New Met police video

[Fedster + 1,307]

Misconduct papers could be served on officers who are not suspects but don't comment.

IOPC director general Michael Lockwood

 

The Home Office is planning to introduce a duty of cooperation on officers who are witnesses to police watchdog investigations.

It was revealed at the Police Federation Conference today that witnesses working in the police service who won’t speak to the Independent Office for Police Conduct at an early stage could face misconduct proceedings themselves.

There is huge concern at the staff association about the legal position this will put officers who are witnesses into.

The department has made moves in recent weeks towards implementing the policy.

Merseyside rep Barry Fletcher, who has been privy to discussions around the policy, questioned IOPC director general Michael Lockwood.

He referred to comments the former council chief executive made about wanting to increase trust among officers.

He said: “If you’re so keen why are the IOPC supporting the Home Office in its drive that police officers who are witnesses who fail to cooperate at the early stage of an investigation will be served with a notice?

“They will fall foul of conduct. That’s not trust, that’s legislation against police witnesses.”

Mr Lockwood replied that the idea was one which did not come from the watchdog but outside reviewers.

“What I’m very open to is what cooperation means in practice and how we define it,” he said.

He had earlier said he wants to encourage officers to give statements earlier in the investigation process so his organisation can conclude them more swiftly.

Simon Kempton asked him if he was involved in a crash if he would make an immediate statement while tired and before all facts as the condition of his car are known, as well as against the advice of his lawyer.

After first avoiding the question he said: “If we’re talking to the IOPC I would talk to them and tell them what happened.”

The Home Office has been approached for comment on the issue but had not responded before this article went live.

Individuals within the department have recently been speaking about reforms they have set out with the aim of producing a “more effective, timely and fairer” misconduct process.

View On Police Oracle

[Ether + 1,432]

One rule for the public and another for Police Officers, seems "You do not have to say anything" element of the caution isn't a right because of your choice of occupation. Sounds like discrimination to me.

[Pavillion 43]

56 minutes ago, Funkywingnut said:

One rule for the public and another for Police Officers, seems "You do not have to say anything" element of the caution isn't a right because of your choice of occupation. Sounds like discrimination to me.

Two different groups so two different rules, seems fair.

[Growley + 2,436]

I can't imagine this would stand up to legal scrutiny. We're talking about potentially removing the right against self-incrimination, and a fair trial.

It's also worth noting that, should a case proceed to court, it could create admissibility issues. S.76 of PACE makes confessions taken under oppression inadmissible (notwithstanding that they may be true). Who could argue that the threat of losing your job wasn't oppression?

[Ether + 1,432]

38 minutes ago, Pavillion said:

Two different groups so two different rules, seems fair.

How?  

Are Police Officers not just uniformed members of the public in which they serve? 

The right to make no comment, is inherent to all, I see no reason why officers should be treated differently, people are the first to complain when the police get discounts or are treated favourably. 

[SimonT + 1,194]

If it was possible to trust them, then I don't think it would be a problem. But time and witch hunt again has shows its not the case. 

How do you show what can officer did or did not see. What if they don't recall? Is that a disciplinary? What if they were looking the other way? It can actually happen. It might sound like a strong tactic to defeat those pesky police but I think it will create more issues than is solves.. 

If officers felt that information would be treated properly as well as their colleagues but not the current organisation. 

[JulietAlpha1 + 515]

Is this really necessary? How often to officers outright refuse to provide statements? Or take months to reply? I’ve always provided a full account after sending it for my local fed rep to glance over. You’re still in control of what you say or don’t say.

[Pavillion 43]

13 hours ago, Funkywingnut said:

How?  

One group are private individual and the other are public servants. There is a difference.

 

13 hours ago, Funkywingnut said:

Are Police Officers not just uniformed members of the public in which they serve?

Yes, but Police Officers are not acting as private individuals, can you not recognise the difference?

 

A private individual is not taking any sort of remuneration when being questioned by the Police. The democracy  (within reason) stops when you take the silver.

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Pavillion

[Radman + 2,165]

14 hours ago, Pavillion said:

Two different groups so two different rules, seems fair.

How in a million years is it fair Pavillion we are talking about the backbone of the British criminal system of the right not to self incriminate ones self being removed...

 

[Mac7 808]

“One group are private individuals and the other are public servants. There is a difference.”

 

Not according to Sir Robert Peel. Whose principles stand today.

 

The police are Crown Servants, not public servants.

 

 

 

[Zulu 22 + 4,638]

15 hours ago, Pavillion said:

Two different groups so two different rules, seems fair.

Why do you post, just to be provocative.  You continue to show an alarming ignorance of the law and Policing. Police Officers have the same rights as any other member of society.

 

 

[stewie_griffin + 484]

There's a fundamental principle of law at work here: if you are forced to provide a statement, then that statement cannot be used against you. This is reflected in the first part of the caution, 'You do not have to say anything...'

We have slightly different rules here, but the general principle applies. Under our 'Police Act' police officers are required to submit reports. However, because those reports are forced, they cannot be used as evidence in any subsequent criminal prosecution.

What this means in practice is that you as a police officer provide a statement to Professional Standards because you have to, but you say nothing to the people who investigate serious incidents with a view to prosecution. I've exercised my right to silence, and I would urge others to do the same*.

 

 

*This is NOT legal advice.

[cookyy2k 536]

8 hours ago, Pavillion said:

One group are private individual and the other are public servants.

So your contention is that, for example, a job centre adviser should have no right to remain silent, interesting. I can see that becoming a rather tiered society pretty quickly, we could call those who don't have to answer proles and those who do party members or we could go for civilian and citizen maybe. I mean there are plenty of books or films you can base this system off of.

[Indiana Jones + 1,103]

9 hours ago, Pavillion said:

The democracy  (within reason) stops when you take the silver.

First I've heard of it.

[Ether + 1,432]

9 hours ago, Pavillion said:

One group are private individual and the other are public servants. There is a difference.

 

Yes, but Police Officers are not acting as private individuals, can you not recognise the difference?

 

A private individual is not taking any sort of remuneration when being questioned by the Police. The democracy  (within reason) stops when you take the silver.

 

So by that reasoning, should every public servant not be subject to the same?  

I cannot see how you can take a fundamental right away without legislative change. 

The highlighted comment is rumbling nonsense with no basis in law or common sense. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Funkywingnut