Complaints against officers

[Fedster + 1,307]

Force threatened police watchdog with judicial review over directed misconduct hearing.

Chief Constable Nick Ephgrave

Date - 12th October 2018
By - Ian Weinfass at the Police Federation Detective Forum Conference, Manchester

3 Comments

 

A senior officer threatened the police watchdog with judicial review over an attempt it made to put two officers through gross misconduct proceedings.

Surrey Chief Constable Nick Ephgrave revealed this week that he warned the former IPCC that they would face a robust legal challenge if they continued in an attempt to take action against a detective inspector and detective sergeant.

After a suspect in a domestic abuse case in east Surrey was bailed, he seriously assaulted his victim.

CC Ephgrave said: “It was very serious, nearly a murder. Because of that, it’s a DSI [death or serious injury incident] so we have to inform the IPCC. They come in and do an investigation and they come to me and say you need to put these two blokes on a gross misconduct board because of their decision-making, so I […] went through all their rationale and thought, you know what, I’d have done exactly the same thing.

“I wrote back to the IPCC and they said I don’t agree, I’m not doing it. Then the IPCC took a position where they said we’re directing gross misconduct.”

The watchdog, now called the Independent Office for Police Conduct, has the power to tell forces to hold misconduct hearings.

This has proved controversial at times, including a recent case where a Metropolitan Police detective sergeant faced a hearing over allegations he stole money during a search. There was no evidence in the case apart from the word of the alleged victim, who a panel chairman called “contradictory, evasive and inconsistent”.

The Met and IOPC have also had a war of words over the watchdog’s direction to hold a misconduct hearing against "W80", the officer who shot Jermaine Baker during an operation near Wood Green Crown Court.

CC Ephgrave said: “I had a little chat to my deputy and we decided we’d write back and say well we’re not going to accept the direction and if you’re going to really push it, we’ll take it to judicial review.”

The chief constable, who was speaking at the Police Federation National Detective Forum Seminar in Manchester, said the watchdog then backed down.

He said: “Our business - your business - is about making difficult decisions, sometimes life or death decisions, with an imperfect set of information in a changing environment so sooner or later something is going to go wrong isn’t it? It doesn’t mean to say you’ve done anything wrong.

“I want to push this message with my people that as long as you record your rationale and as long as it’s not bonkers, and it never is in my view, if the worst were to happen, sometimes that’s policing, sometimes that happens.

“We work really hard and do our best, sometimes that’s the business we’re in.”

He said that getting the watchdog to see that’s how policing works is sometimes difficult, but he hopes that now the organisation has changed to become the Independent Office for Police Conduct, things may be different.

Surrey Police Federation secretary Paul Campbell told Police Oracle after the speech: “If you make the wrong decision, but for the right reason, he will stand by you - as long as you’re honest.

View On Police Oracle

[HazRat 762]

That is refreshing to read and well done to the CC for backing his officers.

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

It shows up the IOPC up for what they are. Investigators who have no idea how situations can develop.  I was once in the situation of the IPCC, as it was then, directing discipline proceedings against me. The hearing was an absolute farce and ended up with me receiving a Chief Constable's commendation which I still have in my documents.

We are fortunate  that there are still some Chief Constable's who will stand up to be counted.

[Policey_Man + 765]

Impressed by this Chief. And it's rare I say that about any supervisor or manager in the Police these days.

Good on him.

[SimonT + 1,185]

The fact that they dropped it is both a good thing and a very bad thing. 

If they are prepared to put officers through the horrendous ordeal of trial by missconduct then they should have compelling and evidenced reasons. They should have agreed for a judicial review and presented it properly. 

To fold from a little pressure undermines them and is unjust to the officers who don't have their commands backing.