Memorandum submitted by the Independent
Police Complaints Commission
SUMMARY
The primary statutory function of the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is to secure and maintain
public confidence in the handling of public complaints against
the police and police misconduct matters. The IPCC also has a
responsibility for investigating incidents involving death or
serious injury during or following contact with the police. Despite
the fact that inquests are independent of such investigations,
the public understandably look at the process as a whole with
the result that any failings in the inquest process impact on
confidence in both the police complaints system and wider police
service as a whole.
The IPCC has concerns regarding Clauses 11-13
of the Coroners and Justice Bill (the Bill) which make provision
for non-jury inquests in certain cases. The IPCC recognises the
difficulties there are regarding cases involving the use of intercept
material but does not believe there is any requirement for non-jury
inquests for deaths following police contact in any other circumstances.
In addition, the IPCC has concerns about the
lack of provision for consultation as part of the certification
process and would welcome a commitment from the Secretary of State
to formally consult the IPCC before certifying any inquest into
a death the IPCC had investigated.
THE INDEPENDENT
POLICE COMPLAINTS
COMMISSION (IPCC)
1. The Independent Police Complaints Commission,
which operates in England and Wales only, became operational in
April 2004, succeeding the Police Complaints Authority. The IPCC
was created by the Police Reform Act 2002 as a Non-Departmental
Public Body (NDPB) to deal with complaints and allegations of
misconduct against police in England and Wales.
2. More recently the IPCC's remit has been extended
to include the investigation of serious allegations against officers
of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), HM Revenue and Customs
and the UK Border Agency.
3. The IPCC is overseen by a Board of Commissioners
appointed by the Home Secretary. By law, Commissioners must never
have worked for the police service in any capacity. They are the
public, independent face of the IPCC.
4. The IPCC's powers include:
— Investigative powers: the IPCC may
independently investigate cases, oversee police investigations
of cases, or leave cases to be locally investigated by the police
without oversight;
— An appeal function whereby complaints
who are unhappy with how the police dealt with their complaint
may appeal to the IPCC; and
— The power to direct a force to convene
a disciplinary tribunal and, in exceptional cases, may direct
that the tribunal be held in public.
5. The IPCC has a statutory responsibility to
increase public confidence in the police complaints system. To
assist in meeting this responsibility the IPCC has a guardianship
function which consists of four main elements:
— A duty to increase public confidence
in the system as a whole;
— Promoting accessibility of the complaints
system;
— Setting, monitoring, inspecting and
reviewing standards for the operation of the whole system; and
— Promoting a learning culture so that
lessons may be learnt from the system.
ARTICLE 2 ISSUES
6. The IPCC's responsibility for investigation
of deaths following police contact arises from the state's obligations
under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to
ensure that where someone has died during or following contact
with the police, including fatal use of force cases, an effective
and independent investigation takes place.
7. European and domestic case law requires that
when Article 2 is engaged that five procedural obligations are
met. They are:
— The investigation must be independent.
In other words there should be no hierarchical or institutional
link between the investigator and the person who is the subject
of the investigation;
— The investigation must be effective
in that it must be capable of identifying the culpability of anyone
involved in causing the death and holding them to account if necessary;
— The investigation must be reasonably
prompt;
— There must be a sufficient element
of public scrutiny; and
— The next of kin must be involved
to an appropriate extent.
It is in relation to the last two headings that
the IPCC has particular concerns if non-jury inquests are held
and relevant information is not disclosed to the next of kin or
the public. In the view of the IPCC such an event would not meet
those two procedural obligations.
8. Investigations into the fatal use of force
attract significant public interest and their outcome has a major
impact on public confidence not just in the complaints system
as a whole but also in the way in which the police discharge some
of their most critical responsibilities.
9. Under the Bill, there will normally be an
obligation on coroners to hold an inquest with a jury in such
cases. Despite the fact that investigations into deaths during
or following police contact and inquests are independent of each
other, the public understandably look at the process as a whole
with the result that any failings in or difficulties with the
inquest process also impact on confidence in the IPCC and police
complaints regime generally.
CORONERS REFORM
Provisions for non-jury inquests
10. Clauses 11 to 13 of the Bill propose that
in certain cases an inquest will proceed in the absence of a jury.
Those cases include, but are not limited to, those where intercept
material informed the police operation that resulted in the fatality.
At the present time, the nature and the existence of that intelligence
cannot be disclosed to either a coroner or a jury because of section
17 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
11. The IPCC currently has one case where an
inquest has not proved possible to date. This has added to the
emotional distress for those families who are entitled to know
how and why their family member died. The IPCC understand that
these clauses are partly intended to rectify that issue by providing
that the information can be made available to suitably qualified
coroners sitting without a jury and to counsel to the inquest.
12. The IPCC recognises the very real difficulty
the government has. The relevant material might have been obtained
by a covert human intelligence source or "CHIS" and
even to reveal the existence of such a person might put their
lives in danger. Surveillance might have been in progress throughout
the police operation that led to the fatality and in these circumstances
it might not be possible for police officers to discuss their
actions without revealing sensitive surveillance techniques. On
the other hand, there might be cases where the intelligence that
led to a police operation was sensitive but no such concerns would
relate to the police operation once it was in progress. None of
the arguments in this paper should be taken to imply any specific
reference to any particular IPCC case.
IPCC's concerns
13. The IPCC's concerns relate solely to inquests
arising from a death following police contact. It is recognised
that these clauses might apply to inquests held in other circumstances
of which the IPCC has no direct experience.
14. The IPCC is particularly concerned about
the wide scope of these clauses should they be used as a basis
to hold an inquest in the absence of a jury in any case where
a death has followed, whether directly or indirectly, contact
with the police and that contact has either caused or contributed
to the death.
15. The IPCC has independently investigated
and published a report on every death following the police fatal
use of force since 1 April 2004. These cases have included those
where the death occurred during a police response to organised
crime and Stockwell, which involved the police response to terrorism.
Other than the one case where the use of intercept material has
been an issue, all of the IPCC's investigations have been followed
by public inquest before a coroner sitting with a jury and the
publication of our report. Where necessary, sensitive material
has been redacted and appropriate witnesses granted anonymity.
The IPCC does not therefore believe there is any evidence to support
the view that there is any requirement for a non-jury inquest
for deaths following police contact other than where intercept
material is an issue.
16. There is no provision in the Bill for the
IPCC to be consulted as part of the certification process. This
is despite the fact that prior to the inquest, the IPCC will be
the only body in possession of all the evidence relating to the
death and so will have a relevant view on the centrality of any
sensitive material to the inquest's function. The danger of relying
solely on consultation with the relevant force is that there is
a risk that the fears of information being disclosed may be overstated.
The IPCC would therefore welcome a commitment from the Secretary
of State to formally consult the IPCC before certifying any inquest
into a death the IPCC had investigated.
March 2009
| 
