Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs Written Evidence


APPENDIX 17

Memorandum submitted by Sir Dan Crompton CBE QPM

  I am writing in connection with the above and the knowledge I acquired of the Police Ombudsman's Office whilst I was HM Inspector of Constabulary for the North of England and Northern Ireland. I was consulted by the Ombudsman in the setting-up of the office and the spread of expertise that would be required to ensure that the organisation was regarded as competent, efficient and independent.

  These were challenging days because not only was the choice of investigators crucial, but also the need to demonstrate that their individual backgrounds almost guaranteed impartiality and investigative skill. A prime consideration in the Ombudsman's Office was investigative competency and being streetwise about media and political focus in high profile cases. And the establishment of the Ombudsman's Office was always likely to be a cultural quantum leap for some (and being resented by a few) whilst on the other side "of the fence" there was a need for the Ombudsman to be sensitive about the problems faced in day to day policing and avoiding being seen as a closeted arm chair critic. So, the formulation of investigative teams was no mean challenge and the setting-up of computer support to aid investigative work and complaint trends was a priority, whilst embracing the need to be robustly independent and adopting an investigative style which did not alienate the PSNI.

  I believe the Ombudsman approached this task in a strategic and focused way and she was acutely mindful of the qualities that would be required in the Chief Investigator. The Ombudsman was also mindful that she would not be judged on routine complaints, but the categories attracting considerable media and political focus. She was unable to identify an applicant who would meet the special needs of a Chief Investigator, and she approached the Chief HMI and myself in a head hunting exercise. A senior officer from elsewhere in the UK was identified who we believed would fulfill the special requirements for the post.

  These qualities were soon needed, particularly in respect of the Omagh enquiry, but other substantial cases too.

  Any Ombudsman seen to be too "fundamentalist" in approach will lose cooperation and professional respect but, on the other hand, an Ombudsman too accommodating of the decibel level of police representation will not properly serve the community she is supposed to represent. These are difficult balancing requirements and, on the whole, I believe the Ombudsman has got the balance right—and this also includes the balance required when being "pushed" by external forces beyond the PSNI, be they political or vested interest groups.

  I believe in a number of high profile cases the Ombudsman has shown courage, a stout backbone, and has pursued conclusions which are evidence based. Some may not like "the message" but an Ombudsman is not in office to lean in the direction of the prevailing wind or be seen as politically correct. The principle requirement is to be firm about where the evidence leads the investigation, and be courageous about where the balance of probability lies. Incurring the wrath of some goes with the territory in this role.

  Presenting findings has certain requirements in respect of tone, content, context and balance. There have been learning curves for the Ombudsman's Office in this regard but these considerations should not suffocate the accuracy of her findings and ability to search below surface depth. It is not an unhealthy exercise for the police service to be held accountable or be the subject of constructive criticism. But the Ombudsman also sees her role (correctly) as aiding the development of the PSNI and causing not just reviews of individual conduct, but corporate policies where these are seen as defective or discriminatory. In other words, constructive criticism can aid the quality of police service decision making! This is understood by some, but not all.

  In one major regard I believe the Ombudsman's Office has avoided a problem which has bedevilled major inquiries in England and Wales. This has centred on a tendency to pursue every strand of an enquiry, whether or not linked to the substantive areas of complaint (perhaps with thoroughness or defensiveness in mind) but with the effect of extending enquiries beyond reasonable time limits, and thus attracting abnormal costs and accusations of enquiry "drift" and lack of focus. The Ombudsman's Office have maintained a thoroughness of enquiry approach whilst managing to "ring fence" enquiries so that focus and proportionality are retained. This has been a substantial achievement.

  Statistical gathering is good, but efforts are being made to enhance further still complaint and other information which shows trends or the need for a strengthening of police management action. And there is an objective within the PSNI Policing Plan which requires the Deputy Chief Constable to enhance information exchanges with the Ombudsman's Office.

  The Ombudsman's Office has managed, so far, to attract a good cross representation of investigator, but the challenge will be "Can this be maintained given length of secondment, postings from other parts of the UK, separation from families and career aspirations within their own organisation?" It stands an "even" chance given that service in Northern Ireland is still seen by many as challenging and attractive within a CV.

  Many complaints are made directly to the Ombudsman and this can be taken as an indicator of trust, independence and evidence of the Ombudsman's role and activities becoming more generally known to complainant parties in Northern Ireland. Would they be so willing to make a direct report if the Ombudsman's Office was regarded as a toothless tiger, or a "non achieving Government sponsored body?"

  In three years the Ombudsman's Office has come a long way, and has scaled a significant learning curve. It will have learned lessons around investigator selection, personality types, report length and style, maintaining contact with complainants, judging proportionality—and will have developed the right sort of political antennae. But I believe on most of the key requirements the Office of Police Ombudsman has got it right and if I was to highlight one of the main achievements it would be that of strategic direction in major inquiries. If strategic direction is professionally managed many other requirements fall into place ie, management of time, focus of the enquiry, costs, effectiveness and efficiency, proportionality (crucial), and reporting on the substantive issues within reasonable time frames—important to complainant parties and any accused police officers. The Ombudsman's Office has also showed a commendable level of resilience, apart from demonstrating a willingness to support police activity where this has been seen to be justified—and criticising in equal measure where evidence collection has shown failings.

  A Police Ombudsman will never be loved by all (mission impossible) but can earn a reputation for courage, ability to challenge, being fair and proportionate—and being guided by the weight of evidence, not weight of lobbying or representation. This, I think, has largely been achieved.

25 March 2004





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 23 February 2005