Email to the Home Secretary

Subject: Complaint to the Secretary of State about dilatory practice on the part of the IPCC
Date: 02 February 2007 10:27

Dear Sir

More than three months ago, on 13th October 2006, I wrote to you saying, "I wish to complain of dilatory practice on the part of the IPCC."

I received a reply dated 30th October (Ref. T40636/6) from Sarah Muir of the Home Office Police Integrity team advising me:

1. "The matters raised in your letter should be directed to the IPCC and not the Home Office".

2. The IPCC's "decisions on cases can not be overturned apart from through the courts."

The second suggestion, occasioned by my incidental reference to a dishonest report by the IPCC on eight complaints that I filed against Sussex Police in 2005, I have not acted upon as yet; but the first suggestion, which was directly relevant to my complaint, I took up almost immediately.

On 2nd November I emailed the IPCC to complain of "either dilatory practice on the part of the IPCC, or rejecting a complaint without advising the complainant of the decision."

A reply dated 14th November from Douglas Cleaver, Complaints Manager for the IPCC, said: "I have been informed by casework that this matter is currently being processed and that you will be contacted in due course . . . I am sorry that you feel that your issues have been the subject of delay, and I will forward your concerns to line management in casework for their information."

As yet (2nd February 2007) I have heard nothing further.

The Police Reform Act 2002 Chapter 30 Part 2, 20 (1) says that "it shall be the duty of the Commission to provide the complainant with all such information as will keep him properly informed, while the investigation is being carried out and subsequently, of all the matters mentioned in subsection (4)". That subsection includes, inter alia, "the progress of the investigation" and "any provisional findings" as well as "the outcome".

The IPCC's own website claims about its handling of complaints against the police, "We will deal with everyone involved . . . promptly"; and it includes "delays" in its list of "What we will treat as a complaint".

The first of my recent appeals to the IPCC against rejection of my complaints by Sussex Police was dated 18th August 2006, and the second and third were dated 2nd September. IPPC "Casework" in five months have done nothing more than acknowledge receipt of the first of those three appeals.

Whether the IPCC are flouting the law as well as their own published service standards is open to doubt, since I have found no time limits in published legislation.The Police Reform Act 2002 subsection immediately following that quoted above reads:

"(5) The duties imposed by this section on the Commission . . . in relation to any complaint shall be performed in such manner . . . as may be provided for by regulations made by the Secretary of State."

The Home Office Police Integrity Team told me that a complaint about dilatory practice on the part of the IPCC should be sent to the IPCC complaints department. Having tried that course of action, and nothing substantive having come of it, I think it a matter for the Secretary of State or his Department.