Auditors

[Techie1 + 2,024]

Dame Anne Owers attacked the commissioner after he asked for greater public support for armed firearms officers.

The head of the IPCC has accused the Met commissioner of falsely claiming armed officers are “increasingly” treated as suspects.

Dame Anne Owers responded to Bernard Hogan-Howe’s calls for greater public support for by saying “facts don’t support” the feeling that AFOs are treated as suspects as soon as they use their weapons.

The chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission had an article published in The Times which insisted the body “doesn’t treat police witnesses as suspects”.

She said: “The debate over police use of firearms has generated a number of myths and selective facts.

“This week Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the outgoing Metropolitan Police commissioner, called for greater public support of firearms officers who, he said, were increasingly treated as suspects in investigations by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which I chair.

“The facts don’t support this.

“Since 2010 we’ve completed 24 firearms investigations, eight of which related to fatalities.

“In all but three of them, including six of the fatal shootings, no firearms officer was ever treated as a suspect; they were all treated as witnesses.

“Sir Bernard also complains about the length of time it takes to investigate shootings. This is something about which the police and the public are rightly concerned. But it is too easy to blame the IPCC alone.

“When police witnesses co-operate fully and early, we can complete our investigations much more quickly. By contrast, when they don’t, for example giving statements that simply say when they came on and off duty or refusing to answer questions at interview, it takes much longer.

“No one benefits, whether they are police officers or bereaved families.”

Ms Owers went on to defend “rigorous independent scrutiny” adding: “We have proposed fresh guidance to get the best evidence when someone dies or is seriously injured.

“It doesn’t treat police witnesses as suspects. It does aim to separate officers while they give their first accounts, to prevent conferring or contamination by other evidence.

“Doing it early ensures that we can secure necessary evidence. Of course in a major terrorist incident we would not expect to do this until the risk had passed.

“We will do our bit to make sure that our investigations are both robust and timely and the proposed guidance will help to ensure this.

“Rigorous independent scrutiny is not a threat: it is a protection. If the police appear to shy away from this, there is a real risk to public trust.

“As Sir Bernard has said, our police officers rarely discharge firearms, and even more rarely with fatal effect. When they do, it is in everyone’s interest that this is thoroughly investigated, with early and full co-operation from those involved.”

View on Police Oracle

[depot 169]

Why would the IPCC 'interview' a witness? Or demand they give you a statement containing information you may not be in a fit state to give? Or seize their clothes? Or accuse them of hampering their investigation when they say they want to go home after being kept in a PIM suite for 15 hours?

Having experienced a couple of IPCC investigations following a police shooting, my opinion is, you are treated like a suspect in all but name, because as soon as they admit you are a suspect, PACE affords you a degree of protection they don't want you to have.

 

[Zulu 22 + 4,628]

1 hour ago, depot said:

Why would the IPCC 'interview' a witness? Or demand they give you a statement containing information you may not be in a fit state to give? Or seize their clothes? Or accuse them of hampering their investigation when they say they want to go home after being kept in a PIM suite for 15 hours?

Having experienced a couple of IPCC investigations following a police shooting, my opinion is, you are treated like a suspect in all but name, because as soon as they admit you are a suspect, PACE affords you a degree of protection they don't want you to have.

 

Dame Anne Owers, perhaps enough said. She is as independent as a bent criminal lawyer.

[Remmy + 1,401]

3 hours ago, depot said:

Why would the IPCC 'interview' a witness? Or demand they give you a statement containing information you may not be in a fit state to give? Or seize their clothes? Or accuse them of hampering their investigation when they say they want to go home after being kept in a PIM suite for 15 hours?

Having experienced a couple of IPCC investigations following a police shooting, my opinion is, you are treated like a suspect in all but name, because as soon as they admit you are a suspect, PACE affords you a degree of protection they don't want you to have.

 

I think your experience may be true of where you work but it's certainly not my experience.

I have been involved in 2 post incident investigations following police shootings. On both occasions we were treated very well by the IPCC at the initial post incident procedures and the later investigation. At one I was classed as a principal officer and on legal advice we submitted a detailed initial account (statement) the result of which I was never interviewed by the IPCC. 

Whilst I will never trust the IPCC I have yet to be treated as a suspect and hope that will be the case in future. However if I am ever treated as a suspect, all communication with the investigation team from that point onwards, would be in the form of a prepared statement submitted by my solicitor. I agree PACE is there to protect any officer,  if I'm in any doubt of my position witness or suspect I don't need to wait for the IPCC to formally inform me to exercise my rights.

By the way I have never had a demand to provide a statement only a request once legal advice has been given. My welfare was very high on the list of priorities of the PI manager and full support was offered throughout. I never saw any issue with surrending clothing especially uniform (which isn't my property). Our forces PI process is fairly robust and a full change of uniform was offered in exchange as was hygiene products, a towel, hot shower and hot food. Unfortunately the time delay is an issue but one that is hard to avoid given the PI process but I rather it wasn't rushed it protects me as well as the organisation.

Not a huge fan of the IPCC and I believe they have caused serious trust issues with certain forces due thier conduct which has in turn lead to an absence of any professional working relationship with those forces officers. But I have to base my observations on my first hand experiences which have been positive.

 

 

[depot 169]

1 hour ago, Remmy said:

I think your experience may be true of where you work but it's certainly not my experience.

I have been involved in 2 post incident investigations following police shootings. On both occasions we were treated very well by the IPCC at the initial post incident procedures and the later investigation. At one I was classed as a principal officer and on legal advice we submitted a detailed initial account (statement) the result of which I was never interviewed by the IPCC. 

Whilst I will never trust the IPCC I have yet to be treated as a suspect and hope that will be the case in future. However if I am ever treated as a suspect, all communication with the investigation team from that point onwards, would be in the form of a prepared statement submitted by my solicitor. I agree PACE is there to protect any officer,  if I'm in any doubt of my position witness or suspect I don't need to wait for the IPCC to formally inform me to exercise my rights.

By the way I have never had a demand to provide a statement only a request once legal advice has been given. My welfare was very high on the list of priorities of the PI manager and full support was offered throughout. I never saw any issue with surrending clothing especially uniform (which isn't my property). Our forces PI process is fairly robust and a full change of uniform was offered in exchange as was hygiene products, a towel, hot shower and hot food. Unfortunately the time delay is an issue but one that is hard to avoid given the PI process but I rather it wasn't rushed it protects me as well as the organisation.

Not a huge fan of the IPCC and I believe they have caused serious trust issues with certain forces due thier conduct which has in turn lead to an absence of any professional working relationship with those forces officers. But I have to base my observations on my first hand experiences which have been positive.

 

 

The questions still stand unanswered though.

Why do they seize a witnesses clothing? (I am aware that uniform is the forces but they don't take it from you because it's theirs).

And on both my outings as a principle, I too provided a detailed statement but why would the IPCC need to interview a witness? Bearing in mind this interview wont be some informal chat with chocolate hobnobs.

The IPCC didn't treat me or any of my colleagues badly but they want far more from principle officers than from other witnesses and because officers are resistant to this, (often on legal advice) we get accused of hampering or slowing down an investigation, then use this to try to get legislation changed or introduced that allows them to treat police officers differently to other witnesses. 

I have always found it ionic that they blame the police for slowing down investigations when really the police hand everything over to them on a plate but they still take an age to complete in the most basic investigations.

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

As an unarmed officer I can't speak for PIP but the IPCC in my experience treat every complainant as an angelic victim and every police officer as potential quarry.

[Remmy + 1,401]

55 minutes ago, depot said:

The questions still stand unanswered though.

Why do they seize a witnesses clothing? (I am aware that uniform is the forces but they don't take it from you because it's theirs).

 

Not sure it is unanswered it makes perfect sense to me sorry. If your loved one had died as a result of a police shooting I am fairly sure you would expect/demand a through investigation. Not a witch hunt that some families seem to expect of course.

A full investigation should also identify learning for future operations if it's conducted in a professional and objective manner, which I certainly embrace.

As for seizing clothing they can't unless you are a suspect but they are free to request it. It makes no difference to me personally and the PIM should ask why it's required. But it really isn't a big issue if the PI process is well thought out and properly resourced. Besides 15 hours is hot sweaty coveralls contaminated with blood and short range RIP, isn't my idea of fun.

55 minutes ago, depot said:

And on both my outings as a principle, I too provided a detailed statement but why would the IPCC need to interview a witness? Bearing in mind this interview wont be some informal chat with chocolate hobnobs.

Why because it's a much more efficient way of gathering the information they require, the questions they need to ask may change as a direct result of your answers.

It's a statement that is given verbally at any time you feel uncomfortable you decline to answer or stop the interview to take legal advice. Again not a big issue for me. And my interview had no hobknobs but it certainly wasn't hostile.

55 minutes ago, depot said:

The IPCC didn't treat me or any of my colleagues badly but they want far more from principle officers than from other witnesses and because officers are resistant to this, (often on legal advice) we get accused of hampering or slowing down an investigation, then use this to try to get legislation changed or introduced that allows them to treat police officers differently to other witnesses. 

I am glad to hear that, I suspect not all our colleagues have been so fortunate, I suspect a large proportion of the blame for this rests with the attitude of some members of the IPCC.

If I am a principle officer again in the future I fully expectthe IPCC will indeed want far more information from me as a witness, it's a reasonable expectation in my opinion.

 

[depot 169]

Out of interest Remmy, were you interviewed under caution?

[Remmy + 1,401]

PM if you wish depot but based in the north west so I'm guessing how they approached us was very different .

[Remmy + 1,401]

1 hour ago, MerseyLLB said:

As an unarmed officer I can't speak for PIP but the IPCC in my experience treat every complainant as an angelic victim and every police officer as potential quarry.

PIP can involve unarmed officers, any death or serious injury (or in certain cases failure in command) following police contact will normally result in a PIP. I think all officers should receive training and know what to expect....but no doubt this would be reduced to another awful Breeze package!

But I agree with your observation MerseyLLB and would go even further they seem politically motivated in certain parts of the country.