Complaints against the Police

I am indebted to Mr. H. V. D. Hallett, Secretary-General of the International Police Association, The Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, the Honourable Pauline M. McGibbon, and Harley Johnson, for assistance in collecting some of the data for this study. The research reported herein comprises a section of an enquiry, which is supported by the Nuffield Foundation, monitoring the effects of the changes in the Police Complaints Procedure brought about by the Police Act 1976.

See The Royal Commission on the Police 1962, Final Report, HMSO, 1962, pp. 138–139, 150, 193–194. The full developments in England and Wales are described in Russell K. V. , Complaints Against the Police: A Sociological View, Milltak Ltd., 1977 (third edition).

In England and Wales the Complaints Procedure was based upon the Police Act 1964, sections 49 and 50, Police (Discipline) Regulations, HMSO, 1965, Police (Discipline) (Deputy Chief Constables, Assistant Chief Constables, Chief Constables) Regulations, HMSO, 1965, Police (Discipline) (Amendment) Regulations, HMSO, 1967 and Police (Discipline) (Amendment) (Deputy Chief Constables, Assistant Chief Constables, Chief Constables) Regulations, HMSO, 1967. Similar regulations applied to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

For full details see Police Act 1976, HMSO, 1976, The Police Act 1976 (Comment No. 2) Order 1977, HMSO, 1977, The Police (Withdrawn, Anonymous Etc. Complaints) Regulations 1977, HMSO 1977, The Police (Complaints) (General) Regulations 1977, HMSO, 1977, The Police (Copies of Complaints) Regulations 1977, HMSO, 1977, The Police (Discipline) Regulations 1977, HMSO, 1977, The Police (Discipline) (Senior Officers) Regulations 1977, HMSO, 1977, The Police (Amendments) Regulations 1977, HMSO, 1977, The Police Federation (Amendment) Regulations 1977, HMSO, 1977. Legislation for Northern Ireland is similar, except that the Chief Constable must supply the NIPCB with a copy of the complaint as soon as is reasonably practical. Legislation for Scotland is promised.

The U.K. arrangements have heavily influenced the report on Complaints Against the Police produced by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 1976.

Arthur Maloney, Report to the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police, 1975.

In Sweden in 1971 the Ministry of Justice appointed an inquiry to establish a more satisfactory method of investigation for the administration of justice when complaints are made against the police for misdemeanours or crimes while on duty. The inquiry, which has not so far led to legislation, has proposed that a small number of groups spread throughout the country should deal with matters of suspected police excesses or injustices.

See Black A. D. , The People and the Police, McGraw-Hill, 1968, pp. 208–215, for an account of how the New York Patrolmen's Benevelent Association defeated the Civilian Review Board.

Where no uniform national system exists, such as in England and Wales, few departments are aware of developments in other police jurisdictions. Although the NCJRS has the facilities to build up details of the various complaints systems in operation this has not yet been attempted.

Limitations of space preclude a detailed description of the steps in a full complaints and disciplinary procedure. For this see Beral Harold and Sisk Marcus , The Administration of Complaints by Citizens Against the Police, Harvard Law Review, LXXVII, pp. 499–519 and Russell K. V. , op. cit., pp. 2–12.

For a detailed account of the arrangements in Sweden see The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen, publisher unnamed, 1976 edition.

The Police in New Zealand are a national body controlled by a Commissioner of Police. Complaints are governed by the Police Act 1958, statutory regulations made under the act, and to Police General Instructions. However, complaints can be made direct to the Ombudsman or the Minister of Police who would then channel these to police. In 1970 there were demonstrations against the vice-president of the United States of America who was visiting Auckland. Allegations were made that uniformed police officers on duty brutally assaulted demonstrators when dispersing them (kicking them, assaulting them with fists, etc). The New Zealand Government instructed the Ombudsman, who is appointed by Act of Parliament to investigate matters referred to him by anyone (mainly private citizens) who feels they have a legitimate complaint against a government department, to investigate. Evidence was taken on oath and the Ombudsman later presented a report to parliament. No evidence was found against any particular police officer to substantiate a charge.

The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen, op. cit., p. 3.

Johnson H. A. , The Handling of Civilian Complaints Against Members of Police Forces, unpublished MSS, 1970; Johnson H. A. , Further Study of the Handling of Civilian Complaints Against Members of Police Forces, unpublished MSS, 1971; Beral and Sisk , op. cit., Maloney, op. cit.

Three forces in England in which the writer is monitoring the effects of the Police Act 1976 have established special complaint departments under the command of a superintendent.

See Black A. D. , op. cit.

For an interesting account of an attempt to deal positively with officers who had received a large number of citizen complaints see Pate T. McCullough J. W. Bowers R. A. and Ferrara A. , Kansas City Peer Review Panel: An Evaluation Report, Police Foundation, 1976.

The Handling of complaints against the police: Report of the Working Group, HMSO, 1974.

The board has since ceased to function. For an account of its activities see Hudson J. R. , The Civilian Review Board Issue as Illuminated by the Philadelphia Experience, Criminologica, Vol. 6, 19, pp. 16–29.

Arguments for limited experiments can be found in Russell K. V. , Complaints: Be Careful, Police, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 20 and 24 and Russell K. V. , Review Boards: Don't Forget the Provinces, Police, Vol. 5, No. 11, pp. 14 and 18.

In a memorandum to the Working Group for England and Wales the writer drew attention to the need for a “formal reconciliatory procedure” (p. 76), and similar views were expressed by the Community Relations Commission. The comment of the Working Group (pp. 29–30) indicates a lack of understanding of the legal requirements of the 1964 procedure and as complaints are either substantiated or unsubstantiated there is no category into which a complaint which has been reconciled could be allocated Although conciliatory procedures have their dangers (See Beral and Sisk , op. cit., p. 502) these are not insurmountable.

In the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, HMSO, 1976, eight categories of complaints are cited. The second largest category is a dustbin grouping of “Other matters” (p. 64). Some of the other categories are not mutually exclusive. Mishandling of property is an Irregularity in Police Procedure, but could also be categorized as Neglect of Duty. An alternative method of classification of complaints based on the recommendations of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Criminal Statistics, The Perks Report, HMSO, 1967, is outlined in Russell, op. cit., pp. 19–20.

Weiler P. A. , Who Shall Watch the Watchmen? Reflections on Some Recent Literature About the Police, II Crim. L.Q. 420, 1969, pp. 423–424.