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
| 
