§ Mr. Leightonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Police Complaints Authority are engaged in supervising investigations of complaints against the police.
200W
§ Mr. Douglas HoggFive members, supported by a staff, supervise investigations which are carried out by poke officers.
§ Mr. Leightonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases the Police Complaints Authority has dealt with over the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what percentage of the total number of complaints this represents.
§ Mr. Douglas HoggThe most recent statistics relating to complaints are published in the annual reports for 1986 of the Police Complaints Authority, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, copies of which are in the Library.
§ Mr. Greg Knightasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his review of the arrangements for investigating allegations of misconduct made against senior police officers; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. HurdYes. This review was undertaken in the light of concern expressed about the investigation of allegations against the former deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester, Mr. John Stalker.
It had the benefit of observations from the Greater Manchester police authority, the Police Complaints Authority and the chief constable of West Yorkshire, Mr. Colin Sampson, all of whom were involved in the investigation of allegations against Mr. Stalker, and from the Association of Chief Police Officers and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary.
The essential requirements of any disciplinary arrangements are that they should be fair and thorough and that they should afford adequate safeguards to the person against whom allegations are made. I have concluded that the present arrangements, which are contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and regulations continue to meet these criteria. In particular, I am satisfied that the central feature in these arrangements should continue to be the role of the police authority as disciplinary authority. It is the responsibility of the police authority to decide:
whether to launch an investigation against a senior police officer;whether to suspend the officer from duty;what action to take in the light of an investigating officer's report;what punishment to award if the officer is found guilty.The police authority does not have complete freedom in these matters. Thus, a decision to suspend a senior officer can be taken only with the approval of the Police Complaints Authority; and that authority can decide to supervise the investigation of any allegations. (In the case of the investigation of allegations made against Mr. Stalker, the Police Complaints Authority approved his suspension, supervised the investigation, and publicly stated its view that the allegations were serious enough to warrant investigation.) Moreover, if a police authority decides to bring disciplinary charges against a senior officer, it is a requirement that the charges must be drawn up by an independent solicitor and that they must be heard by a tribunal consisting of a single person selected from a list of persons nominated by the Lord Chancellor. Some of those consulted wanted still more scope for independent 201W review of the police authority's role in the procedures, but there was no agreement on what form such further review might take.
Other matters considered during the review included the extensive media coverage of the investigation of allegations about Mr. Stalker and of the consideration of Mr. Sampson's report by the Greater Manchester police authority, and the absence of any right for senior officers to recover the costs of employing legal advice in investigations which do not lead to criminal or disciplinary proceedings. On the first issue, I have concluded that there is no case for any restriction on the reporting of investigations against police officers; and, as regards the payment of legal costs in discipline proceedings from public funds, I am not persuaded of the need to change the present arrangements under which a police authority has discretion to make a payment.
In the light of these conclusions, I have no plans to modify existing procedures by changes in the law. But the review has suggested that it might be useful to amplify the existing guidance on the procedures which must be followed when allegations are made against senior officers. Accordingly, I intend shortly to consult police authorities and other interested parties about the content of such further guidance.