UK: Families reject "cosmetic" changes to PCA
01 March 2001
The Police Complaints Authority (PCA) is to be replaced by a "new" body, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), in 2003 the Home Office announced in December. The decision follows the publication of a consultation paper last May, which was the result of meetings with the civil rights group Liberty and management consultants KPMG. However, the Home Office report, “Complaints against the police: framework for a new system”, has been greeted with disappointment by the United Friends and Family Campaign (UFFC), a coalition of relatives and friends of those who have died in police custody, prisons or psychiatric hospitals. The UFFC have criticised the report on the central issue of “whether the police will continue to investigate themselves” as well as questioning whether other proposals represent a change of policy, rather than a repackaging of the old product.
The UFFC's response to the Home Office report rejects two of the framework's basic premises; firstly it refutes the notion that the PCA is reformable, rather than “discredited”, and the Home Office argument that the PCA has “been restricted only by the limits of the legislation under which it operates.” Secondly, it repudiates the notion that “public confidence and trust have been undermined by the operation of the current system, rather than the concept that police officers should be investigated by other police officers.” (emphasis in original). As a result of these flaws, the report continues:
the proposed Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) can hardly be considered any more “independent” than the Police Complaints Authority and the proposed changes appear to be largely cosmetic.
The UFFC's document then articulates their reasons for “rejecting the main thrust of the Framework document”, focusing on a number of issues.
The Home Office's section on “Investigations by the IPCC”, identifies “specified categories” that will be investigated by the new body, including deaths in police care or custody; police road traffic accident fatalities; shooting incidents in which a police officer discharges a firearm during a police operation; allegations of serious corruption or misconduct; racist conduct; allegations of a police officer committing a serious arrestable offence or causing serious injury (Section 27). However, the UFFC notes that, such incidents will be investigated by an IPCC team of civilians and police officers, led by a civilian: “Many of the investigations into serious complaints within the `specified categories'...will continue to be investigated by the police under `supervision' by the IPCC, just as they are under current legislation by the PCA.” They reject this outright, reiterating the need for an independent body to oversee complaints:
UFFC rejects the idea that the IPCC should have the discretion to either supervise or investigate a complaint...Instead, we call for the end of supervised investigations and for all examinations of serious complaints to be subject to a mandatory investigation by a new independent body.(UFFC recommendation 1)
Concerning the structure of the new complaints body the UFFC observes that the proposed structure for IPCC investigation teams include “seconded senior police investigators” and a “mix of police and non-police members” (Section 23), thereby missing “the opportunity to address longstanding concern about the involvement of police officers in the investigation of complaints against fellow officers.” They believe that it is “essential” that “the new body must be seen to represent a clear break with the past and be clearly different from a body as discredited as the Police Complaints Authority.” To this end they propose:
a new body with its own, permanent investigative staff, with an active commitment to ensuring recruitment from ethnic minority communities. At all levels, the new body must be recruited, given the sensitive nature of police complaints, from outside the policing profession. (U