Police Information

Complaints Against The Police

Wed, September 19, 2001

Source: KPMG and Gary Mundy

Feasibility Of An Independent System For Investigating Complaints Against The Police

 

Background and aims of the study

This study was commissioned as part of the Home Office Action Plan in response to the report of The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. The aim of the study was to explore the feasibility of introducing greater degrees of independence into the system of investigating complaints against the police. 

Consultation process

The study was undertaken between July 1999 and January 2000, and was organised into two key phases, both of which involved wide consultation with stakeholders from within and outside the criminal justice system. Consultation explored the advantages and disadvantages of the current system, and whether and how it could be improved. 

In phase one, four high level models were developed for introducing independence into the complaints system. These models differed from each other only in respect of the composition of investigative teams. All models included a set of recommendations for fundamental improvements to the system as a whole, including organisational structure, access to the system, decision-making over how complaints should be investigated, and appropriate supervision and monitoring.  

The second phase of the study explored two of the phase one models in greater detail, with consideration given to likely workloads, staffing requirements and associated costs.  

The two models recommended for further exploration were: 

• Wholly independent investigative teams. No direct involvement of police officers in the investigation of cases; 
• Mixed (lay and seconded police officer) teams. Police officers seconded to and reporting to an independent body for investigating complaints working with non-police investigating officers. 

The new body has been given the working name of the “Independent Agency for Complaints against the Police” (IACP). 

Summary of findings 

The report covers four key processes in the complaints system: 

• Access to the system;
• Sifting of complaints;
• Conduct of investigations; and
• Supervision and monitoring. 

The report also covers the organisational structure and associated costs of the IACP. 

Access to the system and sifting of complaints 

The public should have a choice of how and where to make complaints against police officers. In addition to the possibility of making complaints directly to the force in question, which should continue to be encouraged, the public should be able to make a complaint direct to the IACP, or using the services of intermediary bodies such as Citizens Advice Bureaux. Access should be easy and open to all. Complainants should have clear guidance on how to make a complaint and how it will be processed. 

All complaints against the conduct of an officer should be recorded, even those which are subject to immediate and satisfactory resolution at the police station. The complainant could appeal to the IACP if unhappy that a legitimate complaint had not been recorded. 

The practice of Immediate Resolution - whereby the officer complained about (or a more senior officer) is able to resolve the complaint on the spot through an apology or explanation - should be encouraged within clear guidelines as to when it is appropriate. 

The practice currently known as Informal Resolution –whereby an officer is appointed to resolve the complaint informally, without an investigation, in cases that would not lead to disciplinary action - should be encouraged, but renamed Local Direct Resolution  (LDR). Complainants should have the right to appeal to the IACP if they are unhappy about the way it has been used. 

The IACP should have the authority to record or reject complaints made to it directly. Serious complaints should be sent directly to the IACP for investigation. 

For other complaints, the police should prepare an investigation plan for independent approval by the IACP, which would approve or amend the plan, and decide whether to supervise the investigation. 

Conduct of investigations 

Serious complaints should be investigated by independent IACP teams. On current figures, the number of such complaints would be approximately 1000 each year. These would be investigations, which tend to have the highest public profile, such as deaths in custody, serious arrestable offences, fatal road traffic accidents and other cases which would most benefit from independent investigation. 

It would not be practical to independently investigate all complaints, which currently amount to some 18,000 investigations each year. With the approval of the IACP, the majority of investigations should be investigated by police forces, but with closer supervision than the current PCA is able to provide. 

Independent investigations would be carried out by teams led by lay-Investigating Officers (IOs). Under Model 1, all investigators would be fully trained non-police investigators, many of whom could be drawn from investigatory backgrounds, such as with HM Customs and Excise. Under Model 2, there would be a mix of lay and seconded police investigators. On balance, Model 2 is more feasible, given the benefits of police experience      and greater co-operation from forces, which seconded officers, would bring. In either case, investigators would belong to the IACP. 

Supervision and monitoring 

The IACP should have a role in supervising certain investigations carried out by police forces. These supervisions would need to be more proactive and better resourced than those currently conducted by the PCA, and would be conducted from regional centres. 

Non-supervised cases would be seen by the IACP both at their start (via the investigation plan), and their conclusion, through a continuation of the PCA’s role in reviewing disciplinary recommendations. The IACP could also monitor other investigations, which came to its attention, such as those, which follow an appeal by a complainant. 

The IACP would play a strong role in gathering knowledge both about the complaints system, and in developing proposals for continuous improvement of the processes both of the IACP itself and of the police forces. It should work closely with organisations such as HMIC and Police Authorities to share and use knowledge. 

Organisational structure 

The success of the changes proposed depends on the IACP having a regional basis. This is essential to the quality of investigations and supervisions, the knowledgeable review of investigation plans, and disciplinary outcomes, and confidence building initiatives with local police forces and local communities. 

The report covers both a six region and a ten-region model for the IACP. The six-region model was arrived at through consideration of the most effective spread of resources, whilst limiting travel distances. The ten-region alternative reflects local Government Office regions. Both models would have a central headquarters, which would oversee and monitor the work of regional offices as well as providing corporate functions such as finance, research, and public relations. 

Costs 

It is estimated that the annual cost of the proposed IACP would be in the region of £14 million. However, the non-availability of data on current costs of processing complaints in forces makes it difficult to compare costs associated with current procedures. 

In addition to the uncertainty surrounding the costs of the current system, the baseline figure of £14 million is contingent on: 

The volume of complaints investigations. It is possible that the introduction of a new complaints system will act as an encouragement to members of the public to make a complaint, as they may have more confidence in the system; and 

The number of cases investigated by the IACP. This is subject to variation based on both the types of cases, which the IACP will investigate, and the overall profile of complaints cases. A broadening in the categorisation of serious cases would result in more cases being investigated. More generally, a change in the profile of the seriousness of complaints with a larger number of complaints deemed serious could result in the IACP wishing to investigate more cases. A increase in either of these areas may necessitate additional resources to meet the demands placed on the system. 

Next steps 

The study identified a number of areas where further analysis would be required before the likely impact of the proposals could be fully evaluated. Key amongst these are: 

• More comprehensive information on the current costs of complaints management and investigation; and 
• More precise and current information on about the level of public confidence in different aspects of the system, in order to understand better the real scale of and reasons for dissatisfaction. Once a decision has been made to establish a new system, first steps would be to: 
• Make a thorough evaluation of the legislative changes needed to bring about the new process; and 
• Establish a detailed programme implementation plan, in order to prepare a pilot or shadow system to prepare for full roll-out. 

“The views expressed in this briefing note are those of the author, not necessarily those of the Home Office (nor do they reflect Government policy).”

To view the full paper click the URL below