Evidence submitted by the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
SUMMARY
(1) Where a death follows contact with the
police and there is reason to believe that the contact may have
caused or contributed to the death, the IPCC is responsible for
ensuring the death is properly investigated (either by itself
or by the police). It takes the place of the police at inquests
where the IPCC has conducted the investigation itself or managed
the investigation by the police.
(2) The IPCC also has a duty to advise on
changes needed to police practice in the light of its experience.
(3) It would help the IPCC in performing
these functions to have the right to play a part in inquests where
the IPCC has carried out or instigated an independent or managed
investigation.
(4) Where the IPCC has carried out the investigation
into the death in question coroners need to be sufficiently resourced
to undertake responsibility for provision of documents to properly
interested persons and storage of documents and exhibits.
(5) Coroners should have the same right
as a relevant judge to order disclosure to themselves of intercept
material.
INTRODUCTION
1. This submission outlines the role and
responsibilities of the Independent Police Complaints Commission
(IPCC) in relation to deaths and highlights areas where changes
to the existing coroners system would assist the IPPC in performing
its functions.
2. The IPCC was established under Part 2
of the Police Reform Act 2002 with a broad remit in relation to
police misconduct and complaints about the police. It has a general
duty to secure, and maintain public confidence in, the proper
handling of complaints about the police and, in doing so, to contribute
to increasing confidence in policing as a whole.
3. More specifically, its functions include
investigating certain conduct matters of a serious nature. Any
death following some form of direct or indirect contact with the
police where there is reason to believe that the contact may have
caused or contributed to the death must be referred to the IPCC,
regardless of whether there has been a complaint.
4. The IPCC must then determine how the
death is to be investigated. An investigation may be independent
(conducted by the IPCC itself), managed (conducted by the same
or a different police force but managed by the IPCC), supervised
(conducted by the same or a different police force but supervised
by the IPCC) or conducted by the police force itself.
5. Where an investigation into a death is
conducted or instigated by the IPCC, the coroner will normally
adjourn the inquest until the investigation has been completed.
If the IPCC concludes as a result of the investigation that anyone
serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence,
it will refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service. The
IPCC also has the power to recommend, and ultimately direct, that
disciplinary proceedings be undertaken.
6. Where the investigation is carried out
by the IPCC independently, or conducted by the police but managed
by the IPCC, the IPCC in effect replaces the police as the body
charged with investigating the death for the benefit of the coroner.
Consequently, at the inquest it performs the function which would
otherwise be undertaken by the police.
7. Since assuming this responsibility, the
IPCC has developed a good working relationship with coroners.
On specific inquests and more generally through the medium of
the Coroners Society the IPCC collaborates with coroners and consults
and assists where necessary. The IPCC and the Coroners Society
have recently agreed a Memorandum of Understanding that covers
issues of common concern.
8. The IPCC also has a wider responsibility
to recommend and advise on changes needed, in the light of its
experience, to police practice and to the arrangements for handling
and investigating complaints and conduct matters. It is a prime
function of the IPCC's broad guardianship role in respect of complaints
to identify and spread best practice and ensure the appropriate
lessons are learnt at both a national and local level when mistakes
are made.
9. The IPCC is developing considerable expertise
into deaths following contact with the police. This is particularly
the case in respect of fatal shootings, where the IPCC as a matter
of course carries out the investigation itself. Since the IPCC
started on 1 April 2004 there have been eight fatal shootings
and through its investigations the IPCC is accumulating a body
of advice as to the policies and practices to be followed by the
police that can be of relevance in inquests.
10. The IPCC welcomes the changes proposed
in the Briefing Note on Coroners Service Reform recently issued
by the Department of Constitutional Affairs and anticipates that
they will lead to a significant improvement in the service.
PROPERLY INTERESTED
PERSON
11. There are occasions when the IPCC needs
an opportunity to examine witnesses at an inquest. For example:
— The IPCC, through its developing
expertise, can assist coroners to satisfy their obligation under
Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to investigate
effectively where a death has occurred from contact with state
employees.
— The IPCC as the investigating body
may need to be able to question witnesses in order to deal with
issues that have arisen in the course of questioning by others.
— IPCC involvement can provide the
necessary balance in the context of proceedings that are adversarial
in nature, particularly where the family does not have legal representation.
— Where procedures and policies followed
by the police are at issue, the IPCC can use its questioning to
ensure that the lessons learnt during its investigation are being
applied and any recommendations implemented. In this way, the
IPCC can assist the Coroner in identifying where action should
be taken by the Coroner under rule 43 of the Coroners Rules in
order to prevent similar fatalities.
12. Even in cases of death following contact
with the police where the IPCC rather than the police is responsible
for the investigation into the death, the IPCC has no automatic
right to play a part in the inquest. Rule 20(2)(a) to (g) of the
Coroners Rules lists those who have; others can only do so if
they are, in the opinion of the coroner, properly interested persons.
The chief officer of police is included in the list at Rule 20(2)(g)
and thus has an automatic right to be a party to the inquest,
whereas the IPCC is dependent on the coroner taking the view that
it is a properly interested person. Where the IPCC performs the
function of the police at inquests, the IPCC needs to have the
same right. This would also assist the IPCC to make a valuable
contribution on lessons to be learnt.
13. The IPCC submits that it would be appropriate
to change the Coroners Rules to provide that, where the IPCC has
conducted or managed an investigation, the IPCC has an automatic
right to play this part in the inquest.
APPOINTMENT OF
JUDGES
14. Death Certification and Investigation
in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Report of a Fundamental
Review 2003 (Cm 5831) recommended that exceptionally complex
or contentious inquests should be taken by suitably trained Circuit
Judges and still more complex inquests should be heard by suitably
prepared High Court Judges, each sitting as a coroner. This view
was endorsed by Leveson J in R (on the application of Sharman)
v HM Coroner for Inner North London [2005] EWHC 857 (Admin) who
took the view that judicial oversight was needed in such cases
at a much higher level than coroners were equipped to provide.
We note the Government's intention to provide for judges, or counsel
to inquests, to be appointed in particularly complex cases. The
IPCC supports the call for a judge to be appointed to sit as coroner
in particularly sensitive or complex inquests.
15. At present, the rules as to appointment
of a judge are unclear. We submit that there needs to be a clear
system in place for referral of an inquest to a judge with guidance
as to when it would be appropriate. Any such system should allow
interested parties to make representations as to the need for
a judge.
RESOURCES
16. Until 1 April 2004 investigations into
deaths arising from or involving contact with the police were
investigated by the police themselves, usually by officers from
a different force and under the supervision of the Police Complaints
Authority. The handling and storage of exhibits was the responsibility
of the police service and therefore it was possible for arrangements
to be made to store exhibits securely near to the location of
any inquest.
17. The Police Reform Act 2002 was designed
to increase public confidence by enhancing the independence of
investigations into such deaths. In most cases to date the IPCC
has undertaken the investigation itself, using trained IPCC investigators
working out of five regional offices. The police welcome this
development and are already seeing the benefits of an accumulating
expertise. Since 1 April 2004, the IPCC has undertaken investigation
into eight fatal shootings by the police. Some of those concerned
forces where a fatal shooting had not occurred before and which
therefore had no experience of such investigations.
18. However, the use of the IPCC has thrown
up issues relating to the circulation of documents and the secure
and proximate holding of exhibits in relation to inquests. The
amount of copying involved can be expensive and time-consuming
and storage facilities for documents and exhibits may not be readily
available. In a recent case, photocopying costs alone amounted
to some £5,000 (not counting the cost of the investigator's
additional time). Storage of the documents and exhibits (which
in this case involved a firearm and swords) was equally problematic
as the IPCC had no offices within easy reach. Eventually the weapons
were stored at local naval facilities and the remaining exhibits
shared between CPS offices, the coroner's personal office and
the Lord Mayor's offices; however, this meant the IPCC could not
guarantee the integrity of the exhibits.
19. It would seem inconsistent with the
aims of the Police Reform Act 2002 to revert to the previous use
of local police stations for storage or to use them for the copying
of documents to interested persons. The best way to reconcile
independence and public confidence with the efficiency and effectiveness
of inquests is to provide for secure holding of exhibits at coroners'
courts and to provide coroners with the resources needed to undertake
provision of documents.
20. The IPCC notes the Government's intention
that the coroners system remain local and submits that sufficient
funding should be provided at a local level to provide coroners
with the support needed to undertake administrative responsibilities
of this nature.
INTERCEPT MATERIAL
21. In the interests of justice, it is the
IPCC's practice is to pass to the coroner all documents touching
the cause of or circumstances surrounding the death in question.
There may, however, be occasions where telephone and other intercepts
are relevant to an investigation conducted or managed by the IPCC.
It would appear that, in those circumstances, under the Regulation
of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 the IPCC would not be able to
disclose the intercept material to the coroner or even do or say
anything that would suggest the intercept had occurred.
22. Under that Act, a relevant judge can
order disclosure of such material to himself/herself if satisfied
that the exceptional circumstances of the case make the disclosure
essential in the interests of justice. "Relevant judge"
includes a High Court, Crown Court and Circuit judge. There is
no comparable right for a coroner to order disclosure (to the
coroner).
23. In order to avoid misleading the coroner
the IPCC must ensure that the investigation report and any evidence
presented to the coroner is in accordance with the intercept material
in question. However, there may be circumstances where the inability
to disclose intercept material leads to injustice nonetheless;
for example, there might be a verdict of unlawful killing following
investigation into a death at the hands of the police where disclosure
of intercept evidence suggesting a real and present threat might
have led to a different verdict. If there is no subsequent prosecution,
the officer in question would not have an opportunity to clear
his name.
24. Moreover, in the absence of full criminal
proceedings the inquest will normally be the means by which the
state discharges its obligation under Article 2 of the European
Convention on Human Rights to initiate an effective and independent
public investigation into a death involving agents of the state.
If such investigation is flawed because the coroner is not in
possession of all the relevant evidence, this may place the state
in breach of Article 2.
25. It is submitted that the potential for
injustice where intercept material is concerned would be mitigated
if the same exceptions that apply to relevant judges were also
available to coroners.
John Wadham
Deputy Chair
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
February 2006
| 
