Appeal against failure to notify or record a complaint:
Statement of findings
DETAILS OF APPEAL
IPCC Reference: 2006/011814
Name of complainant: Mr Geoffrey Madden
Name of solicitor/agent (if any): None
Name of force: Sussex
Date of complaint: 30 May 2006, 26 June 2006 and 13 July 2006
Datre of force decision: 31 August 2006
Date appeal received: 2 September 2006
Casework Manager: Nick Broyd
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
1. The complaint:
The complaint relates to an incident in which the complainant, Mr Madden, alleges he was assaulted by his neighbour, C Mabry, an ex police officer, in 2002. The complainant was later charged with two counts of harassment and had property seized. Over a series of complaint letters, Mr Madden alleges police corruption, dishonesty, impartiality and damage/loss of property.
An initial complaint was made on 30 May 2006, in writing to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police. Mr Madden alleges that he was not provided with one of the four witness statements that, according to him, led to him being
arrested. The complainant believed himself to be entitled to a copy of the witness statement.
Another complaint was made on 26 June 2006 in writing to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police, stating that Sussex Police largely ignored evidence that he had submitted and had dishonestly entered against his
name fictitious information based on what the complainant describes as lies told to the police by ex policeman Mabry.
On 13 July 2006, Mr Madden made a further complaint against a PC Francis. He alleges that PC Francis wrote a fictitious report relating to the alleged assault, which the complainant signed. He also alleges that following his
subsequent charge of harassment, his property was seized and some of it damaged.
2. The appeal (grounds given etc):
The complainant's appeal reiterates the original complaints. The complainant states that as he is complaining about dishonesty and corruption in Sussex Police, he finds it intolerable that such serious complaints are brushed aside in the way that they have been.
APPEAL FINDINGS
1. Should the matter/s raised have been recorded as a complaint?
Yes, the complaints should have been recorded. The issue at stake when taking into consideration whether a complaint should be recorded or not is chiefly whether the complaint relates to matters of alleged police misconduct
or whether those matters are considered to be part of the direction and control of a particular police force. The police complaints system is concerned with the former.
For definitive purposes, direction and control can be said to be matters relating to the operation and strategy of a police force, such as, matters relating to resources. Police misconduct matters, which the IPCC has a remit
over, relates to the conduct of officers. Police misconduct may relate to a range of allegations from police incivility to a death in police custody.
In this instance the complainant alleges dishonesty and corruption, which do evoke considerations of police misconduct. In contacting the complainant, Sussex Police have informed him that his complaint is not being recorded because it is repetitious. This is not a ground for not recording a complaint. It is, however, a ground for applying to the IPCC to grant a dispensation on a complaint. Dispensation can only be applied for once a complaint has been recorded.
The fact that allegations such as these exist mean that the complaint should be recorded.
2. Did the force/authority fail to notify the appropriate authority?
No
3. Did the force/authority fail to make a determination?
No
4. Are there any points raised by the complainant outside what the IPCC can consider?
No.
On the basis of these findings, the appeal is upheld.
ACTIONS REQUIRED OF THE FORCE/AUTHORITY
• Record the complaint
• Either apply to the IPCC for a dispensation or conduct a local investigation into the complaint.
|