Police Complaints Commission (Hansard, 29 March 1995)

§ Sir Patrick Mayhew

Yes. On 22 March 1994Official Report, column 148, I announced the publication of the report and that I intended to consult various interested bodies before reaching any decisions on the recommendations made. I have now given further consideration to the recommendations in the light of the comments received.

I am glad that the commission considers that the system works well in practice and that it is rigorous and effective. However, like the commission, I am determined that the system should be reviewed and improved. Consequently, I have given deep thought to the commission's proposals and to the way forward and I am glad to say that I have been able to accept, in total or in part, most of the recommendations made.

I have accepted in full two recommendations. I intend to bring forward legislation which will establish a tribunal, chaired by the Chief Constable and balanced by two assessors drawn from an independent panel appointed for the purpose, to hear certain types of disciplinary procedures. (Recommendation 5). It is in the nature of these types of case that the commission instigates the disciplinary proceedings and I have accepted that it is then inappropriate for the commission to be represented on the tribunal hearing the charges as it is at present. I share the commission's considered view that the Chief Constable, who is responsible for discipline within his service, should retain a leading role.

I also agree that there should be a review of the use of the informal resolution procedure. (Recommendation 6). Use of the procedure in Northern Ireland has more than doubled—to 10 per cent.—in the last five years. In Great Britain, around 30 per cent. of complaints are informally resolved. I accept that a review of the procedure in Northern Ireland should be carried out.

I have also accepted three of the recommendations in part.

The commission reaffirmed that it wished to have the power to supervise some non-complaint matters where it appears to the Commission that such supervision was necessary because of either the gravity of the matter or the exceptional circumstances involved. (Recommendation 2). I am unable to agree that the commission should have the power to "call in" cases 658W when no complaint is made. I am, however, willing to agree that the commission should have a statutory power to draw matters to my attention. It would then be my responsibility to refer appropriate cases to the commission. This arrangement will enable the commission to make known its concerns in non-complaint cases without impinging on my statutory responsibilities or those of the police authority and the Chief Constable.

The commission also recommended that it should be notified at once where death or serious bodily harm has been caused or may have been caused to any person by a police officer. (Recommendation 3). I have decided to accept that the commission should be notified of all deaths which may have been caused by a police officer even if there is no prima facie evidence of police misconduct or oppressive behaviour, and this will be included in legislation when the opportunity arises. I will not, at present, extend this cover to incidents of injury. I have accepted the view that such a requirement would cause administrative difficulties and over-reporting.

I have given further thought to the commission's recommendations that it should be given the discretion to concentrate its resources of those cases of public concern which are deserving of very close scrutiny, rather than being constrained by the mandatory supervision of certain cases. (Recommendation 4). I have decided not to accept this recommendation as I feel that mandatory supervision of all cases involving death or serious injury is an important safeguard in our complaints system. It was agreed after the last triennial review that legislation would be introduced to allow the commission to withdraw from mandatory supervision in those cases where the injury turns out to be less serious than was first thought. This provision will be included in legislation in the near future. I want to see the differences which will follow on from this change before deciding whether any more radical approach is necessary.

Finally, I have decided not to accept the recommendation that the commission should be in a position to direct the Chief Constable to record a complaint where there is a dispute over its validity. (Recommendation 1). I again share the views of the Home Secretary. The autonomy of chief constables in discharging their responsibilities to maintain law and order within their areas is an important constitutional issue. One important factor in that autonomy is the Chief Constable's authority over the actions and discipline of his officers. I am reluctant to diminish that authority by giving an outside agency, even one as respected as the commission, power to decide what should or should not be a complaint.

I would like to pay tribute to the commission and to its work over the period of this review from 1991 to 1994. The period saw the commission tackle its responsibilities enthusiastically. Two important features stand out. First, there was a very substantial increase in the number of investigations in which the commission undertook supervision. Secondly, the commission undertook a major initiative to publicise the mechanism for raising complaints about policing in Northern Ireland. The existence of a widely known and trusted system for dealing with complaints makes a major contribution to maintaining and building public confidence in the 659W integrity and probity of the police service. We have recognised the importance of the commission's work by making available this year substantial extra resources to help it meet the demands on its services.