It is the practice of the IPSG following an employment tribunal case where lessons can be learnt to raise those matters with any relevant organisations. The matters raised in this blog are focussed on raising awareness to help police officers and police staff avoid pitfalls if they find themselves in a similar situation of being investigated and having their home address searched.
Any matters relating to organisations mentioned in this blog will be raised formally directly to those organisations.
This case was about whistle-blowing and disability in relation to mental health following on from the alleged targeting of a police officer leading to his dismissal.
A police officer just out of his probation was called in to a meeting with an officer from the Internal Investigations Unit, an Acting Chief Inspector and the officers supervising sergeant.
Apparently a prostitute who was with her solicitor having been arrested for managing a brothel stated that she had seen a police officer in the custody suite and also at another station and that he was a client.
A police officer (the claimant in this case) stated that he was interviewed under caution and rigorously denied having involvement with prostitutes and immediately informed a colleague who was to later join the IIU (Internal Investigations Unit).
The officer also informed his parents and girlfriend of the allegation and what had just happened.
When the IPSG took on the case they conducted an investigation which revealed that the description of the suspect did not match the Claimant in any way, shape or form and that the prostitute had provided additional details including the first name of the suspect which was also different.
No attempts appear to have been made to positively identify the officer and the custody video apparently was not viewed. The Claimant believes that he had been used as a scapegoat so that an update could be provided to the complainant’s solicitor.
It is not known who the actual officer was that had been identified or why no efforts were made to positively identify the officer in this case which would have been a simple task.
An issue in this case was that the officer believed he was being formally interviewed having been cautioned and the officers who took part in the interview are saying that it was not an interview and was a management intervention meeting/ethical interview.
An FOI request revealed that this process was not recognised and the Constabulary referred to an ethical interview document which was not in existence at the time of the interview having been prepared 2 years later however; this was never introduced as a policy or procedure in the force in any event.
The meeting lasted approx 40 mins and according to the interviewing officer no questions were asked and no responses were expected or wanted. The officer was simply given advice.
A copy of the FOI request regarding this procedure can be viewed at:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/management_intervention_meetings_15#incoming-149968
During the IPSG investigation, it was alleged that the pocket notebooks for two of the officers had been deliberately concealed or destroyed. The notes of the IIU officer mention interview twice and no mention of an informal meeting.
As part of the investigation into the missing notebooks a number of freedom of information requests were submitted to the Constabulary via the whatdotheyknow.com website.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pocket_note_books#incoming-127822
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/policy_concerning_pocket_noteboo#incoming-212641
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/update_on_management_of_pocket_n#incoming-213542
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pocket_notebooks_and_data_protec#incoming-227987
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pocket_notebooks_data_protection#incoming-159601
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/changes_to_the_way_pocket_notebo#incoming-158269
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/practice_of_returning_pocket_not#incoming-153562
The results of those requests are revealing in that a damage limitation exercise appears to have been undertaken as a result of this case. In the tribunal case it was accepted that there were probably thousands of police pocket notebooks unnacounted for because of a lack of supervision and officers were allowed to retain old books, officers who had retired would also generally keep their books.
Some officers retained up to 20 years of pocket notebooks in their lockers. The concern raised by the IPSG was that the notebooks were likely to contain details of victims, witnesses, suspects and vulnerable adults and children.
The Claimant believed that because he made a fuss about reporting to a colleague the way he had not been dealt with in accordance with the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004, the senior officer in that interview targeted him over several years as he progressed through the ranks; the same officer also ended up sitting on a disciplinary panel which ultimately dismissed the Claimant.
Part of the victimisation alleged also included being transferred to another Division and to a police station farthest from his home address.
Whilst posted to a rural area, the Claimant was answering an emergency call and had a minor road traffic collission. The Claimant was actually stationary at the time and a new driver collided with his vehicle at very low speed.
The Claimant was suspended for driving for 6 months despite the reporting sergeant suggesting that no further action should be taken however; despite the Crown prosecution Service also deciding no further action should be taken; repeated attempts were made to overturn the CPS decision.
The Claimant was subsequently reinstated to driving however; during that 6 month period it is liklely that the citizens in that rural area received a reduced level of service as the Claimant was unable to respond to calls unless someone drove him.
The Claimant was a proactive officer submitting numerous intelligence reports and would use a local intelligence system that there was general access to by all staff in the force.
Unlike the Police National Computer (PNC), there was no facility to input a reason as to why an officer was accessing the system.
The Claimant was then investigated for misuse of the intelligence system and it is suspected that the information was malicious and provided by the Claimant’s former police officer partner following the breakdown of their relationship and he began a new relationship with another officer.
The allegations related to his alleged association with known criminals. An operation was conducted including accessing the officers telephone records and nothing was found to corroborate what was considered to be a malicious allegation.
The Claimant was interviewed by the Professional Standards Department (PSD) and he was asked questions about checks he had conducted on the local intelligence system in some cases over 5 years earlier.
The officer answered as honestly as he could but could simply not remember why he conducted checks several years ago and was able to answer questions to those he did have knowledge of.
The officer subsequently signed a search booklet authorising PSD to search his home address. The officer claimed that he signed the authority as he was threatened with arrest if he did not which would then give the officers power to search his premises.
A police federation appointed solicitor and police federation representative failed to challenge this proposed course of action.
The solicitor remained at the police station and the police federation representative attended the serach of the home address where he remained with the Detective Chief Inspector from PSD in the front room of the premises.
The search was carried out unprofessionally and breached the law with regards to PACE. Examples include the manner a computer was examined at the premises and property that was seized was never sealed or officially recorded and was subsequently handed back to the officer the same day following a second interview without being signed for.
No evidence was found of any criminality nor was any other evidence found corroborating the anonymous allegation made against the officer.
The case was put to the Crown Prosecution Service and it was accepted that the officer had not used or passed on any of the information he had accessed however he would still be prosecuted and was issued a summons.
Subsequently; as an alternative to going to court the officer was given the option of accepting a ‘simple caution’ which he accepted.
The officer then appeared before a discipline panel which contained the same officer who had been involved in the disputed interview and who had been promoted.
The officer was not legally represented as he had been informed by his police federation representative that because he had admitted the offences by accepting a caution he was no longer eligble for funding.
His police federation representative also advised the officer not to challenge the presence on the panel of the Superintendent who perhaps should have recused himself in any event.
The officer was dismissed and there appears to be little consistency with sanctions where other officers had committed more serious offences by disclosing information from the Police National computer and providing the press with personal information and have retained their jobs with a criminal caution.
Enquiries with the Constabulary revealed that they did not know how many officers and staff have criminal cautions or criminal convictions.
During the case evidence emerged of the details of some of these cases including over a hundred officers accessing the custody record of the pop star Pete Docherty who had been arrested.
During the Tribunal case the IPSG requested that officers seated at the rear of the Tribunal wait outside as their numbers were intimidating and officers would also be listening to evidence of their colleagues before giving their own.
The Constabulary ignored the request and the Tribunal’s hands were tied as different rules apply which are not the same as in criminal cases.
A senior officer officer also attended in full uniform which is unusual in that it is generally accepted that plain clothes will be worn in such proceedings.
The officer’s case was prejudiced by the failure of his solicitor and police federation representative to challenge wrongdoing. As a result Counsel for the Constabulary made much of the fact that the officer was at all times represented by the police federation which he described as a powerful police union and as such if anything was not right they would have challenged it.
Lessons for police officers and staff
1. Ignore what may seem to be common practice and ‘think before you click’ on police computer systems. Make a note of everytime you access such a system and the reason for doing so.
2. Find out exactly what your police Federation or Union Representative is prepared to do for you. If they are not prepared to challenge and fight your corner you need to find another representative who will. There are plenty of good representatives available even if you have to find one from another force area.
3. If you are making a disclosure, put it in writing at the time and do not not rely on others to take this forward if raised verbally. Anything that is not documented is likely to be rigorously denied at a later stage.
4. Do not accept a caution if you are not guilty. (See our blog on ‘Criminal cautions’)
5. If you are ill do not be afraid to seek medical help because of perceived stigma. Any treatment should be followed up and failures to provide adequate welfare and support by your force should be addressed by your representatives at the time.
6. If there is a genuine concern that there may be evidence at your home address; a section 8 PACE warrant can be applied for and this is something your representative can suggest. A Judge will have to decide if the information is reliable, corroborated and there is also an element of transparency in the process.
7. An arrest under the circumstances described above would have been likely to have been unlawful as the necessity element does not appear to have been applicable and this was a protracted police operation. An arrest just to be able to obtain a power to search is also unlawful.
8. Remember that complaints made against fellow officers are often not investigated because there is no requirement to do so as a police officer is not a member of the public. Police forces can investigate themselves or decide not to record or investigate a complaint made by a police officer or member of police staff. An officer has no right of appeal to the Independent police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
In relation to point 6, we will explain this in more detail in a separate blog to assist officers and staff in understanding why their allegations may not be investigated.
