Complaints against officers

[Techie1 + 2,024]

Fed says case is not isolated example.

A constable remains confined to his station more than four years after being acquitted of assault while the IPCC’s investigation into him drags on.

Met PC Joe Harrington, who describes policing as “all I ever wanted to do” has now been on restricted duties for longer than he served, prior to an accusation was made against him which was dismissed by a jury in a matter of minutes.

The Police Federation of England and Wales are highlighting his case as one of dozens they say the slow processes of the Independent Police Complaints Commission have caused.

In a statement issued through the staff association, PC Harrington, 33, said: “I am still barred from any contact with the public at work; I can’t be promoted, leave the service or move roles. I was acquitted at a jury trial years ago but I can’t move on with my life because this IPCC investigation is always lurking in the background.

“I have been with my partner for 13 years and we have a five-year-old daughter, but we have no stability in our home life; my partner was eight months’ pregnant when this originally happened but we felt we could not get married with this hanging over us.

“For a long time there was a fear that I might go to prison, now it’s the fear that we might be left with a single income.”

Asked if he would return to policing if the investigation is lifted, PC Harrington, who says he now suffers post-traumatic stress disorder told PoliceOracle.com: “Policing is all I ever wanted to do, but I don't want to put myself in a position where this could happen to me again.

“I would have to think very hard about going into a role with any scope for confrontation.”

The Newham-based officer restrained a teenager in custody during the 2011 London riots. He had been serving for three years at the time. The 15-year-old accused him of assault and the watchdog was called in.

The CPS initially said there was no case to answer, however it reversed its decision and ended up charging him with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

PC Harrington was suspended from work until the trial in March 2013, where a jury took less than half an hour to acquit him.

“The IPCC were unhappy with my acquittal and told the press that they would recommend to the Met that I be sacked,” he said.

The IPCC Commissioner who directed the case is Jennifer Izekor, who stood down in March while Police Scotland began investigating an unrelated matter she was involved in.

PC Harrington has also been the subject of other complaints which the IPCC have spent years investigating, and in 2015 the Court of Appeal ruled that the watchdog was entitled to re-open a case against him, and any other it decides that it had not pursued properly in the first instance if its initial investigations were flawed.

“Although my suspension has been lifted, I have spent the four years since my acquittal in a seemingly endless cycle of being investigated and reinvestigated, and confined to a desk in the station," the officer added.

“The IPCC have twice been to the High Court to overturn reports that they had written, so that they could have another stab at it.”

PC Harrington told PoliceOracle.com he has received support from the Met but they decided not to remove him from restricted duties.

He said: “I think they’re concerned about the negative press they would receive if they lifted the restrictions. Several officers have spoken up for me but the decision was they would not be lifting restrictions until the misconduct process is removed.”

The Police Federation of England and Wales is holding a special session at its conference next week on the IPCC.

The association’s conduct lead Phill Mathews said: “Sadly Joe’s story is not an isolated case and really highlights the effects of such drawn out cases on officers and their families.

“We want to work with the IPCC and forces to ensure that officers are treated fairly and complaints investigated expeditiously so that yet more public money doesn't get wasted, our members and their families are no longer made ill, driven out of the service or have unwarranted press intrusion in their lives.”

A spokesman for the IPCC said their investigation into the assault case was completed within five months, but the reactions of the force and complainant held up proceedings. As did a move to quash its own findings in a separate matter relating to PC Harrington.

She added: "The report was submitted to the Metropolitan Police (MPS) in June 2013 and in August 2014 the force agreed he should face a gross misconduct hearing but requested a delay to setting a hearing date pending the outcome of a linked case involving the same officer. The IPCC accepted this request."

The watchdog says it completed the investigation into the linked case in October 2012 but sought to reinvestigate one element of it and the Met’s legal challenge against the plan held it up.

“Separately, the 15-year-old male submitted a large number of complaints which were all investigated by the MPS.

“The complainant lodged a number of appeals against the force’s findings which resulted in the MPS reinvestigating areas of the complaint.

“In October 2016 the MPS reinvestigation did not uphold the complaints against the constable. The complainant appealed in November 2016 and in January 2017 the IPCC upheld the complaint,” she added.

The spokesman added that the Met was then directed to hold a gross misconduct hearing into the matters, despite the force disagreeing with the findings.

A spokesman for the Met said this direction was received last week and a hearing is “in the process of being arranged”.

View on Police Oracle

[Member of Public + 206]

I realise that complaints have to be investigated (even the most of them are a load of rubbish) to instill public confidence etc, but this is absolutely disgusting. 

[HazRat 762]

Looks like the IPCC wanted GM and won't stop until one is held. The result will be interesting. Feel for the PC who can't see an end to this.

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

If this was criminal, which is more serious, this would have been thrown out as abuse of process about 3 years ago.

[HazRat 762]

18 minutes ago, MerseyLLB said:

If this was criminal, which is more serious, this would have been thrown out as abuse of process about 3 years ago.

The MPS could seek a judicial review, but I'm wondering if they will do the GM hearing and see what the result is.

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

I don't understand how one proceeding can be put on hold whilst another complaint is (re)investigated?

Surely if they feel that there is a case to answer for the 'London riots' complaint then that should have proceeded?

Is it a case that they want to treat all of these complaints as some kind of continued course of conduct? That approach is reminiscent of chucking mud at the wall and seeing what sticks.


Sent from my iPhone usring Police Community

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

Putting this aside, there is the human rights aspect. This PC can presumably not quit. Years ago, people would have been allowed to resign and this was in the public interest in most (but not all cases) that this happened.

So, if he can't quit then he must turn up at work. If he fails to turn up at work then he would presumably be committing misconduct in public office? Forcing someone to work or otherwise face the threat of prison is akin to slavery.

Maybe I being melodramatic and he doesn't appear to want to quit. But if he did want to leave the job then I cannot see how making someone wait 4 years for a result is consistent with having due regard to their human rights.

I remember the case of a MET PC who wasn't allowed to resign due to a complaint, so he couldn't pursue his new career as a Vicar! The Church of England were satisfied that he was a person of good character but he couldn't leave.

There should be some kind of time limit that disciplinary investigations can take, which can only be extended by following some kind of process (maybe making an application to external body?).


Sent from my iPhone usring Police Community

[Techie1 + 2,024]

Is a career break an option?

But in any case this sounds like a horrible position to be in. I hope it is sorted soon and things improve for others too.

[HazRat 762]

Should go sick with stress, but he shouldn't have to. Discipline shouldn't be drawn out like this.

[surfer2169 294]

What's really concerning is that this doesn't surprise me any longer. Long live the IPCC eh.

[MindTheGap 1,275]

It's not just them. It's widely established that management restrictions to duties (As opposed to straight reg 10 suspension) is designed to try and force a person to quit or make it so when it's all over, if they've not been dismissed they resign. Of course the job would never do such a thing.

[XA84 + 434]

This is absolutely disgraceful. I'd be contacting a solicitor immediately and bringing legal challenges, this is clearly affecting the chaps health and family life.

As someone mentioned above, it's akinned to slavery and in my mind a breach of Human Rights.

[JulietAlpha1 + 515]

I was thinking about this the other day. Does proving that X amount of police officers are guilty of some sort misconduct improve public confidence? Does sacking X amount of officers improve public confidence?

Surely the IPCC's apparently continuous desire to investigate and reinvestigate only highlights insecurity about the public's confidence in them and the shortcomings of their investigations, more than it suggests a lack of confidence in the police. The only outcome to their witch hunts is so they can say, "Look how many corrupt police officers we've nailed!" Which justifies their existence while making the police out to be a bunch of yobs.

I'm not advocating hiding corruption and misconduct and sweeping it under the carpet but I don't think it should be a matter that is aired publicly. It should be a matter dealt with between the complainant, police and IPCC.

It's clear that everybody is trying to show how transparent they are.

The police: 'We're aware of an incident that we have reviewed and have decided to refer to the IPCC.'

The IPCC: 'We have investigated the circumstances around the incident and have recommended misconduct proceedings/charges against X officers.'

 Very good, now the public think even more police officers are bent. Even if they're subsequently found to have no case to answer or are acquitted. 

Edited May 9, 2017 by JulietAlpha1

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

A solicitor who represented one of my Federation friend cases quoted a legal precedent "Estopel" which is a legal precedent which can stop a case in its tracks because of the time that has been taken. I cannot remember the full details of the case as I do not have access to the file papers. If anyone knows the officer, it might be worth a mention. Ther could also be a case of "Maladministration" against the IPCC. They do not make the law to suit, they have to abide by it.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Zulu 22

[Policey_Man + 765]

If members of the public got treated the same way that Police Officers were treated there would be huge out cry.

The various disciplinary departments such as DPS, PSD, AC-12 or whatever you want to call them need to ensure they do things quickly, for everyone's sake. If an officer has committed a crime or is bent, they shouldn't be in the service and I'd like them out as quickly as possible, as I'm sure would everyone else. But, we also seem to live in a world whereby the professional standards departments are out for anyone who has done anything that isn't 100% textbook. The world doesn't work like that. The vast majority of police officers are good people, just trying to do their best in difficult circumstances, making the job work and I'd like to see some acknowledgement of that from these people riding around on their high horses in their ivory towers. In fact, let them come and have a crack at doing the job for a while, then we'll see how they do!