Complaints against officers

[Techie1 + 2,024]

IPCC 'did not even bother' to attend final hearing where case was thrown out.

The six year debacle greatly disrupted the personal lives of both officers

A pair of Nottinghamshire Police officers have had proceedings against them dropped following a six year investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The officers were accused of unreasonable force against a female detainee following an incident in July 2011.

After a complaint from the woman in October of the same year the IPCC began an investigation which it dropped in 2013 before reopening it again months later.

Speaking to the Police Federation the two officers, one male one female, said their hugely lengthy inquiry was thrown out earlier this year after the IPCC “did not even bother” to attend a hearing it had ordered.

“I feel very aggrieved,” said the female officer. “I’ve had 17 years of exemplary service, working in a high-stress policing environment, going into conflict situations, dealing with murderers, rapists and protesters. I was a tutor constable for nine years and my disciplinary record is exceptional and yet my life has been on hold for the past six while I’ve been hostage to this investigation.

“Both myself and the other officer remained on ‘full’ duties and we were not abstracted from our main role while this investigation encompassed our lives. This is highly unusual in most investigations let alone gross misconduct.

The 38-year-old female PC said: “I complied with all the IPCC demands while the months turned into years. I spent 18 hours completing the paperwork it requested on my anniversary, a few days before Christmas, using rest days and whatever time I had off. Then, nothing until an email at 5.30am on the morning of the hearing itself.”

Although “relieved” at the outcome, she added: “I would not wish this on anyone. In the run-up to my wedding, it was like an episode of Don’t Tell the Bride – my fiancé had to organise everything because my life was consumed by this investigation.

“The effect on the quality of mine and my husband’s private life has been devastating - I know I have been prevented from applying for a mortgage, upgrading my car and in general spending the money I have been earning on improving my circumstances for fear of being unemployed.

“I also completed my sergeant’s exams while under investigation but have turned down the opportunities to act up and get a portfolio together to progress my career as I felt I could not cope and give my best due to the added stress and anxiety of the investigation.”

The misconduct panel at the hearing accused the IPCC of “significantly departing from the regulatory framework” and “significant failings”.

It also said the IPCC had conceded its initial investigation was flawed but added “the IPCC explanation for subsequent delays is incomplete and inadequate” as well as saying “it should not have taken nearly six years to resolve these issues.

“There cannot be a fair hearing of these proceedings.”

The panel also found there was insufficient evidence for a finding of gross misconduct even if it had not been dropped due to an abuse of process by the IPCC.

The male PC, now 31, also told how his two month old son was born a few weeks before the panel ruling: “What should have been a time of unhindered joy was somehow tinged with this great cloud hanging over me.

“I was fearful that I might lose my job, and not be able to support my wife and my family.

“When this all started I was a 24 year-old, fresh out of training, which was hard to deal with.

“I even wondered whether I might go to prison. I had to put all my plans on hold, I wasn’t able to move anywhere, change roles, apply for another position under career progression or resign either.

“The way the IPCC has handled this is unacceptable, at one time my case was being dealt with by someone with no grasp of police work at all.

“If police officers did the same, we would rightly be investigated.

“Then to cap it all, they didn’t even turn up to the hearing, what a complete lack of respect to everybody involved.”

Phill Matthews, conduct lead for the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: “This case demonstrates the sorts of issues that, sadly, officers all over the country are facing.

“This was an abuse of process, the IPCC even tried to investigate the complaint under the wrong regulations, which the panel correctly ruled on.

“Unfortunately the whole, protracted experience has had a devastating effect on the officers, who have now been completely cleared.

“These types of failings must become history, and a fairer investigative process introduced when the IPCC restructures later this year.

“We have made some progress with the organisation in recent months, and are starting to have a better dialogue with them at national level.

“But there is a long way to go, and we will be monitoring their progress at every step of the way. In the meantime we will continue to highlight cases of injustice and fight our members’ corner.”

The IPCC says some of the delay was caused by a judicial review but Commissioner Derrick Campbell admitted “much regret” over the case.

He said: “Although there were some procedural delays over which we had no control, we recognise that our investigations took longer than we would have wished.

“We very much regret our part in the delay and the understandable frustration and concern that it has caused the complainant and the officers. 

“That investigation concluded in September 2015.

“In March 2016 the CPS decided not to prosecute and following exchanges with the force, in October 2016 we directed Nottinghamshire Police to hold gross misconduct hearings for two officers.

“The hearing scheduled in February this year was adjourned by the panel after Nottinghamshire Police and the IPCC accepted it had proceeded under the wrong regulations.

The panel stayed the proceedings at the rescheduled hearing in May, deciding the officers could not receive a fair hearing because of delay. The IPCC was not required to attend that hearing,”

View on Police Oracle

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

Another fine example of the excellent work of the Irresponsible Police Crucifixion Commission also known as the IPCC.

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

1 minute ago, Cathedral Bobby said:

Another fine example of the excellent work of the Irresponsible Police Crucifixion Commission also known as the IPCC.

In response to questions the IPCC's Director of Witch-hunts replied when asked what the reason for the delay was?

"The IPCC, like any Mickey Mouse affiliated organisation, issues time pieces of the highest quality. The unavoidable delay was caused by a colleague who forgot to wind up his watch, while our second police witch-hunter's hour hand on his Mickey watch stopped on 12 o'clock and therefore for the last six years he thought it was lunchtime. I would like to apologise for the delay, but I am not going to because it is clear that the vast majority of police officers exist in a parallel universe to what we do, which does not compare to our realm of reality. I would now like to leave you with some profound words about this difficult investigation. Squibble, squibble, squibble".

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

Protracted the whole thing out for 6 years to not even proceed.. I hope the officers can now put it behind them and get on with their lives and careers.

[Hades + 1,693]

Quote

 

The misconduct panel at the hearing accused the IPCC of “significantly departing from the regulatory framework” and “significant failings”.

It also said the IPCC had conceded its initial investigation was flawed but added “the IPCC explanation for subsequent delays is incomplete and inadequate” as well as saying “it should not have taken nearly six years to resolve these issues.

“There cannot be a fair hearing of these proceedings.”

 

No Change, No Change....

Shown to be completely and utterly useless once again.  If their role is to hold the police to account then their investigations need to be of a higher standard than ours, otherwise they're kidding themselves, the public and everyone else that they're in any fit state to carry out their functions.

[Indiana Jones + 1,082]

In a practical, real-world sense, are they sue-able?

[SimonT + 1,185]

While they are incompetent I get the feeling they are able to dodge most forms of complaint. 

Of course if there was an investigative body for them they would pursue them relentlessly got 8 years 

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

3 hours ago, SimonT said:

While they are incompetent I get the feeling they are able to dodge most forms of complaint. 

This is the case for many regulators. When I was a senior inspection manager with Ofsted during the Baby P scandal they did everything, including misleading the High Court by claiming not to have draft in as inspection letters as none had been produced regarding Haringey Council. When the complainant's barrister produced them in court, they went back after ordered by the Judge to find them. Ofsted later claimed they had been stuck in the printer.

The Judge fined Ofsted £50,000 for contempt of court. They played a massive part in the Baby P case and blamed everyone but themselves. Same old same old

.

[SimonT + 1,185]

The lack of straightforward and transparent honesty within so many organisations, most of whom are supposed to be bastions of truth, is appalling. 

From government to police to NHS and on and on. 

We are beaten over the head that the codes of ethics demand honesty, yet time again the system is happy to close ranks and dodge everything. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

I wonder if anyone has considered a complaint of Maladministration?