Administration of justice update: wide-ranging reform of IPCC imminent?

The IPCC was created under the Police Reform Act 2002 and became operational in April 2004. The IPCC replaced the much less powerful Police Complaints Authority, which had a purely supervisory role over the way police forces handled complaints from the public and made disciplinary decisions. By contrast, the IPCC now independently investigates the most serious complaints against the police, reviews on appeal the outcomes of complaints still handled by the police themselves, and can direct the police to take disciplinary action.

Although the IPCC started with high hopes under the leadership of Nick Hardwick (now about to complete his term of office as a well-respected HM Chief Inspector of Prisons), the commission has never met those expectations. Instead, the IPCC has suffered from an apparent inability to secure criminal convictions and disciplinary findings even in the most heinous examples of police misconduct; a problem often thought to be linked to a lack of communication with complainants, poor quality investigations and the disproportionate number of former police officers on its payroll (ie, 196 or 24 per cent as of 1 August 2015 according to a recent Hickman & Rose Freedom of Information Act 2000 request).

Deaths in police custody

In particular, the IPCC has been widely castigated over its lack of mettle in dealing with deaths in police custody. These include 28-year-old Darren Neville, who was acutely unwell when encountered by Metropolitan Police responding to a 999 call. Within 10 seconds of their arrival, Darren Neville was forcefully restrained – prone – by a number of oÿcers before suffering cardiac arrest. Two months later, in May 2013, he died in hospital.

The pathologist confirmed that the restraint was a direct factor in his death. The police should have known that physically restraining Darren Neville in that way was life threatening. They failed to follow their training and the lawful protocol for containing and de-escalating a situation before resorting to physical restraint.

The IPCC investigation not only concluded that there was no misconduct, but failed even to touch on the issues mentioned above. The commission’s report offered no criticism whatsoever of the officers involved. Darren Neville’s family were not kept properly updated throughout the IPCC investigation, which was conducted by poorly prepared trainee investigators, who failed to challenge the interviewees and, at times, appeared to be feeding them answers.

A parliamentary inquiry set up following the death of Ian Tomlinson at the hands of a Metropolitan police officer concluded, in January 2013, that the IPCC ‘has neither the powers nor the resources that it needs to get to the truth when the integrity of the police is in doubt’ (page 4). In short, it has been apparent for quite some time that the IPCC has not been fit for purpose.

Reforms to IPCC governance

Events since then provide a fascinating insight into Home Secretary Theresa May’s determination to pursue wide-ranging police reform: real change is in the wind and even the Guardian has acclaimed Theresa May as the first Home Secretary to carry out major reform since Roy Jenkins in the 1960s. In February 2013, the Home Secretary expressed

concern at the IPCC’s use of its discretion to leave individual forces to investigate serious complaints (unlike deaths in custody, which are investigated by the IPCC). Her response to public disquiet was to divert complaints-handling money from individual forces to the IPCC, which had to embark on a threeyear programme to renew itself. Although public confidence in the IPPC remains dismal, its budget has increased by over 25% and it has been opening and expanding oÿces throughout the UK in preparation for its vastly increased caseload.

Apparently, Theresa May did not regard her work as finished at that point. Early in 2015, she met with inquest lawyers (including the author of this piece), family members who had lost relatives at police hands and a representative of Inquest (the independent charity providing specialist support to families of those who die in custody) to explore their ideas on how to improve matters. They urged her to engage complainants and the public much more effectively in the complaints process, and for bereaved families to be fully respected as victims by police forces, the IPCC and the Crown Prosecution Service.

In March 2015, the triennial Home Oÿce review of the IPPC took place in the normal way. Rather oddly, the review found ‘no evidence to suggest that there are ongoing issues with the way that the IPCC conducts investigations and casework’ (page 17). This contradicted several prior reviews, such as the harshly critical Casale Review of the IPCC’s botched investigation into the death of Sean Rigg in August 2008, and failed to acknowledge the experience of many complainants.

In August 2015, the IPCC published its own report admitting that it was too remote from complainants and should undergo a complete structural and organisational overhaul. The report recommended that the role of chairperson should be replaced by a national ombudsman and local ombudsmen. However, the stakeholders consulted by this review were largely made up of police and others aligned with the police or police representative bodies rather than complainants: only one stakeholder was a lawyer working for complainants.

Theresa May responded swiftly to this by appointing Sheila Drew Smith OBE, of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to investigate and report on the IPCC’s proposals. The Drew Smith report, published on 17 December 2015, made sweeping recommendations for change, incorporating several of the IPCC’s own suggestions. At its best, the report encourages more transparency and better communication, including up-to-date performance data on the IPCC website and regional heads acting as a point of contact for the community and families. Complainants will welcome the recommendation that deputies and regional heads should not have worked for the police within the previous 10 years, while the head of the reformed organisation should not have worked for the police at all.

Shelia Drew Smith also recommends a name change for the beleaguered IPCC, though not as a national ombudsman service, but as the Independent Police Conduct Authority. However, as She rightly notes: ‘In my experience changes in governance and organisational structures are not in themselves sufficient to bring about the required improvements in the quality and timeliness of decision-making ’ (page 2).

Review of deaths in police custody

The Home Secretary, however, has not restricted her campaign to improve police accountability to these IPCC governance reforms. In October 2015, she announced an independent review of deaths in police custody under Scots lawyer Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC, with a wide remit to examine ‘the reasons and obstacles as to why the current investigation system has fallen short of many families’ needs and expectations’ , with particular reference to the accountability of those involved, and sustained learning following such incidents; and to develop recommendations seeking to ensure appropriate, humane institutional treatment when deaths occur in police custody.

This announcement is timely. According to inquest lawyers and the bereaved family members they represent, the debate so far has engaged only a narrow group of officials and stakeholders, focusing on structural change and the rebranding of the IPCC (for example, as a National Police Ombudsman or the Police Conduct Authority). Such processes, particularly at a time of austerity, can easily lose sight of the all-important issue of achieving consistently high-quality investigations.

However, the signs so far are good. Dame Elish Angiolini recently delivered a report into the investigations and prosecution of rape in London, which was published in 30 April 2015. This report was well received by Rape Crisis, a key organisation representing rape survivors, which accepted the majority of her 46 recommendations. And it is already clear that the public is not being side-lined this time as Dame Elish Angiolini’s inquiry into deaths in custody will be advised throughout by Inquest.

Deborah Coles, co-director of Inquest, said: ‘It is fundamental that the review examines why so many recommendations from previous reviews, investigations and inquests have not been acted upon.’ It looks as though this message is getting through, as Dame Elish Angiolini has already sought the chance to engage with families via ‘family listening days’ , designed so that she can ‘hear evidence first-hand from those who have lost loved ones in police custody to ensure their views are taken into account.’

• The author would like to thank Benedict Lynn and Jane Hickman for their contribution to this article.