The Truth about the IPCC

In the following, the first five paragraph numbers have been added by me for ease of reference.

The Home Page of the IPCC website contains only two sentences to explain the function of this organisation:

1. "The IPCC's job is to make sure that complaints against the police are dealt with effectively."

2. "We set standards for the way the police handle complaints and, when something has gone wrong, we help the police learn lessons and improve the way they work."

A tab labelled About the IPCC accesses two further sentences:

3. "The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) became operational on 1 April 2004. It is a new Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB), funded by the Home Office, but by law entirely independent of the police, interest groups and political parties and whose decisions on cases are free from government involvement."

4. "We have a legal duty to oversee the whole of the police complaints system, created by the Police Reform Act 2002, our aim is to transform the way in which complaints against the police are handled."

A Careers tab accesses a "CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EMPLOYEES". After an Introduction, the Code starts,

5. "As an employee of the Independent Police Complaints Commission you must at all times observe the highest standards of impartiality, integrity, objectivity and honesty in relation to the work you undertake."

The Police Reform Act 2002 Chapter 30 PART 2 "COMPLAINTS AND MISCONDUCT" includes the following:

"9 (1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Independent Police Complaints Commission . . . ."
   (2) The Commission shall consist of-
   (a) a chairman appointed by Her Majesty; and
   (b) not less than ten other members appointed by the Secretary of State.

10 (1) The functions of the Commission shall be-
   (c) to secure that arrangements maintained with respect to those matters comply with the requirements of the following provisions of this Part, are efficient and effective and contain and manifest an appropriate degree of independence;
   (d) to secure that public confidence is established and maintained in the existence of suitable arrangements with respect to those matters and with the operation of the arrangements that are in fact maintained with respect to those matters;

(2) Those matters are-
   (a) the handling of complaints made about the conduct of persons serving with the police;
   (b) the recording of matters from which it appears that there may have been conduct by such persons which constitutes or involves the commission of a criminal offence or behaviour justifying disciplinary proceedings;
   (c) the manner in which any such complaints or any such matters as are mentioned in paragraph (b) are investigated or otherwise handled and dealt with.

20 (1) In any case in which there is an investigation of a complaint in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3-
   (a) by the Commission, or
   (b) under its management,
   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).

Looking for the nature of the "standards" that the IPCC claims to set for the police (as, for instance, an expectation that at least 50% of them should be honest would not be acceptable to me), I found only values that the IPCC claims for itself.

The "About IPCC tab" on the website frame accesses "Our Values", which starts under a subheading, "Justice and respect for human rights", "We use our authority and powers unflinchingly to help those who suffer injustice because of an abuse of police powers to obtain redress." Other sub-headings draw attention to other attributes that the IPCC claims for itself, including "Independence", "Integrity", and "Openness" ("We seek maximum disclosure and regular communications with all parties during the course of a complaint."! )

The same values are listed in another document, "Criteria for Investigations", along with

   "6. Commissioners and Staff must be fair, independent and objective",

and a section under the heading "Public Interest" which is of particular interest to me as a member of that public. Among "Factors indicating the form of an Investigation" are:

b. The alleged conduct was:
   • involved more than one person serving with the police;
   • pre-meditated

c. The alleged conduct, if substantiated, is likely to be the cause of significant public concern.

f. The alleged conduct is such that the failure of the IPCC to either conduct or manage the investigation will substantially undermine public confidence in the complaints system established under the Police Reform Act 2002.

i. The alleged conduct, if substantiated, amounts to a substantial interference with human rights.

Another document on which I will probably want to comment is an IPCC publication called "Police Complaints: Statistics for England and Wales 2004/05."

Appealing to this NDPB

After Sussex Police had produced a dishonest report rejecting eight complaints that I had made against them, I emailed an appeal to the IPCC on 7th November 2005, saying that I had started publishing a detailed examination of the police's report on the Web. On 15th November I emailed that I had completed the examination. On 17th November I emailed that I had completed a report on my local police inspector.

Also on 17th November, Elizabeth Williams of the IPCC wrote to me to say that she was the casework manager for my appeal. The letter included the bolded statement, "Please note that the decision made by the IPCC about your appeal is final," and the misleading assertion, "We will be writing to you about your application shortly."

On 6th December I emailed Ms Williams giving the address of a new web page "about my attempts to find out how my camera was damaged and how my computers were sabotaged."

On 12th April 2006, I emailed Ms Williams after I had learned from Sussex Police that I had to pay £10 and make an application under the Data Protection Act if I wanted to be told whether the police had recorded my complaints. In reply I received a reply from Neil Jasper of the IPCC, who had been appointed to take over my case. The IPCC endorsed Sussex Police's approach to information about the recording of complaints. (The IPCC's website said, "We set standards for the way the police handle complaints.")

The review of my appeal by Mr Jasper was dated 18th May 2006, so it had taken more than seven months to produce, grossly overlong in view of the dishonestly scant evidence on which it was based.

In 2006, three further serious causes for complaint about Sussex Police came to light, and after being rejected by Sussex Police, were referred to the IPCC.

The appeal regarding the first complaint is dated 17th August 2006. The appeals regarding the second and third complaints, involving dishonesty and corruption in Sussex Police, are dated 2nd September 2006.

In reply to my letter of 17th August, a letter dated 22nd August from Imran Khan, Casework Administrator, included, "Please note that the decision made by the IPCC about your appeal is final," and the misleading assertion, "We will be writing to you about your application shortly."

There was no response whatever to the appeals dated 2nd September, and I had to telephone the IPCC some three weeks later to find that the documents that I had sent had actually been received.

On 13th October I wrote to the Home Secretary: "I wish to complain of dilatory practice on the part of the IPCC." A reply dated 30 October from Sarah Muir of "Police Integrity Team" advised me that the IPCC have a web page which sets out their complaints process. The bolded expression in their letters of the finality of an IPCC decision had led me to think that no complaint was possible, which is why I wrote my own report on their report.

On 2 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 14 November from Douglas Cleaver, Complaints Manager, 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."

So far (today is 20th December) I have heard nothing further. "The duty of the Commission to provide the complainant with all such information as will keep him properly informed" seems more honoured in the breach than the observance.

To date (13th March) 2007 has been marked by continued stonewalling from the IPCC. Relevant activity, largely on my part, has been logged on my main page on the IPCC.

Having failed to find in published legislation any requirement for the IPCC to act within a reasonable time span, and thinking this unreasonable, in a second email to the Home Office I suggested that the Home Secretary should do something about it, quoting the clause in the Police Reform Act 2002 which says that, "The duties imposed . . . 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."

In her reply, the representative of the Police Powers and Integrity Team at the Home Office ignored the suggestion.

My comments on the current situation included: "The Chairman of the IPCC was appointed by the Queen, who presumably takes no responsibility whatever for what has proved an unsuitable appointment."

June 2nd 2007 My second set of complaints having been referred back to Sussex Police, this is just to sum up the performance of the IPCC to date. My brief comments should be considered in the context of the following claims by the IPCC:

• We will deal with everyone involved . . . promptly.
• The IPCC decision will be final, unless you can persuade the High Court to grant judicial review.
• We will carry out a thorough investigation of your complaint.
• At all times we will be honest and fair in our dealings with you.

The first, third and fourth claims are demonstrably untrue in my experience. As regards the second, there is actually an IPCC complaints department, but sending a complaint to it proved a complete waste of time.

In 2005 I referred eight complaints about Sussex Police to the IPCC, who took more than six months to produce a dishonest report on them. The eight complaints are on my witstat.htm page. Sussex Police's report on some of those complaints is on psd_cs.htm. My report on that report is on report.htm. The IPCC report on my complaints is on ipccrprt.htm. My report on the IPCC report is on myreport.htm.

From the reports on my eight complaints by Sussex Police and the IPCC I learned that my arrest had followed the collection of four witness statements, though I had only been given three, and that the fourth statement was probably signed by ex-policeman Mabry. I also discovered through an application for information under the Data Protection Act that the reports added to the Sussex Police Crime Reporting System under my name following the assaults on me in 2002 and 2004 had been thoroughly dishonest. As a result, I sent three letters of complaint to the the Chief Constable.

Complaint 1: Police Sergeant N. Moloney wrote that this was a matter for the Data Protection Officer, and in response to an application under the Data Protection Act, scum by the name of Burtenshaw refused me a copy of the fourth statement on the grounds that the police had a "duty of confidentiality and duty of care towards the individual" who had signed the statement, though that individual had assaulted me twice and had subjected me to harassment for five and a half years. The main individual Burtenshaw was protecting was the dishonest PC Francis.

Complaints 2 and 3: Acting Inspector N. Moloney refused my request that these complaints should be recorded in a register available to Sussex Police Authority.

I immediately referred these three complaints which had been brushed aside by Sussex Police to the IPCC. I have already mentioned the months of delay that followed. I shall be publishing a full account of how the IPCC dealt with this case.

To be continued