Damning investigation blasts “broken” and “powerless” police complaints system

The report found forces often frustrated proceedings by providing only a written statement instead of an interview, with the reluctance to hand out top punishments dubbed a risk to public confidence in policing.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct has also come under fire for failing to speed up decision making processes and introduce more accountability since its introduction in 2018.

Data compiled by the BBC and shared with the Gazette revealed over the past three years, some 418 misconduct cases were held by UK forces following an initial investigation by the IOPC.

In those cases, panels gave 18 final written warnings, 57 written warnings, took management action in 50 cases and took no further action in 12 cases.

For gross misconduct, disciplinary panels dismissed 55 police officers without notice, gave 36 final written warnings and four written warnings.

In Hampshire, three cases have been investigated by the IOPC in the same time period.

In all three of the subsequent reports, investigators found at least one officer or member of police staff had a case to answer for misconduct and advised the force to hold a disciplinary panel.

In one instance, an officer was accused of using discriminatory language as he was recorded saying: “I know you’re Aldershot because you’re black and you stick out like a sore thumb” to a young man who attended an Aldershot Town match in 2018.

The investigation further found the officer in question “may have behaved in an aggressive manner” towards other young people who also attended the match, ultimately summarising he may have committed misconduct.

At the subsequent meeting held in spring 2019 it was ruled that the officer had been offensive to the young man, but despite the IOPC’s findings, no further action was taken.

In a separate incident in 2015, a woman called the police at 4am requesting assistance for her son, who had bipolar disorder and was suicidal.

She informed the call handler that her son was in the swimming pool at her house, yet the handler made the decision not to deploy officers to the scene, instead calling an ambulance. The woman’s son subsequently drowned.

The IOPC found the call handler had a case to answer for misconduct, with management action and further training the decided outcome.

In fact, in all three of the cases – which resulted in two deaths and one serious allegation of discriminatory language – management action and further training was the highest course of action taken.

As per IOPC guidance introduced in 2020, each of the three cases investigated in Hampshire would now warrant “at least a written warning” if they were heard at present day.

Responding to questions on why harsher action wasn’t taken at the time, a spokesperson for Hampshire Police said: “Police misconduct processes are clearly set out in the Police Conduct Regulations which all forces use when considering cases of misconduct. The regulations were updated in 2020, which is also when the IOPC statutory guidance was introduced.

“The three cases referred to were heard under the Police Conduct Regulations in place at the time, which provided five available outcomes at a misconduct hearing with the lowest sanction available being management advice if misconduct is proven. This was changed under the 2020 regulations with only written warnings and final written warnings being available.

“Each case is assessed individually on the information obtained during the investigation, which includes obtaining statements and conducting interviews with all affected parties, analysis of police data and reviewing force policies and procedures. The information is then put before a misconduct panel, which considers all of the evidence and determines the appropriate outcome.

“Hampshire Constabulary has robust procedures in place to deal with misconduct. We are absolutely clear that all officers and staff must adhere to the standards of behaviour expected of them due to their positions within society and we are proactive in taking action against those who fall below those standards. It is important to understand that the complaints process is much broader than just misconduct, and sometimes incidents require different outcomes to be taken, for example whether improvements should be made and implementing any learning or recommendations identified.”

An IOPC director said the reason so many officers did not face further action could have been because individual misconduct panels held by police forces required a ‘higher threshold’ to find misconduct proven than the IOPC investigators.

She also said police forces often frustrated proceedings by providing only a written statement instead of an interview.

The Police Federation hit back and said the reason the most serious punishments were rare was because the IOPC too often pursued “vexatious allegations” against its members.

The Home Affairs Select Committee launched a new inquiry into the effectiveness of the IOPC at the start of 2021.

Deborah Coles, executive director of INQUEST, a charity which provides expertise on state-related deaths and their investigation, spoke and gave evidence at the first hearing in January.

She told the committee that sanctions against police officers were too rare and the lack of punishment risked undermining confidence in policing.

This criticism, she said, also extended to the fact that very few serving police officers had faced criminal proceedings for alleged offences carried out in the line of duty.

Speaking at the same hearing, Police Federation of England and Wales National Vice Chair Ché Donald said: “In January we gave evidence to Home Affairs Select Committee as part of its inquiry into the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the police complaints system.

“For years we have been concerned over the time it takes to conclude police disciplinary investigations. Protracted and disproportionate misconduct investigations have ruined the lives of too many police officers and their families, by damaging their mental health due to the stress.

“Additionally, delays are detrimental to public confidence in the system, with complainants also being affected by any delays.

“We are continuing to press the Government to introduce legislation which would give legally qualified persons power to impose deadlines when police disciplinary investigations hit the one-year mark as part of our Time Limits campaign.

“It is vital we have an independent, impartial body that has oversight over policing so officers are rightly held accountable for their actions, but the IOPC often inexplicably pursues vexatious allegations, which may be a reason why a significant proportion of cases have resulted in no further action.

“We hope the findings from the committee will be used to make a tangible difference and establish a fairer system for all.”

“The IOPC is one player in the police complaints system, and with better cooperation we can improve the timeliness of proceedings. I think cultural change within the complaint system itself and policing is needed so it is not so defensive when things go wrong. We need a police force that is really open to working to resolve those issues, to really listening and to taking the opportunity to learn. We want it to become the norm for people to call out behaviour that does not meet professional standards and that happens from within.

Director of strategy and impact at IOPC, Kathie Cashell, said: “It is a really complex system and there is a power balance between the complainants and the complained about. There is a lot more the system can do to support that. There is a question as to whether there should be more support, more advocacy for people going through that complaints process.”