The uproar following the acquittal of Police Sergeant Martyn Blake over the death of Chris Kaba exposes a deep unease with the police complaints process. Even without knowing about Kaba’s past criminal record, the jury spent barely three hours before acquitting Blake. Yet last night’s BBC Panorama documentary suggests that those in the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) – who took the original decision to refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) – remain convinced they were right to do so. This apparent failure to learn lessons raises worrying concerns about the IOPC’s approach.
An IOPC probe led to misconduct hearings for officers who shot and injured a robber in Wimbledon
Sal Naseem, who led the investigation, appears to confirm that the very decision to announce a homicide investigation may have been motivated by the fear of public disorder. ‘It was fed back to us…that if we hadn’t done it at that time then it’s likely there would have been a level of disorder,’ says Naseem. ‘Things were on a knife edge’
The decision to prosecute Blake over the shooting in September 2022 astonished many, possibly including the jury. It reflects a pattern of decisions suggesting the IOPC is more comfortable pressing on with action, however dim the prospect of success, than facing flack from families and ‘community groups’ if it doesn’t act.
Naseem stands by the decision to refer the case to the CPS. He argues his own assessment of whether there was a ‘significant threat to life’ and the use of lethal force was ‘absolutely necessary’ justifies this call – though, in fact, the central question the criminal law asks is whether the officer had an ‘honestly-held belief’ that the risks meant lethal force was proportionate and necessary.
In the last couple of years, the IOPC insisted on pursuing PC Paul Fisher, who was prosecuted for dangerous driving for an error he made rushing to a terrorist stabbing incident in Streatham in 2020. He was subsequently acquitted.
An IOPC probe also led to misconduct hearings for officers who had shot and injured a robber in Wimbledon in 2018, even after the CPS offered no evidence against the men on the first day of their trial. They similarly insisted an officer face a misconduct hearing after a public inquiry had ruled lawful the shooting of Jermaine Baker, shot dead by police in 2015 as he attempted to free a criminal from a prison van.
Naseem has now left the IOPC and seems to be pursuing a career as a diversity writer and campaigner. But the culture of the organisation goes further than one individual.
The IOPC’s five-year strategic plan, or its statutory guidance on complaints, isn’t the most exciting document, but it hints at the underlying mindset. Throughout the document, the focus appears to be on encouraging complaints. A key aim is to: ‘Raise awareness of the outcome of complaints, particularly where they have led to resolution for complainants and improvements in policing’. It’s as if communicating that the police acted reasonably in very difficult circumstances might be of less importance.
The IOPC’s credibility is very much on the line
But what about the burden on officers subject to investigations that can drag on for years? Or the possible chilling effect that the IOPC’s decisions may have on police operations that are critical for public safety?
In the Baker case, the IOPC successfully argued all the way to the Supreme Court that the test to be applied to officers’ actions in misconduct cases should be an objective one based on whether their actions were ‘reasonable’, as opposed to what the officer actually believed at the time of the incident. This opens the door to potential gross misconduct proceedings, even if an officer acts in good faith and in accordance with their training.
In its plan, the IOPC says that its ‘thematic work’ ‘has focused on issues of most concern to the public – including race discrimination, abuse of power for sexual purpose and violence against women and girls’. There is, however, little evidence that the public have been properly consulted on these priorities. Instead, we’re told, ‘this shift in approach will be driven by our understanding of what matters to communities. We have developed our understanding through much-improved stakeholder engagement, and by the information, evidence, and trends we see in our operational work’. Who are these ‘stakeholders’ and by what authority do they speak for the public? There is a risk that a new class of diversity activists, and those who know little of the reality of policing, are being listened to over those who know what they are talking about.
Even by the standards of ‘arms length bodies’ (ALBs), the IOPC is unaccountable. It is a non-departmental public body of the Home Office. Ministers have no input into strategy documents it produces. The Director General has a broad statutory responsibility to secure efficiency, independence and public confidence. The Secretary of State can choose the Director General and ‘ask for reports’. But that is about it.
The Policy Exchange report ‘Getting a Grip on the System’ identified the growing problem with accountability. It is one thing not wanting ministers to be making decisions on individual cases. But it is absurd to deny that the choices IOPC are making are political ones; appearing to prioritise complainants and stakeholder groups over the concerns of police officers and, arguably, the protection of the public.
Ministers must have more control in being able to set the strategic direction for all ALBs, including the IOPC. They should insist the IOPC review its strategy and other documents to ensure they show a better balance, and avoid issues like this happening again. The IOPC’s credibility is very much on the line.
Comments