Independent Police Complaints Commission - Public Accounts Committee Contents


Supplementary memorandum from the Independent Police Complaints Commission

Question 71 (Chairman) on how the IPCC monitors the handling of all the complaints that do not reach the Commission.

    —  The IPCC produces Statutory Guidance for Forces. The Guidance explains how we expect complaints to be handled and will often refer to good practice in particular areas. The Guidance is produced in consultation with our stakeholders and is approved by the Home Secretary.

    —  We have produced, in partnership with the police forces, recording standards that provide the police with a consistent approach to recording complaints.

    —  The IPCC supported Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies (HMIC) in their recent thematic inspection of police Professional Standards Departments (PSDs) which are responsible for handling complaints/misconduct matters locally.

    —  Each of our regional office has regular meetings with their PSDs that have performance as a central theme and forces share with Commissioners and IPCC Regional Directors at those meetings their quarterly performance statistics.

    —  Where it is necessary, our regional offices carry out a sampling of local cases that the IPCC may not otherwise see to help monitor the force's overall complaints handling.

    —  The IPCC Performance Framework that is due to be launched in July 2009 will help to provide us with a picture of how individual forces are performing regarding local complaints handling. Consultation with key police stakeholders of the Complaints System took place throughout July and August 2008. A consultation document outlining the performance framework and proposed content was circulated to stakeholders and they were invited to comment on the draft performance indicators and the plan for implementation of the performance framework. Figure 1 provides the proposed outcomes and measures that the Framework will monitor.

    —  Our regular stakeholder engagement work allows us to hear directly from the communities the Forces serve and feedback the learning, areas of concern and positive messages they convey to us.

FIGURE 1


Confidence
Public, complainant and police confidence in complaints system
C1Outcome% of public with confidence
C2Outcome% of police officers and police staff with confidence
C3Outcome% complainant and subject with confidence


Learning
Lessons improve the complaints system
L1Process% of completed Local Resolutions and investigations resulting in appeals to the IPPC
L2Process% of appeals upheld


Lessons improve policing
L4ProcessMost common allegations in public complaints
L5ProcessMost common allegations in recordable conduct matters
L6ProcessCharacteristics of those subject to a complaint
L7ProcessCharacteristics of those subject to recordable a conduct case


Engagement
The public and police officers and staff are aware of the complaints system
E1Outcome% of public who are aware of the complaints system
E2Outcome% of police officers and police staff who are aware of the complaints system


Everyone can access the complaints system
E3ProcessCharacteristics of complainants
E4Outcome% of complainants who found it "easy" to access and complain


Complainants, officers and police staff can engage with complaint processes
E5Process% of complaints withdrawn, dispensed and discontinued
E6OutcomeComplainant and subject satisfaction with information and updates provided
E7OutcomePolice officer and police staff confidence in capability to deal with complaints


Proportionality
Balancing: the timeliness of resolution
P1OutcomeA range of indicators measuring timeliness of the process (incident to final resolution).


Balancing: the quality of resolution
P2OutcomeCustomer (complainant and subject) satisfaction with process and outcome
P3ProcessResults of dip sampling quality assurance


Balancing: the cost of resolution


Accountability
Organisations within the system bring individuals to account for their conduct
A1OutcomeNumber of police officers and staff members who have resigned or retired while subject to gross misconduct investigation or criminal proceedings
A2Process% of completed investigations resulting in a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
A3Outcome% of finalised cases that have resulted in conviction following referral to the CPS
A4Outcome% of finalised cases that have resulted in disciplinary proceedings (and outcomes)
A5Outcome% of completed allegations that have resulted in a substantiated finding



Question 71 (Chairman) would like a note on why the lawyers resigned

  In June 2004, at the start of the IPCC, an IPCC Advisory Board was established bringing together a range of IPCC stakeholders. This was a continuation of a project board of IPCC stakeholders used as a consultative group during the setting-up of the IPCC. That project board mainly comprised police and statutory stakeholders; the IPCC initiated an extension of the group to include more complainant membership and converted the group into the IPCC Advisory Board.

  The Advisory Board has met approximately four times a year. It provides advice and feedback on the IPCC's policies and practices, both existing and those in development. During the past year the Advisory Board has been central to the development of the IPCC Stock Take strategic proposals referred to in the NAO report.

  PALG (Police Action Lawyers Group) is a network of lawyers who act for complainants and bereaved individuals who wish to take action against the police. In September 2004 the IPCC Chair wrote to PALG inviting PALG to join the Advisory Board. As a result two seats on the Advisory Board were given to two PALG members. PALG members last attended in the spring of 2007. By a letter dated 11 January 2008 PALG resigned from the Advisory Board reportedly on the basis that they thought there was no further merit being on the Advisory Board. Nick Hardwick, IPCC Chair replied by letter dated 17th January 2007 in which he thanked PALG for having been represented on the Advisory Board, commented on their observations, offered bi-lateral meetings with PALG and repeating an offer from Jane Furniss, IPCC Chief Executive, for PALG members to let her know directly about any serious concerns they may have about specific IPCC cases. A copy of both letters is appended.[1]

  Relations with PALG have been re-established. PALG has been included in policy consultation exercises and the responses from PALG have helped shape IPCC policy and practice. During 2008 bi-lateral conversations led to the IPCC meeting with PALG members on 18th November. Future meetings will take place. In addition, PALG members have taken up the offer from the IPCC Chief Executive to report any serious concerns they have about the IPCC's handling of specific cases so that they can be addressed and, if possible, resolved. The IPCC intends to maintain and develop its relationship with PALG members where the perspective is likely to add value to the work of the IPCC.

LIST OF COMMISSIONER FORCE RESPONSIBILITIES


Avon & Somerset
Rebecca Marsh MerseysideNaseem Malik
BedfordshireDavid Petch MetropolitanDeborah Glass
British Transport PoliceTom Davies NorfolkDavid Petch
CambridgeshireDavid Petch NorthamptonshireAmerdeep Somal
Cambridgeshire UniversityDavid Petch NorthumbriaGary Garland
CheshireNaseem Malik North WalesTom Davies
City of LondonDeborah Glass North YorkshireNicholas Long
ClevelandGary Garland NottinghamshireAmerdeep Somal
CumbriaNaseem Malik Port of BristolRebecca Marsh
DerbyshireAmerdeep Somal Port of DoverMike Franklin
Devon & CornwallRebecca Marsh Port of FelixstoweDavid Petch
DorsetRebecca Marsh Port of LiverpoolNaseem Malik
DurhamGary GarlandPort of Portland Rebecca Marsh
Dyfedd-PowysTom Davies Port of TilburyDavid Petch
EssexDavid PetchSouth Wales Tom Davies
GloucestershireRebecca Marsh South YorkshireNicholas Young
Greater ManchesterNaseem Malik StaffordshireLen Jackson
GwentTom DaviesSuffolk David Petch
HampshireMike Franklin SurreyMike Franklin
HertfordshireDavid Petch SussexMike Franklin
HumbersideNicholas Long Thames ValleyMike Franklin
KentMike FranklinWarwickshire Len Jackson
LancashireNaseem Malik West MerciaLen Jackson
LeicestershireAmerdeep Somal West YorkshireNicholas Long
LincolnshireAmerdeep Somal WiltshireRebecca Marsh





1  Not printed here.Back





 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 31 March 2009