would be appropriate;
• To keep abreast of general developments affecting policing, both locally and nationally, that may have an impact on the role of independent member of a misconduct panel;
• To maintain the highest standards of professional conduct and ethics.

Person specification

• Analytical skills: the ability to interpret and question material relevant to the case under consideration
• Judgement: the ability to take a balanced, open minded and objective approach to the issues and come to evidence based decisions that are robust and will withstand challenge
• Communication: the ability to clearly and cogently articulate views while being receptive to the opinions of others
• Independence: the capacity to think independently while being part of a wider panel, demonstrating resilience to external and peer pressure
• Self confidence: the ability to challenge the accepted view of senior police officers on the panel in a constructive but non confrontational manner
• Time management: an appropriate level of commitment to the process, ensuring that sufficient time is set aside to both attend and prepare for hearings
• Integrity: embraces high standards of conduct and ethics
• Diversity: a commitment to fairness and equality

Exclusions

Convictions

1. Although there is no statutory guidance on those convictions which might make someone ineligible to sit on a misconduct panel the APA Complaints Network was strongly of the view that in order to maintain confidence in the process all those with unspent convictions should be excluded. We should therefore ensure that application forms require applicants to disclose unspent convictions and there should be a strong presumption that those with unspent convictions should be automatically excluded. We should also ensure that a criminal records check is carried out on successful applicants to confirm the information on their form.

Other exclusions

2. We should consider whether there are others who it would be inappropriate to appoint as a member of a misconduct panel. In order to guarantee the independence of the process it is recommended that, as a minimum, this should include serving and retired police officers and current police authority members.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback