6 August 2020
Better training would improve the time it takes investigators from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) to decide whether officers involved in Post-Incident Procedures (PIP) are witnesses or suspects or if the case will be referred to the force or the watchdog, according to Federation conduct and performance leads.
The Federation representatives took part in a virtual meeting with Kathie Cashell, the IOPC’s director of strategy and impact, last week and were asked to give their feedback on how processes could be improved.
The conduct and performance leads reported that at times there seemed to be a ‘lack of empowerment’ and said IOPC investigators were slow in making decisions when involved in PIP.
IOPC director general Michael Lockwood made a commitment to notifying officers of their status as witness or suspect within three months during a meeting with the Federation in May when similar concerns were raised.
The reps in last week’s meeting also said better disclosure training was needed since reps often struggle to obtain materials which would be used in officers’ defence.
Phill Matthews, the Federation’s national conduct and performance lead, said: “We will quite often ask for materials as we further our defence and we get answers either through gritted teeth or literally at the very last minute when our lawyers have to get involved. This is a waste of time, effort and energy when we are trying to prepare for a hearing or meeting.”
But he welcomed the opportunity to work with the IOPC to help it improve its processes.
The Federation stressed the need for better communication from both investigators and the IOPC media office with details given to reps and officers on the status of their case usually being ‘woefully unhelpful’.
Inflammatory language and factual inaccuracies in press releases were also an issue, the reps said, along with not being sighted on appeal decisions before they reached the media.
Geoff Bardell, chair of Hertfordshire Police Federation, said while Federation frustrations with the way in which the IOPC operate had been well aired it was encouraging that the two organisations were now working together to help create a fair and proportionate complaints system.
“I hope that the IOPC continues to listen to what our officials and our reps are saying,” says Geoff, “Its director general has outlined improvements to date but has also admitted there is a way to go.
“Last week’s meeting gave those reps who are dealing with conduct cases on a daily basis the opportunity to share their views with the IOPC and I am sure this was a valuable process.”