Home AffairsWritten evidence submitted by Anton Venter [IPCC 22]

I submit that I was a victim of crime committed by a senior police officer. The IPCC investigated this matter, but refused to submit the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Services despite very strong evidence which may secure a safe conviction. Correspondence is still ongoing after six and a half years. I do appreciate that this committee does not wish to investigate individual cases, but my submission will allow the committee to form a general assessment of the IPCC.

I now submit the following under the guidelines set by the Committee:

Whether the Commission has improved the scrutiny of police practices

The IPCC needs scrutinising itself before it can scrutinise anybody else. The 85% percentile of public don’t trust the IPCC at all, due to wide publicity of unfair and prejudice finding on public complaints. The other internal investigations initiated by police forces for disciplinary matter and the police officers for grievances are not attracting media attention and a public perception is drawn on what is on in the news about the IPCC.

My personal contact with the IPCC suggests that for the past six years nothing has changed and both the police and IPCC are racist toward anybody not a white british born national; and a lot of corruption occur.

The COL Police have become so confident of “obtaining” dispensations from the IPCC that complainants are informed by the concerned force that their complaint wouldn’t even be considered by the IPCC. The Police Force instead of the IPCC makes this decision on behalf of the IPCC.

It has also become clear that “outcomes” of investigations are still strongly based on the race or nationality of the complainant and “if” sanctions are instigated against officers in extraordinary cases, the officer will escape severe sanctions, if the complainant was an immigrant.

Recent Media Reports suggesting not only did scrutiny not improve, but IPCC officials made false statements about police incidents to discredit the victims. (Ian Tomlinson case and the latest the case of Mark Duggan, where the IPCC initially reported that the victim fired shots at the Police, which was certainly untrue). These are only cases which were highlighted in the media, all cases are not reported in the media and there may be many more instances of cover ups and attempts to do so by dishonest and influence IPCC officials.

I’m prepared to give oral evidence and provide copies of correspondence from Management level of the IPCC, attempting to pervert the course of justice to aid failures of a particular police force.

Whether the Commission has the right powers and resources to carry out its role rffectively

We should firstly consider whether the Commission’s existence is justified in its current form before addressing this point. The UK has a qualified judicial system with Courts and Tribunals in place, why is the IPCC needed?

1.Crimes committed by Police Officers are no different to crimes committed by other member of the public and should be addressed in the same way. Having a different body to buffer Police Officers from facing the general legal system constitutes a breach of equality and human rights legislation.

2.Employment Tribunals are in place for disputes between employers and employees about codes of conduct and disciplinary procedures. Police officers are employees. Again, why should there be a different body to deal with these matters?

3.Civil courts including small claims courts are able to deal with claims and complaints from the public, if it can’t be resolved between the Police Force and the complainant, this avenue is available for use, why have a separate publicly funded independent commission, which has many a time now proven to have been not as independent as it should be?

If this body is to be retained to relief the work load of current courts and tribunals, this IPCC could be transformed into a “Police Affairs Tribunal”, which would allow proper hearings by legally qualified personnel to do so. That would be a much more fair, transparent and efficient service than the current administrative system conducted and performed by mostly unqualified and ineffective and sometimes very dishonest personnel.

This will also bring along a lot of savings on administration of so called “investigations” as cases would have to “investigated”, researched and prepared by the parties wishing to bring and defend the actions. Because tribunals and courts makes binding and enforceable decisions, there is no need for further referrals and duplication of the process.

In its current form, the IPCC lacks the skills and experience of qualified lawyers and prosecutors to deal with cases effectively which leads to disputes lasting for years, costing a fortune.

Whether investigations lead to improvements in police practices

Whilst the police do wrong and the IPCC seeks justification for the wrong doing instead of addressing the defaults, there can never be improvement!

The IPCC can’t be trusted themselves, how can they be expected to... and be trusted to improve and rectify police malpractice?

I can by giving evidence and providing copies of management correspondence prove that top management staff members of the IPCC are dishonest and aiding police crimes, what can you expect of those led by these dishonest managers and directors? I would like to call Mr. David Knight Mr. David Ford a Director and a senior manager to testify about directed by the internal legal team to ignore legislation and case law when making decisions.

I wish to call a receptionist Mrs. Sophie Lawrence of the IPCC to give evidence about the facts that reception had instructions to in no circumstance connect any calls to management if there are complaints about IPCC staff not acting according to expected service standards.

Whether improving police services should be formally included in the Commission’s remit

Whilst my personal believe is that the QUALITY of Police Services should be improved, I believe that the Commission; if retained in its current form; should first improve its own profile, service delivery and public image before taking on this task.

I don’t think there should be any improvement in police services, but there should be improvement in the way that existing services are delivered.

The Commission’s role in scrutinising elected police commissioners

The Police Commissioner’s should be scrutinized by the community leadership and not the IPCC.

The Commission’s role in scrutinising third parties commissioned to carry out policing duties

No comment, as I don’t think that third parties should be doing police work to start off with. These parties will be difficult to hold to account for abuse and wrong doing. Lessons should have been learned from Parking Services, where the objective of road safety has been traded for boosting profits. The same will happen with the police as contractors will only deal with money generating jobs.

The Commission’s role in considering complaints which may relate in part to other bodies involved in the justice system, such as the Crown Prosecution Service

The Police and IPCC should account to the Judicial system and not the other way round. The IPCC should sort out itself firstly and get its own house in order. In a case which concerns both the IPCC and the CPS, an independent Investigator should be appointed by the relevant MP for Justice.

Whether the right balance is achieved between independent, managed and supervised investigations

1. There can be no right balance unless IPCC staff are fully trained into primary the relevant legislation in respect of the act and its regulations.

2. IPCC staff are fully trained in investigation skills.

3. Unless staff are encouraged to be honest and without prejudice during investigations.

4. Serious sanction are taken publicly against IPCC officials not complying with the law when taking decisions.

There had been a notable review of previously prejudice decisions after media intervention.

How the work of the Commission could be effectively scrutinised

1. The commission should have an component of floating board of directors which rotate monthly rather than appointed for longer periods.

2. There should be a significant number of directors from a qualified legal back ground sitting on the board as well as rotated local business leaders. The board should take note of all decisions taken.

3. Detailed return of all complaint dealt with should be made available to the Local Borough Council of the complainant’s residence and the Borough where the Police Station is located. Personal details can be anonymised and should be published. This is for public to determine trends in police and their residents’ behaviour.

June 2012

Prepared 1st February 2013