The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 — Part 2: New Police Complaints Procedures

Police Complaints Board Final Review Report, Cmnd. 9584, (1985), H.M.S.O.

See the Law Commission on Police Cmnd. 1728 of 1962, H.M.S.O. The Australian Law Reform Commission's first report: Complaints Against Police (1975) and Supplementary Report (Report No. 9; 1978). The 1978 Report had followed Sir Robert Mark, Metropolitan Commissioner's remarks that an effective system for handling complaints against police was essential to any modern police force: The object should be to satisfy the public that every complaint is investigated thoroughly and impartially. The essential requirement of any machinery is the assurance of an initial investigation of manifest thoroughness and impartiality. According to the Victorian State's Report (Australia, 1971), a want of complete confidence in the impartiality of investigation and determination of complaints against police, inevitably exacerbates the relationship between the police and the public they serve. See also The Handling of Complaints Against Police, Cmnd. 5582 of 1974.

a If such complaints were permitted, my complaints would relate to the ostensible lack of success by chief constables to recruit black and brown police officers.

Cmnd. 8853 of 1983. See their First Triennial Report, Cmnd. 7966 of 1980. See also the Royal Commission On Criminal Investigation's Report, Cmnd. 8092 of 1981.

Cmnd. 8427 of 1981.

See the Home Affairs Committee's Fourth Report — (H.C. 1981–82/98); Government's White Paper (Cmnd. 8681 of 1982), Report of the Working Party appointed by the Home Secretary on investigation of complaints against police (Cmnd. 8193 of 1981); Police Complaints Board's First Triennial Review Report, Cmnd. 7966 of 1980; Complaints and Disciplinary Procedures, Cmnd. 9072 of 1983; Plowden Report, Cmnd. 8193/1981; Royal Commission on Police, Final Report, Cmnd. 1728/1962.

See McFarlane , “Police Complaints and Discipline Procedures” (1984) 128 Sol. Jo. 5; Greaves , “Complaints against the police — The new proposals” (1984) 133 N.L.J. 120; Greaves , “Double jeopardy and police discuplinary proceedings” [1983] Crim. L.R. 211; Rawlings and Williams “Police Bill: Complaints and discipline” (1984) 148 J.P.N. 280; Greaves , “Fairness and police discipline” (1983) 147 J.P.N. 132; Zander , “Police and Criminal Evidence Act: The police” (1983) 133 N.L.J. 389; Gibb , The Times March 12, 1983; Samuels “Complaints against the police” (1981) 131 N.L.J. 28; Khan “Police Complaints under the 1984 Act” (1985) 129 Sol. Jo. 56; Khan , “Police Complaints Procedures” (1983) Police Journal 175; Khan , “Independent element in police complaints procedures” (1983) 147 J.P.N. 586; Khan , “Complaints against police” (1982) 126 Sol. Jo. 489; Khan “Complaints against police” (1985) 129 Sol. Jo. 642; Home Office Research and Planning Unit Report No. 19.

House of Commons Debates, Standing Committee J., Col. 1245; March 10, 1983.

Final Review, op. cit. The 1976 Act had made amendments to the Police Act 1964 without introducing many major fundamental changes.

The Authority could be described as the brain child of two unusual bedfellows: The Law Society and the Police Federation (see their joint submission to the Government: “The Police Complaints and Discipline Scheme”).

Public disquiet increased because of factors like the failure of the “Countryman Operation”, absence of any prosecution for Blair Peach's death, perceived endemic racial prejudice and abuse by some inexperienced officers, especially in inner city areas: See the independent Report of the Policy Studies Institute sponsored by Scotland Yard, and Scarman Report, supra.

This argument is not universally accepted. Furthermore, the Toronto Police Complaints Investigation Bureau can bring in outside/civilian investigators in certain circumstances. In the second annual report of the Public Complaints Board, Toronto, Canada, it is said that consideration has to be given to the mistrust by some people of the ability of a police officer to be objective in investigating complaints. However, they also stated that in order to have an effective and just system, the police involvement is essential: It is better that the police clear their own house.

The Queensland Police Complaints Tribunal set up by the Act of 1982 can conduct its own investigations or cause investigations to be made on its behalf and so get the appointment made of some competent person to assist the tribunal or to act on its behalf. The present writer had long discussions with the chairman of the tribunal. His Honour Judge Eric Pratt Q.C., when he visited this country.

See commentaries on the Act by Zander (1985); Freeman (1984); Bevan and Lidstone (1985); Walters and O'Connell (1985); Powell and Mogreth (1985).

Section 87 and the Police (Complaints) General Regulations (1985) (S.I. 520/1985); Police (Complaints) (Mandatory Referrals etc.) Regulations 1985 (S.I. 673/1985).

Under the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 (S.I. 518/1985).

Sections 88, 89. For a comprehensive chart showing various steps, see Bevan and Lidstone, supra.

See Police (Complaints) (Appropriate Statement) Regulations 1985.

S. 93(7) and (8).

Cmnd. 8681, supra. See Khan , “Independent Elements in Police Complaints Procedures” 147 J.P.N. 584.

Cmnd. 8681/1982; Cmnd. 9072/1983. See “Complaints against the Police”. 147. J.P.N. 761.

Assistant Chief Constable and above.

S. 84(4).

S. 84(1).

S. 84(3). For full details see Khan , “Police Complaints under the 1984 Act” (1985) 129 Sol. Jo. 56. For a discussion of the regulations made under the 1984 Act, see Khan , “Complaints against police” (1985) 129 Sol. Jo. 643.

See Khan under note 24, supra. For detailed recommendations see the White Paper Cmnd. 8681, supra.

Previously it used to be at least a superintendent.

S. 86.

S. 90.

This provision was the result of the Government's defeat in the House of Commons Committee stage, primarily because of the efforts of the Police Federation, although the Government achieved their objects by redrafting the clause; see House of Commons Standing Committee E 20/3/84 col. 1838 et al; see also Hansard, House of Lords, July 11, 1984, Col. 997.

S. 90.

S. 91.

Under s. 92.

See s. 93 for powers of the Authority to direct a chief officer to prefer disciplinary charges; and s. 94 for the Authority's power to order that disciplinary charges be heard by a tribunal chaired by a chief officer of police. See R. v. Police Complaints Board, ex parte Madden and Rhone [1983] 1 W.L.R. 447 for the explanation by McNeill J., of the double jeopardy rule (see Khan (1985) 129 Sol. Jo. 56; Greaves “Double jeopardy and police disciplinary proceedings” [1983] Crim. L.R. 211). For the regulations made under s. 99 of the 1984 Act, see Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 (51 No. 518/1985). For summary of these and other regulations see Khan (1985) 129 Sol. Jo. 642.

See Khan , “Recent developments in judicial review” (1984) 128 Sol. Jo. 7.

The Times. November 28, 1985.

To be precise for the order of certiorari to quash the decision of the chief officer and the police disciplinary tribunal.

A legitimate question could be asked whether the officer who delayed passing the information of the complaint(s) was disciplined for dereliction of his duty.

See R. v. Hillingdon London Borough Council, ex parte Royce Homes Ltd. [1974] Q.B. 720; R. v. Epping and Harlow General Commissioners, ex parte Goldstraw [1983] 3 All E.R. 257; R. v. Paddington Valuation Officer, ex parte Peachy Property Corporation Ltd. [1966] 1 Q.B. 380; R. v. I.R.C., ex parte Preston [1985] A.C. 835; In re Waldon The Times, October 8, 1985.

e.g. the Queensland Police Complaints Tribunal. The present author had discussions on this matter with the Chairman of that Tribunal (His Honour Judge Eric Pratt, Q.C.) when he came to visit the former in Leeds.

See the joint report The Police Complaints and Discipline Scheme (1983). The Police Federation's spokesperson in the House of Commons, Mr. Eldon Griffiths, played a significant role to protect the police interests in Parliament.

It was surprising to notice that even the police had little confidence in the previous system. It is interesting to note that Lord Scarman in his Brixton Riot Report had this to say: “The evidence has convinced me that there is a widespread and dangerous lack of public confidence in the existing system for making complaints against police. By and large the people do not trust the police to investigate the police”. So far as police investigating police is concerned, the system in principle remains the same, although superimposed on that system is a thoroughly independent supervisory outside body. It is submitted that the real test of the new system's success would be the confidence it can generate in people living in inner city, deprived, under-privileged or black-dominated areas.