MPA's relationship with Police Complaints Authority

Report: 11
Date: 10 April 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

At the PSPM meeting on 14 November 2000, Molly Meacher (Deputy Chair of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA)) made a presentation on the respective roles of the PCA and a police authority. This paper picks up on some of the issues she addressed.

A. Recommendations

1. Members note the report.
2. Members do not support the use of PCA guidance.

B. Supporting information

1. There are a number of roles that a police authority has to perform in relation to the police complaints process, including:

• monitoring a random sample of informal resolutions to ensure that they are lawful and that the complainant voluntarily signed the statement of satisfaction;
• in monitoring informal resolutions consider if mediation or restorative justice approach would have been appropriate;
• monitoring a random selection of investigations to ensure the quality of the investigation is satisfactory (this will not include PCA supervised investigations);
• monitoring the recruitment processes of the Directorate of Professional Standards to ensure that staff of the appropriate calibre are appointed to deal with complaints;
• carrying out the Authority's responsibilities for investigations involving ACPO ranks. HMIC or the APA will always be available to advise the MPA in such cases;
• keeping itself informed of the workings of the complaints system;
• membership of MPS Police Appeals Tribunals (PSPM members may not sit on MPS Police Appeals Tribunals).

2. The PCA highlighted a number of issues where it felt there were delays in the complaints process that affected the service provided to members of the public. In particular, attention was drawn to:

• delays in completing complaints investigations, although it was recognised the Learning Lab is considering this issue in detail. N.B. Additional Members and staff will help deal with the backlog in PCA;
• delays in processing misconduct cases before a decision is made to take the matter to a hearing;
• delays in the holding of misconduct hearings.

3. Many of these delays are due to legislative requirements and the nature and complexity of investigations. In addition, during the last 18 months the MPS has experienced a significant increase in the number of investigations referred to outside forces given the perceived need for greater independence in some enquiries. The MPS has minimal involvement in the lines of enquiry, the scope of the enquiry or the style of the enquiry.

4. In misconduct enquiries, the majority of delays can be attributable to defence arguments or questions, arranging dates for all parties, and the need to follow a legally prescribed process. There is the additional problem of finding three ACPO rank officers as discipline board members to deal with many of the cases being dealt with under the 'old' misconduct process. The reduction on ACPO numbers within the MPS makes this more difficult. Under the 'new' misconduct process, police officers are required to obtain legal advice and representation at hearings, which can also delay the progress of an enquiry.

5. The PCA suggest that the MPA may need to manage a number of risks, specifically:

• adverse publicity surrounding high profile cases being investigated by the Directorate of Professional Standards or by other police forces on their behalf;
• the cost of civil actions associated with complaint cases and internal investigations under PCA supervision. (Protocols have been developed to deal with high profile cases);
• the potential for the judicial review of any decisions made by the MPA, although it tends to be the CPS and PCA where decisions are most often judicially reviewed. (Consequently, this is a low risk for the MPA).

6. The PCA recognises there is a balance between meeting the legitimate interests of complainants and the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and any future trial or hearing. The PCA have recently issued guidelines on disclosure to families following deaths in custody or other fatal incidents. Despite thanking, amongst others, the ACPO Complaints and Discipline Committee, the guidance does raise some areas of concern in a number of respects. Some these flaws are highlighted at Appendix 1. A copy of the guidance is attached at Appendix 2.

7. The PCA are seeking police authority support for the guidance they have published. Given the concerns highlighted, the Committee may feel unable to support the document.

C. Financial implications

There are potential costs depending upon the level of involvement of PSPM members. These will negligible, less than £1,000.

D. Background papers

• Complaints against the police: a consultation paper - (May 2000)
• APA response to the Home Office – complaints against police (APA circular 37/2000)
• Complaints against police – framework for a new system (December 2000)
• MPA's views on proposals to reform the investigation of complaints against police officers (February 2001)

E. Contacts details

The author of this report is Alan Johnson.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback