Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
SURVEY
Has the Office plans to conduct a follow-up survey
of police officers' attitudes to the Office of the Police Ombudsman
and the new complaints system conducted in 2003 (Annual Report
April 2003-March 2004, page 38)? If so, to what timescale?
As you are aware a Joint Working Committee consisting
of PSNI, the Police Staff Associations and the Police Ombudsman
has been established for the purpose of addressing issues arising
from the Police Attitudes Survey.
There will be consultation by the Police Ombudsman
through the Joint Committee in relation to the timing of a second
Police Attitudes Survey. The expectation is that a second survey
will be conducted but no date has been fixed yet.
The Committee is also actively looking at how communication
between police officers and the Office of the Police Ombudsman
can be improved and already a series of activities has been agreed.
To update the Committee a note of those activities follows:
Special Events
The Police Ombudsman will speak, by invitation, to
the Police Federation AGM on September 16.
A "Lets Talk"/"Question Time"
format for police officers with an independent chairman is being
planned for the Autumn.
Training
—The Police Ombudsman participates in Probationer
Training and will continue to do so, meeting each intake of student
officers.
—Police Ombudsman involvement in in-service
training continues such as Use of Force Training, Senior Investigating
Officer Training, Firearms Training, CS Spray Trainer Training.
—Police Ombudsman staff also participate
in Police Federation Northern Ireland "Friends" training.
—Occasional inputs are made to District
Command Training Days.
—PSNI in-service training is organised
by regional groupings of District Command Units. The Police Ombudsman
is currently committed to provide each regional grouping with
25 one hour sessions.
—The Police Ombudsman belongs to the PSNI
Learning and Advisory Council with the aim of becoming involved
in a wider range of PSNI training events. The Police Ombudsman
is also represented on the Implementation Board for the new PSNI
Training College.
Media
Contact has been made with PSNI with a view to putting
specimen Police Ombudsman case closures reports on the PSNI Intranet
site. These reports would have a format similar to those on the
OPONI web site but would be written to include matters which are
of particular interest to police officers.
The Office has been working with PSNI in an attempt
to provide its staff with an electronic version of Force Orders.
We are costing the process of extracting Force Orders in the form
they appear on Policenet and providing them to Office staff.
Media: Press releases
The Office is arranging for Press Releases to be
sent to District Commanders in the same way in which they are
currently sent to PSNI, Internal Investigations Branch and the
PSNI Press Office.
PROSECUTIONS
Your submission (para 49, page 12) shows that
in the past three years, of the 40 recommendations for criminal
charges you have made to the DPP, to date 19 were the subject
of a criminal direction. Is it of concern to you that in the majority
of cases the DPP did not proceed as you recommended? Do you discuss
with the DPP about why approximately 50% of recommendations are
not accepted, and the reasons for his decision not to proceed?
In all cases where allegations of a criminal nature
are investigated by the Ombudsman's Office, and investigation
establishes that an offence may have been committed, a report
is compiled and forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions,
who decides whether there should be a prosecution. The Police
Ombudsman makes recommendations to the DPP, based on the evidence
within the reports. Regardless of the outcome of the investigations
or the recommendations that follow, the DPP who is independent
of the Police Ombudsman, looks at the available evidence and makes
directions. In most cases the Police Ombudsman recommends "No
Prosecution".
Appendix 21[1]of
the documents submitted to the Committee informs the Committee
that a total of 374 cases were referred to the DPP in the period
from 2000-03. Of those in 346 cases the Police Ombudsman recommended
"No Prosecution".
In 28 cases the Police Ombudsman recommended "Prosecution".
In 10 cases the DPP directed no further action. Charges have been
directed in 13 cases and in three other cases, the DPP recommended
prosecution where the Police Ombudsman had not recommended such
action.
Inevitably there is a delay between submission of
cases to the DPP and receipt of directions from the DPP and five
cases are still awaiting direction.
Within the cases referred to above, the DPP recommended
prosecution of 23 officers on 19 charges (some officers were directed
with more than one offence). It is not, therefore, the case that
50% of Police Ombudsman recommendations are not accepted by the
DPP.
Investigators attached to the Office are in constant
consultation with representatives of the DPP Office discussing
cases which are currently pending decisions by the DPP Office.
In most cases these discussions are vital in assessing the available
evidence and discussing any sensitive issues that may exist with
each particular case. In all matters, the Police Ombudsman respects
the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
DISCIPLINE
In the last year 76 disciplinary recommendations
in respect of 98 officers were made by you to the Chief Constable
(Annual Report 2003-04, page 12). Can you please clarify the process.
Is there a system of routine "Report back" from him
to you on these cases to inform you of what action has been taken?
If so, are you aware of what action he has taken in response to
these recommendations?
There is a clearly defined process in respect of
all discipline recommendations made to the Chief Constable. In
all cases of alleged disciplinary matters, the investigating officer
compiles a report for the attention of the Police Ombudsman who
makes recommendations to the Chief Constable through the Internal
Investigations Branch. The Internal Investigation Branch upon
receipt of the report confirms receipt of the recommendations
and then advises the Police Ombudsman in writing of the PSNI response
to the recommendations by the Police Ombudsman. The recommendations
may be in respect of formal or informal misconduct proceedings.
The Office is constantly updated on the progress
of these proceedings and upon completion, the result of any formal
hearing or informal action is communicated to this Office. These
results are recorded on the investigation file, and kept for analytical
purposes.
Obviously the process of disciplinary action, particularly
formal action within the PSNI is a slow process and we can identify
that seven formal charges have been progressed to date, but the
vast majority of informal action such as Superintendent's Warnings
and Advice and Guidance are actioned quite promptly by Internal
Investigations Branch and District Commanders in PSNI.
Other recommendations made to the Chief Constable
are also process mapped. The PSNI has an internal committee, led
by an ACC, which considers any recommendations made in respect
of training and other issues of policy. The Deputy Chief Constable
writes to the Police Ombudsman to inform her of the PSNI response
to each recommendation.
POLICY AND
PRACTICE
The phrase "Policy and practice investigation
resources not yet approved" appears on page 47 of the Annual
Report 2003-04. The oral evidence we had suggested that no additional
resources were being requested for these purposes (Q 52), and
perhaps the note in the Annual Report refers to an internal (re)allocation.
It would be helpful to have your clarification of the reference
to resources referred to in the Annual Report; and on whether
any additional resources are in fact being sought and, if so,
how much.
The Office is funded by Grant in Aid from the NIO.
It is a matter for the Office to decide how to allocate the resources
which are granted to it to address the competing priorities which
are faced. It is important to emphasise that in the early years
of the Office, there has been a small, but vibrant Research Branch,
researching core issues and trends and patterns in complaints
as required under the legislation. Likewise a Professional Standards
Department has been developing an infrastructure of guidance supporting
investigations. It is envisaged that, as the Policy and Practice
function develops, it will embody the existing resources and structures
within these two Branches and so minimise the need for additional
or new resources. There has therefore been no need or request
for additional resources at this point though this important function
will be kept under review.
PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES
AND RESOURCES
You made clear your position in respect of Parliament's
requirements of your Office (Q 64). However, the Committee would
find it instructive to know whether, in the light of your unique
experience, the "principle activities" of your Office
as presently set out are, in your view, comprehensive, coherent
and otherwise complete, or is there—excepting "mediation"
for the moment—scope for improvement in any way; and, if
so, in what areas?
Are you content that you are equipped currently
with all the powers and human and financial resources to enable
you to carry out your present remit as set out in legislation?
The duties imposed on the Office are consistent with
the statutory role of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland,
subject to the issue of mediation which has already been discussed
with the Committee. However there are some issues which cause
difficulty or detract from the perception of the independence
of the Office. They are as follows:
The Police Ombudsman's powers relate only to
police officers. There are occasions in which an allegation is
received that a police officer has committed a criminal offence
together with a non police officer. In those circumstances the
Office of the Police Ombudsman must conduct an investigation of
the police officer, whilst the PSNI simultaneously conducts an
investigation of the non-police officer. This is wasteful of resources,
has the potential to give rise to problems and detracts from the
ability of the Police Ombudsman to investigate the police officer
independently of the police. An example of such an issue would
arise in the case of a complaint in respect of a joint police/military
operation. In these cases police have primacy, but investigation
is limited to police actions.
When, following a Police Ombudsman investigation,
a formal misconduct tribunal takes place, the Police Ombudsman
and her staff are only permitted to attend the tribunal if the
presiding officer allows her to do so. The Police Ombudsman is
of the view that she should have the right to attend any hearing
in a case in which her staff have conducted the investigation
leading to the hearing. This would better enable the Police Ombudsman
to reassure the public and ensure that the investigator is able
to be present throughout the hearing to assist all parties.
The current process for the conduct of a disciplinary
investigation is modelled on the criminal investigation process.
For disciplinary investigation, the process is bureaucratic and
unnecessarily legalistic; the consequence of this is unavoidable
delay which is to the disadvantage of both complainant and officers,
and which requires significant resources. A review of the system
in England and Wales is currently being undertaken by the Home
Office. We would hope that any changes introduced in England and
Wales will be rapidly reviewed by the NIO with a view to the amendment
of the Northern Ireland regulations. It is my intention to contribute
to the Home Office review of the matter, and that review presents
a significant opportunity for Northern Ireland.
As part of the Patten reforms, there is a process
of civilianisation of posts, such as station enquiry office receptionists.
Such staff do not have police powers and are not, therefore, subject
to the independent police complaints system operated by this Office.
Complaints against them are dealt with internally by the PSNI.
In England and Wales the newly established IPCC has jurisdiction
over all civilian employees of the police service. Given that
police station receptionists and other front line civilian staff
will be the point of contact for many of those who come into contact
with the police, the Police Ombudsman is of the view that it would
be sensible and coherent to amend the legislation to bring such
staff under the remit of the Police Ombudsman.
MEDIATION
As precise and detailed a brief on what legislative
changes you wish to see to your mediation powers and role; the
policy justification; and any positive anticipated implications
for other areas of your work, would be extremely helpful (Q 55)
The processes
It has now been agreed that the PSNI, the police
staff associations and this Office wish to have four processes
for dealing with complaints. Those are informal resolution (conducted
by the police), mediation (conducted by this Office, conciliation
(conducted by this Office) and Investigation (conducted by this
Office). We are also agreed that no complaint should be the subject
of all four processes.
We have agreed that there may be complaints which
would be particularly suitable for informal resolution. Under
the current legislation the complainant can opt for either investigation
or informal resolution. All parties are agreed that the principle
of consumer choice should continue to apply and that complainants
should have the right to refuse informal resolution conducted
by the police. It would be appropriate to allow the complainant
to choose the process which the complainant would be happier,
whether it be mediation or informal resolution.
At present the legislation requires that if informal
resolution is declined by the complainant, or is unsuccessful,
then the Police Ombudsman "shall investigate". Legislative
change would be required to give the Police Ombudsman the right
to decide that a complaint is suitable for mediation rather than
investigation. Mediation would be appropriate in less serious
cases and in cases in which the complainant states that he/she
is willing to co-operate with the process but will not give evidence
in a hearing. Currently such cases must be investigated, but will
be closed either for complainant non-cooperation or complaint
withdrawn depending on the circumstances. It is the case that
some complainants become satisfied once the facts have been established
and feel that the police must be now cognisant of the situation.
They do not wish to pursue the individual officers, as they seek
to prevent what happened to them happening again, rather than
the punishment of the individual officer(s).
If mediation is not appropriate then the Police Ombudsman
should investigate as required by law. If the mediation is unsuccessful
the Police Ombudsman should be given a discretionary power, rather
than an obligation, to investigate.
The PSNI, staff associations and this Office have
agreed that we will work together to produce a mediation leaflet
(there already being an Informal Resolution leaflet). We have
also agreed that it would be desirable that legislation would
include, as we have requested, provision that nothing said in
the course of a mediation could be used for the purposes of any
criminal or disciplinary action or civil proceedings.
In relation to conciliation we have agreed that this
power would be used in circumstances in which investigation has
demonstrated clearly that the person was a victim of serious wrongful
police action but it has proved impossible to identify the officer
responsible for that wrongful action. For example we recently
had a case in which a police landrover was filmed from above,
being driven in a very dangerous way at a group of people standing
off the road. There was no marking on the roof of the landrover
and it proved impossible to identify which landrover was involved.
Had the driver been identified the Police Ombudsman would have
recommended prosecution for dangerous driving. We have agreed
that we would provide the Chief Constable with a full report of
the particular investigation before a conciliation process is
initiated. Again it should be provided in the legislation that
nothing which was said in any conciliation could be used in any
legal proceedings.
In agreeing that we are now all ready to move forward
on the amendment of the mediation provision and conciliation process,
we have agreed that we will also work with the police staff associations,
who have indicated their support to ensure their members fully
understand and engage in the process.
The policy justification
Goal 1 of the Police Ombudsman's Business Plan 2004-05
is to strive for excellence in the delivery of an efficient and
effective police complaints system (see Document). Within that
Goal is the statement that the Office will "introduce effective
mediation processes". The business planning processes over
the years have identified the fact that the current system has
the effect of requiring formal investigation in circumstances
in which such formal investigation is either unnecessary (because
of the relative simplicity of the complaint) unnecessarily complex
(because of the legislative requirements for the process of investigation)
or likely to be inappropriate (because whilst the complainant
wants the complaint investigated, and either wants management
action taken to address any systemic defects or an apology for
what has happened, they either do not wish to be involved in disciplinary
action, or they themselves consider that disciplinary action is
no longer required if the matter has been investigated and appropriate
management action taken).
Implications for other areas of work
It is anticipated that if it were possible to mediate
or conciliate in appropriate circumstances the following benefits
would accrue (benefits to policing generally are included for
the sake of completeness):
—A better range of options would be available
which would allow greater flexibility.
—Both complainants and police officers
would have access to more appropriate systems for resolving problems.
—Mediation could be conducted by specially
trained staff who would not require the full range of investigative
skills and competences with which investigators must be equipped.
—The cost of and training for mediation
would be less than the cost of and training for investigation.
—Mediation would be conducted more quickly
than investigation because it would not require all the complex
processes required for investigation.
—Investigators would be able to concentrate
on the investigation of more serious issues for which investigation
is necessary (currently if there is no informal resolution or
if a matter remains unresolved after an attempted informal resolution
the matter must be investigated).
—Resources within the Office could therefore
be more effectively deployed, thus reducing the possible requirement
to apply to government for further grant in aid.
—There would be more timely handling of
matters than is currently possible and this should lead to greater
complainant and police officer confidence in the process.
—There would be very clear advantages to
officers in cases being mediated as they would not be under investigation,
with all the attendant pressures which that situation involves.
—There would be savings for the PSNI who
would not have to release officers to meet the needs of formal
investigation.
—There would be advantage to the staff
associations who would not have to act as "friend" to
officers under investigation in as many cases.
Case Management System
On 13 February 2002, in response to Lord Laird
[Hansard Column WA 155], the government indicated that Deloitte
& Touche had received £71,965.23 for "advice and
support in the implementation of IT systems". What was the
firm's involvement, if any, in the Case Management System? If
there was none, can you provide some detail on what work Deloitte
& Touche did for the Office please.
The Northern Ireland Office Implementation Team,
which represented key stakeholders, NIO, ICPC, RUC, Police Authority,
Police Staff Association and others, was charged with the responsibility
of setting up the Office and its systems. The Case Management
System and all associated packages were procured at that time,
and at the same time a consultancy contract with Deloitte &
Touche was entered into to ensure that there was external advice
and monitoring of the implementation of the information technology
throughout the organisation and also to ensure compliance with
the contract by the supplier of the IT (Compaq). The amount itemised
in the PQ also covered advice on a significant number of modifications
to the system which had to be improved in the course of the implementation.
GPA approved this contract and as with other contracts at the
outset of establishing the Office, the contracts transferred legally
to the Office on 6 November 2000. No current contract exists with
Deloitte & Touche.
Case Handling System
The Committee heard evidence that the Office has
a submission currently before the Northern Ireland Office for
a new IT Case handling system (Q8). Further details of justification
(both as against the inadequacies of the present system and the
functionality of the preferred replacement over alternatives),
scope and functionality of the proposed new system, implementation
timescale, capital and current costs would be most helpful.
Are you able to quantify in staff administrative
and investigative hours the savings that will arise from the new
system over the present arrangements? For the record, in setting
out your case for the Case Handling System with the NIO have the
terms of HM Treasury's Green Book and the Office of Government
Commerce Guidance been followed as appropriate?
Inadequacies of the current Case Management System
The current Case Management System records a complaint
and provides a word-processed progress log and correspondence
log for each complaint as it progresses through the Offices complaints
and investigations business processes.
The major inadequacies of the current system are:
—No investigation-processing module.
—No electronic record management module.
—No evidence/property handling module.
—No modules for: Informal Resolution, Mediation,
discipline and misconduct matters.
—No module to assist the resource intensive
preparation of outcome files and report preparation for the DPP
and PSNI.
—No trending/tracking/profiling; no management
information module; no module to enable compliance with legislative
requirements in relation to freedom of information or data protection
notifications.
—No module to report comprehensively on
a case or cases or provide statistical information or perform
other analysis of information.
At this time the Office has been informed that approval
has been given by the NIO to enter into procurement for a new
Case Handling System. The Office has no "preferred"
replacement for the Case Management System in mind, which would
in any case, contravene Governments "value for money"
guidance. The Office will embark on a full procurement process
to purchase the best solution for the Office that will meet the
requirements identified in its Requirement Specification and will
represent "value for money" and will be "fit for
purpose".
Benefits
A new Case Handling System would address the major
deficiencies outlined above but also provide the following major
benefits:
—A comprehensive and seamless complaint
handling and investigations system that will process approximately
3,000 cases per year.
—A facility to transfer and/or share information
with other agencies (eg DPP, PSNI, or the Causeway Programme).
—Effective and accurate data collection
and analysis.
—Effective management controls.
—Effective, accurate and comprehensive
reporting by the Police Ombudsman.
—Effective and efficient record management;
enhanced efficiency and effectiveness for complaints and investigation
staff and supporting staff; quality assurance.
—A system more responsive to the needs
of major stakeholders eg in its ability to report comprehensively;
increased public and police confidence in the Office.
—Reduced legal challenges.
Staff Savings
Staff efficiencies were calculated and amounted to
approximately £140,000 for the financial year 2003-04 (based
on the average salary for each grade of staff within each functional
area of the organisation). It is difficult to assess staff efficiency
benefits until new systems are implemented. However, these benefits
will be used to assist in meeting statutory requirements (such
as the investigation of police policy and practice, monitoring,
the investigation of police support staff), to provide for more
timely and comprehensive investigations, to reduce overall investigation
time, to provide for more efficient quality assurance auditing.
Scope and Functionality of New System
The scope of the Case Handling System is a complaint
processing and investigation system that will, provide comprehensive
management information, statistics and reporting, trending and
tracking to meet the requirements of all stakeholders in the Office,
the requirements of the Patten Report and to meet statutory requirements.
The new system will be used by all complaints and investigations
staff and by senior management for the processing of approximately
3,000 cases per year.
Implementation Timescale
This Case Handling System is project managed under
the PRINCE project management methodology. The project has been
broken down into five stages:
Stage 1—a project establishment phase, lasting
approximately one month and now complete.
Stage 2—an investigations phase (which includes
preparation of the requirement specification and a business case)
is complete; the business case has been submitted to the Northern
Ireland Office who have sanctioned progress to Stage 3.
Stage 3—a procurement phase planned to last
up to six months.
Stage 4—an implementation phase (for the new
Case Handling System) to last up to three months and which should
end in July 2005.
Stage 5—project closure (which includes post
project review).
Anticipated Case Handling System Capital and Recurring
Costs
The table below gives the costs for a seven-year
period.
| Total Capital Costs
| Total Revenue Costs | Total Costs
| Optimism Bias | Total Amended Costs/Net Cash Flow
| Discounted Cash Flow |
| £ | £
| £ | £
| £ | £
|
| 1,339,302 | 1,065,253 | 2,404,555
| 216,410 | 2,620,965 | 2,472,989
|
HM Treasury Green Book
In preparing the business case for a Case Handling System the
Office has followed the HM Treasury Guidance contained in the
"The Green Book" (Appraisal and Evaluation in Central
Government).
Office of Government Commerce Guidance
The Case Handling System project was subject to the government's
Gateway Review process. It was subject to Gateway Review 1 (business
justification) by a trained and external Gateway Reviewer and
passed.
Performance Methodology
Tables 9.1 and 9.2 of the Annual Report 2002-03 (pages 42-43)
contained 22 named Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) with targets
and progress columns. It would be extremely helpful to have background
on the decision not to name any KPIs in the Annual Report 2003-04,
or to roll the previous year's KPIs forward; also for the reason
for the decision to replace the KPIs with what appears to be an
updated version of the "Objectives" table from last
year's Corporate Business Plan (pages 104-106). Are there plans
to stabilise the presentation of data as between the various publications
to ensure the clearest year on year presentation?
Could the results of some of the objectives and targets set
out in the Annual Report 2003-04 have been quantified? For example,
on page 46 of the Annual Report 2003-04 a target is set out of
carrying out 10 quality assurance audits on investigations by
March 2004. The comment provided on page 47 does not tell the
reader how many audits were actually carried out in that period.
Again, the objective of reducing the "average completion
time for investigation to 90 working days . . ." (page 46)
receives the comment "Average completion time for investigation
reducing" (page 47) which does not identify quantitatively
the Office's actual level of success. Does the Office have the
intention of refining its performance indicators to make them
more transparent and conform to SMART criteria?
It is correct that the current Annual Report 2003-04 did not provide
a summary of performance as presented in the two previous reports,
but the report on pages 46-49 provides a detailed summary of progress
and achievement in relation to all identified targets or indicators
as set out in the Corporate Plan for 2003-04.
The key performance indicators as listed in the previous reports
related in the main to administrative and efficiency targets.
For example, answering calls to the Office promptly, seeing complainants
promptly, quick allocation of work, making initial contact with
complainants, supplying statistical reports on time etc. These
indicators were particularly important as the Office was setting
up its systems and procedures and continue to be monitored on
a six monthly basis. However, the targets and indicators in relation
to objectives, more and more, must relate to core performance
issues and outcomes. The Directors have developed a quarterly
performance management report within which there is a summary
of the key performance indicators which are now central to the
effectiveness of the Office. A summary of these is attached for
information.
One of the major indicators for the Office from the outset has
been to register and quantify the level of complaints being made
by the public against the police and this has been clearly done
in all the Annual Reports with comparisons for the previous years
prior to the Office coming into existence. This, however, is now
summarised as a Key Performance Indicator in its own right. Again,
in line with the statutory requirement on the Office to secure
confidence of the public in the working of the Office, independent
measurement through public survey has been carried out each year
since the opening of the Office. A summary of the published results
of those surveys has been included in the Annual Reports. Yet
again this is now identified as a Key Performance Indicator in
its own right.
With regard to the average time taken to investigate a complaint,
in the first two years of the life of the Office we were measuring
an average performance of 144 days. With developments and training
within the Office the average time by the end of 2003 had reduced
to an average of 99 days. The average time is continuing to fall
but over the past year we have also established that some of the
waiting time involved in investigations, for example where a file
is with the DPP, is outwith the control of the Office and in fairness
to the investigators involved, such time should be extracted from
the figures. The new case handling system envisaged for the Office
would be able to track and identify such performance issues more
accurately. It was only for this reason that we felt it was unfair
to staff to put a figure in a current report.
The target set by the Professional Standards to undertake 10 quality
assurance audits during 2003-04 was achieved and these are listed
below.
Ten quality assurance audits were carried out during the year
in question. They related to:
—Thematic inspections (3 in total) on quality of closure
letters following investigations.
—Inspection on consistency of format and content of
memoranda (S59(2)).
—Thematic inspection on closure categories used in investigations.
—Thematic inspection on frequency of updates to members.
—Thematic inspection on frequency of updates to complainants.
—Audit of recording of Chief Constable referrals.
—Thematic inspection on correctness of issues identified
in investigations.
—Inspection of accuracy of data put on CMS by Complaints
Office.
—Inspection of suitability of informal resolution referrals.
The office has refined its performance indicators as demonstrated
in its Annual Business Plans for 2000-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04.
On all occasions SMART criteria were used. The business processes
of the Office have changed as a consequence of legislative change
and also as a result of research and consultation with stakeholders.
It is hoped that now that the Office has been well established
and is moving into a period of stability, it will be possible
to achieve greater continuity and consistency in the objectives,
targets and by performance indicators set.
Does the Office have plans to monitor the efficiency of its
operations using standard methodology, for example, by cost per
inquiry received, ratio of administrative to investigative staff,
cost per investigation?
The Office has the capacity within its financial monitoring to
detail all costs and expenditure across 22 cost centres. On a
monthly and quarterly basis, managers review costs within Directorates,
within teams, within functions, and can extract detailed information
in relation to every member of staff. It is possible, for example,
to isolate the average cost connected with the receipt and administration
of all complaints. It is possible to determine the total costs
of an investigation team and give an average cost for each closed
or each new complaint handled within a period of time. It is possible
to highlight central or corporate costs, for example, Legal Services,
staff training and development etc. In your question you ask,
for example, the ratio of administrative to investigation staff.
We can identify such figures exactly. For example, in one investigation
team the percentage of resources in relation to administrative
staffing is 5.9% and 94.1% investigation. In another team it is
7.2% against 92.8%. What is not possible, with the existing Case
Management System, is the ability to link or track specific costs
for each individual investigation or complaint handled or to attribute
related core or corporate costs.
Can you please identify what "direct case investigations
costs" are, and the reasons for their increase from £54,697
in 2002-03 to £90,084 in 2003-04 (Annual Report 2003-04,
page 67)?
Direct Investigation costs include items such as forensic examination
costs, the costs of medical referrals and doctors' reports etc.
The costs in 2003-04 relate mainly to forensic costs amounting
to £67,000. However, the forensic costs in 2003-04 include
significant payments for forensic work carried out in the previous
financial year (approximately £34,000) for which invoices
had not been issued within that period.
The costs in 2002-03 also relate mainly to forensic reports £34k.
One of the Office's targets is to "increase percentages
of resources specified as intensive by July 2003"; and the
Annual Report contains the comment that "31% of resources"
are "going into complex and intensive investigations"
(Annual Report 2003-04, pages 46, 47). It would be useful if you
could define what is meant by "intensive" investigations;
clarify and quantify the 31% of resources, and say why it is desirable
to resource such investigations at this particular level?
We were rather uncertain about the funding of "retrospective
cases". It seems that the Office is "not funded"
to deal with "some of our retrospective cases" (Q 65;
also Q 68), and we would be grateful for an expansion of this
point. What was the basis for not asking for additional funding,
particularly where there seems still to be a delay in such cases
(Q 65), despite there apparently being "some" budget
"flexibility" (Q 68)?
Approximately 30% of our investigation resources are currently
being used in respect of historic and special investigations,
which are very resource-intensive. Resource intensive investigations
are those investigations which are more complex in nature, often
involving a death and often relating to an incident or incidents
in the past. The 31% of resources which were allocated to these
investigations in 2003-04 represented the proportion of investigative
staff resource which was directed at these investigations. In
relation to the overall expenditure 20% of total resources were
allocated to these investigations.
By the very nature of the complaints and allegations made, historic
investigations are of a serious nature. A small percentage of
our current resources also involve serious matters requiring intensive
resources. The Office has developed a Major Incident Room (MIR)
to conduct and facilitate these complex investigations. The staffing
of the MIR room and all current investigations follow best practice
recommendations.
The Office is funded by Grant in Aid from the NIO. It is a matter
for this Office how to allocate the resources which are granted
to it to address the competing priorities which are faced. The
Office must do this in the context of long term planning. While
additional resources have not been requested to deal with retrospective
cases specifically, in 2003-04 a bid for additional resources
was approved by the NIO and an amount of £250,000 was approved.
Approval was granted to carry this resource forward into the current
financial period.
Can you please say what the current positioning relation to
Investors in People accreditation is? Has there been some slippage
in the timetable which the Office has set itself and, if so, why
has this happened (Annual Report 2003-04, pages 48, 49)?
The Office underwent an initial assessment by an IIP assessor
in February 2004. There are 12 indicators to the IIP National
Standard. At the date of the assessment nine were assessed as
having adequate or strong evidence. In three areas the evidence
needs to be stronger to achieve formal recognition to the standard.
In response to the interim report the Office has consulted with
staff in relation to the areas in which the assessor had not been
able to identify adequate evidence in support of the standard.
It is now planned to undertake the complete assessment within
the current financial year.
When will you be appointing the independent element on the
Audit Committee? What is the process of that appointment? How
is independence to be assured? (Annual Report 2003-04, page 57)
The Office has recently completed the appointment of the two independent
non-executive members to its audit committee. These appointments
were made in conjunction with the Public Appointments Unit within
the Northern Ireland Office, which holds a register of those interested
in public service. The Unit identified from its register a list
of individuals who were deemed to be suitably qualified. These
individuals were contacted and asked if they wished to indicate
an interest in the role of independent non-executive audit committee
member. Background to the Office, its functions and the Audit
Committee were provided. Those individuals who expressed an interest
were interviewed by a panel constituted of Audit Committee members,
who sought to ensure that the individuals concerned were competent
and knowledgeable in relation to matters of corporate governance.
The members have now taken up their position, one has already
attended the recent Committee and the next Committee will be chaired
by one of the independent members.
It would be most helpful to have more details of the Office's
actions to address "risk management" in particular "Business
Continuity Plans" (Annual Report 2003-04, page 57)
The Office completed the development of its risk management process
during the 2003-04 financial year. A risk register has been established
which details the key strategic risks in the Office and is underpinned
by a detailed operational risk register. The risk register was
presented to the Audit Committee on 21 October 2003. This register
is subject to a continual review process. The risk management
process in place in the Office was subject of an internal audit
report during 2003-04, which confirmed that the processes used
for developing the risk strategy and registers are sound. This
report, however, indicated that whilst there has been some business
continuity planning, the issue had not yet been fully addressed
by the Office. A business continuity plan for the Office is to
be developed within the current financial cycle which will document
the appropriate actions in the event of a major unforeseen problem.
The Risk Management Register can be shared with your Committee
(in confidence) if you require.
Employment
The staff comprises 59% male and 41% female. Is this balance
reflected in the grades of male and female staff across the Office?
In overall terms the breakdown of staff employed in the Office
on the basis of gender is 41% female to 59% male. Further analysis
by grade indicates that there are variations in the proportions
of male to female staff employed, however it is important to consider
the impact on statistical analysis when completed on a small population.
There are however acknowledged variations. Female staff are least
well represented at B1 and B2 grade which is directly related
to the fact that such grades are constituted significantly by
investigative staff. The pool of candidates for investigative
posts has been consistently been constituted of a high proportion
of males. The Office has sought to address this imbalance as far
as is possible by stating when advertising such posts that applications
are particularly welcome from women. The statistical profile of
the staff in the Office is kept under review and indeed as an
employer in Northern Ireland information on the profile of staff
in the Office is provided on an annual basis to Equality Commission
for Northern Ireland by way of a Fair Employment Monitoring Return
as at 31 January 2004.
| Actual Numbers
| | Percentage
|
| Male | Female
| Totals | Male |
Female |
| Grade A and above | 6 | 3
| 9 | 67% | 33%
|
| B1 | 7 | 1 |
8 | 87.5% | 12.5% |
| B2 | 30 | 8 |
38 | 79% | 21% |
| C | 25 | 18 |
43 | 58% | 42% |
| D1 | 2 | 17 |
19 | 11% | 89% |
| D2 | 3 | 3 |
6 | 50% | 50% |
| Totals | 73 | 50
| 123 | 59% | 41%
|
"WHISTLE BLOWING"
Does your Office have any policy in respect of "whistle
blowing" by police officers?
The Police Service of Northern Ireland also has a defined policy
on "Whistle blowing". This enables staff of the PSNI
to report wrongdoing.The PSNI are currently contracted to a private
sector firm known as Safecall. Safecall has a 24/7 responsibility
for issues such as reporting wrongdoing, grievances and other
issues that affect staff of the PSNI. Information reported via
Safecall with regards to any potential or alleged wrongdoing by
officers of the PSNI is passed on to the Police Ombudsman. This
information is normally passed through the bronze group meetings
held between the intelligences officers of the Police Ombudsman
and IIB. It is welcomed and used in appropriate ways and may lead
to investigation.
The Office of the Police Ombudsman also has a stated commitment
within its Fraud Policy, that "whistleblowing" is a
legitimate procedure which enables employees to raise concerns
in relation to any unlawful conduct, financial malpractice or
danger to the public or the environment. There is guidance in
relation to how any such matter will be handled and the necessary
and appropriate protection to employees who act in good faith
even if they are mistaken.
COMPLAINTS/ALLEGATIONS
Since 2001-02 complaints and allegations have fallen. What
in your view is the significance of the difference in the rates
of decline of complaints and allegations; what weight is given
to allegations and what to complaints in taking a view of the
changes in the quality of policing which may be reflected in these
figures; is there a statistical, or otherwise demonstrable, direct
relationship being claimed by the Office between these figures
and the impact of the Office on policing in Northern Ireland?
Have you found any confusion arising from keeping statistics in
the form of both complaints and allegations?
This Office keeps statistics in the form of both complaints and
allegations. This is the format required by the Home Office and
facilitates comparison between forces in the United Kingdom. A
complaint about the conduct of a member of the Police Service
which is made by or on behalf of a member of the public may contain
one or more allegations. The terminology does however give rise
to some confusion on occasion. It might be preferable to count
complainants and their allegations. This would give a set of data
which would be more comprehensible to the public.
The decline in complaints/allegations recorded in conjunction
with a 12% decrease in the number of oppressive behaviour allegations
and an 8% increase in allegations relating to failures in duty,
constitutes a major shift in the pattern and nature of complaints.
The decline in complaints must in part reflect the fact that when
the Office opened on 6 November 2000 there were some 13,000 officers
serving in the RUC. There are currently some 9,200 officers serving
in the PSNI. In addition, the reduction in allegations of baton
misuse is significant (419 in the period November 2000 to March
2002, 240 in 2003 and 148 in 2004). Combined with a demonstrable
reduction in firearm discharges, and the fact that baton rounds
have not been used for two years, the figures represent, in the
view of this Office, progress towards normalisation of policing.
It is the case that whilst the volume of complaints has reduced
by 17% from 2001-02, the volume of allegations has shown only
a 5% decrease. This would seem to reflect a situation in which
single complaints increasingly containing more than one allegation.
To some extent this may be accounted for by the fact that over
the years Police Ombudsman staff have become more proficient in
identifying and recording allegations. It could also in part be
explained by the increase (11%) between 2001 and 2004 in complaints
being made directly to the Police Ombudsman's Office either in
person or by telephone (with associated decrease in complaints
being made at police stations 46% in 2001 as against 30% in 2004).
On such occasions Police Ombudsman staff record comprehensive
details of all allegations.
The overall changes in the level of complaints and other trends
and patterns identified above are significant but it is not possible
to argue with any authority that the changes are as a consequence
only of the establishment and the actions of the Office of the
Police Ombudsman, nor would we wish to do so. We are sure and
there is supporting evidence that we have contributed to improvements
and changes illustrated but it must be acknowledged that the changing
situation in Northern Ireland, the change in focus and commitment
of PSNI, the work of the Oversight Commission, the better governance
arrangements under the Police Acts are all working together to
create a better policing environment and confidence for the public
and the police in Northern Ireland.
CS SPRAY
Was the Office consulted on the decision to purchase CS spray
for the PSNI? If so, what locus does the Office have for taking
a view, and on what research was any view by the Office given?
When the Office opened staff very quickly became aware that the
level of allegations of misuse of batons by police officers was
forty times the national average. Police officers in Northern
Ireland were six times more likely to be injured than their counterparts
in England and Wales. A Research Project was conducted which identified
a number of causes for this high level of use of force complaints.
The Research Report was provided to the Committee and is Document
No 4.
We considered the options available to police in conflict situations.
Following consideration of the options available, I have expressed
the view that CS spray, which is widely used in England and Wales,
should be made available to the PSNI. My locus derives from my
functions under the Police (NI) Act 1998.
COMPLAINTS TO
THE SECRETARY
OF STATE
The Committee heard evidence that complaints had been made
to the Secretary of State (Q 59). It would be helpful if this
comment could be expanded upon. For example, presumably you receive
routine notification by the NIO where the Secretary of State has
received a complaint about the Office. Where a complainant remains
unsatisfied by the Office and complains subsequently to the Secretary
of State, are you aware of what processes are undertaken in arriving
at a decision by the Secretary of State about whether or not to
call in an independent person to investigate?
The Secretary of State will, of course, receive correspondence
or representations regarding the Office. His office may deal with
the matter without reference to this Office, for example, where
it is a general complaint about the powers of the Office. If,
however, the matter relates to a complaint, for example, regarding
the conduct of an investigation, the officials will seek clarification
or information either through the Police Ombudsman or the Chief
Executive, before responding to the person. Often the nature of
a complaint to the Secretary of State relates to an issue of policing
and again the officials will seek clarification as to whether
the Police Ombudsman is investigating the particular matter and,
if so, the Secretary of State will not cut across that process.
To date the Police Ombudsman believes that she has been able to
satisfy any matter referred to her from the Secretary of State's
office and to our knowledge, there is no outstanding complaint
to the Secretary of State on which a response is being required
from the Police Ombudsman. Obviously within the general power
of the Secretary of State to enquire into any matter under his
ministerial jurisdiction, he could call in an independent person.
Thus far this has not happened.
"DISMISSED"
Reference was made in evidence to "dealing with the complaints
that we have dismissed a member of staff on the foot of a police
officer's complaint" (Q 60). It would be helpful to have
elaboration.
The Police Ombudsman takes all complaints made by members of PSNI
very seriously—the integrity of the staff of the Office
must be beyond reproach and all complaints are investigated thoroughly
and transparently. A complaint was received from a member of PSNI
in respect of the conduct of a member of investigations staff
of this Office. Following a disciplinary investigation the member
of staff was dismissed in March 2003 for gross misconduct. The
dismissal of this individual has been referred to the Office of
Industrial Tribunals and the matter cannot therefore be further
discussed.
INFORMATION AND
MEDIA
Costs under these heads increased from £64,549 to £107,323
(Annual Report 2003-04, page 67). What were the reasons for the
increase?
The increase in costs of information and media relate to two specific
areas of expenditure. In 2003-04 the Office prepared a publication
marking the 3rd anniversary of the life of the Office which was
widely circulated as a source of information. 110,000 documents
were provided free with the Belfast Telegraph and a further 10,000
documents made available to the Office for general distribution.
This expenditure was £24,675. In addition to this the Office
re-designed and re-launched its website at a cost of approximately
£11,000. The value of this investment has subsequently been
demonstrated by a 450% increase in the number of "hits"
since the website was re-launched.
20 December 2004
SUMMARY OF KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2004-05
| KPI 1 | Work with the police in decreasing the number of situations which give rise to members of the public making complaints.
|
| Benchmarks 2003—3,193; 2004—2,976
|
| Last two quarters show only minimal decrease
|
| KPI 2 | Work with the police in decreasing the number of situations giving rise to serious allegations against the police.
|
| Benchmarks 2002—50%; 2003—40%; 2004—37%
|
| Current quarter oppressive complaints down to 35%
|
| KPI 3 | Maximise the level of informal resolution of suitable complaints.
|
| Current 2004 target 72%
|
| KPI 4 | Contribute to overall improvement in policing policy and practice.
|
| Continuing progress, recommendations for improvement as listed in appendix
|
| KPI 5 | Monitor and report on multiple complaints against officers to PSNI and District Command Units.
|
| Monthly reports to Commanders
|
| Currently 95-100 officers with three or more complaints in last 12 months
|
| KPI 6 | Improve timeliness in the administration and investigation of complaints improving.
|
| Current average investigation time 99 days
|
| KPI 7 | Improve timeliness of updating complainants and police officers in progress of complaints or investigations.
|
| Current target not less than six weekly intervals
|
| KPI 8 | Maintain public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the Office as measured against the results in the public survey published in April 2004.
|
| Awareness—85%
|
| Impartiality—76%
|
| Independence—85%
|
| KPI 9 | Improve awareness, understanding and confidence of Police Officers in the independence and impartiality of the Office as measured against survey results released in March 2004.
|
| Impartiality—13%
|
| Independence—55%
|
| KPI 10 | Contribute to the Government Public Service Agreement target of improving public confidence in Policing by 3%.
|
| Public confidence in helping police do a better job
|
| Current target—79%
|
| KPI 11 | Comply with Patten Recommendations and report accordingly to the OOC.
|
| Report to Oversight Commissioner in April 2004 and again in September 2004
|
| KPI 12 | Prioritise and maximise the ability of the Office to address complex investigations within available resources.
|
| Already progressed
|
| Realignment of resources to complex investigations achieved, additional staff in place
|
| KPI 13 | Develop a comprehensive framework and programme for the investigation of policy and practice matters.On target
|
| First investigation being processed
|
| KPI 14 | Introduction of effective mediation processes.
|
| Not yet achieved
|
| Requiring primary legislation, but other plans and agreements being progressed with PSNI.
|
| KPI 15 | Consult about, approve and implement a new Code of Ethics for staff of the Police
Ombudsman.On target
|
| Code subject of final consultations
|
| KPI 16 | Plan, manage and monitor expenditure within 2% of financial approvals and baselines.
|
| On target
|
| Refer to budget reports
|
| KPI 17 | Over three years, train and externally accredit at least 75% of investigators through the programme agreed.
|
| 20% of investigators through first year of programme
|
| Further 23% of investigators enrolled for year two
|
| KPI 18 | Review internal policies in compliance with Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act
|
| Impact Assessment Survey on Public Awareness Survey completed and
results made available to Commission
|
| KPI 19 | Analyse and improve risk management controlsOn target
|
| Risk Register being reviewed and presented to Audit Committee October 2004
|
| KPI 20 | Conduct review of Security Policy and Procedures in compliance with Manual of Protective Security.Already progressed
|
| Review undertaken and report submitted to Protective Security Service, June 2004
|
| KPI 21 | Procure new Case Handling System by end of March 2005.
|
| On target
|
| Business Case now agreed in principle by Department
|
| KPI 22 | Establish a Working Committee in conjunction with Police and police staff associations and strengthen working arrangements.
|
| Committee established and initial work agreed
|
| KPI 23 | Publish Corporate Plan, Annual Report and Statement of Accounts by agreed deadlines.
|
| Corporate Plan May 2004, target achieved
|
| Annual Report and Accounts July 2004, achieved
|
| |
1
Not printed. Back
| 
