Complaints against officers

[Fedster + 1,307]

Officer W80 has been cleared by CPS and force but still faces losing his job.

Phill Matthews

 

Directing gross misconduct hearings when officers have been cleared by their forces are a waste of time and give families false hope.

Those were the views of Police Federation misconduct lead Phill Matthews at the staff association’s annual conference today.

A panel was asked about the direction to hold a gross misconduct hearing for the firearms officer who shot Jermaine Baker in 2015.

Last week the Crown Prosecution Service said there is no criminal case against the officer – known as W80 – and the Met said he should not face misconduct proceedings, but the IOPC directed them to take place.

Independent Office for Police Conduct director general Michael Lockwood had earlier acknowledged issues of trust exist towards his organisation from the police service, but also the public.

He said: “We’ve said there could be a case to answer, it’s a panel that makes a finding. We’re not judge and jury on this, the fact is the panel judges. Going through that process is about giving confidence in system.”

He added there are different types of tests for prosecutions and gross misconduct investigations but the former council chief executive added the threshold for whether there “could be a case to answer” is up for review.

“We have a case to answer test that’s been met. I’m happy we have a discussion about what we mean by ‘could’,” he said.

The IOPC points out since 2010 there have been 29 firearms officers treated as witnesses and just three as suspects.

But Mr Matthews said: “We think [the case to answer is] broken and it does need completely resetting. It lets families down as it gives them false hope that something might happen.

“It completely demolishes morale for a long time afterwards.”

He added: “It’s a waste of money, a waste of time and does nothing to increase public confidence."

View On Police Oracle

[bensonby + 3,503]

The case to answer test is nonsensical and is l, indeed, broken. The test is “could” a hearing make a finding that gross misconduct is proven. Not “are likely to” or similar - “could” has been interpreted as “is there any possibility” so unless the investigator can essentially prove that the officer didn’t commit gross misconduct then there is a case to answer and you must hold a hearing. That is clearly nonsensical but that is the current state of the law in the decision of The Chief Executive of The IPCC -V- The IPCC (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2993.html).

 

Saying that it is essentially always right for a hearing to decide guilt for some bizarre notion of “confidence” is self-evidently nonsense. It creates additional delay, putting both officers and complainants under needless stress when it is clear that it would never be proven in a million years. The notion that “confidence” of certain complainants is more important than officers’ livelihoods and health is also insulting in the extreme. A thorough investigation that demonstrates that there is not sufficient evidence to bring proceedings can, if properly written and rationalised, provide all the “confidence” (in the process) that is needed.

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

Seems like the IOPC does not make decisions on the weight of evidence, but that they are just interested in putting officers in front of tribunals when the evidence just does not support it. Nothing new I suppose.

[JulietAlpha1 + 515]

I suppose for them it improves their “detections,” whilst there is no oversight on how many of the detections result in a misconduct outcome at the hearing and no fall out for them either way.

[bensonby + 3,503]

3 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

Seems like the IOPC does not make decisions on the weight of evidence, but that they are just interested in putting officers in front of tribunals when the evidence just does not support it. Nothing new I suppose.

I do enjoy a pop at the IOPC but actually this isn’t really their fault: at least in respect of the fact that the law is faulty. They are only applying the case law as it stands. I have no qualms in saying that the legal test is nonsensical, however. 

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

It's scary what get a through the filters of a Sergeant, Inspector, PSD triage, PSD investigator, PSD Superintendent, IOPC investigator, IOPC Commissioner, Chief Officer...

The legally qualified chairs have been a god send. Whilst I still have the odd gripe with some decisions that's no different to court decisions - but since their introduction they have made short work of separating the wheat from the chaff.