Jersey Police Complaints Authority: report for 2013.

STATES OF JERSEY

JERSEY POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY: REPORT FOR 2013

Presented to the States on 17th March 2014 by the Minister for Home Affairs

STATES GREFFE

2014   Price code: B  R.32

REPORT

Introduction

The  Jersey  Police  Complaints  Authority  (the  "Authority")  is  an  independent organisation  set  up  by  the  States  of  Jersey  under  the  Police  (Complaints  and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999 (the "Law"). The role of the Authority is to oversee, monitor and supervise the investigation, by the Professional Standards Department of the States of Jersey Police, of certain complaints made by members of the Public against the States of Jersey Police and Honorary police officers. On occasions, the role of the Investigating Officer will be assumed by an Officer from an external Force, and in  such  instances  the  Authority  has  the  power  to  supervise  the  investigation undertaken by that Officer.

The  Law  requires  the  Authority  to  approve  the  appointment  of  an  Investigating Officer, and its responsibility is to ensure that the investigations are carried out by the Investigating Officer in an impartial, thorough and meticulous manner. The Authority itself does not carry out investigations, and its members are not trained investigators. The Authority is only able to supervise the investigation of those complaints which, by virtue of the Law, are required to be referred to it for supervision. The Authority does not have a role in supervising those complaints which are dealt with by informal resolution. The Law does not provide for the oversight of complaints made against the Chief Officer and the Deputy Chief Officer, and the Authority therefore has no role to play in such matters.

The members of the Authority are appointed by the States for a period of 3 years and their services are provided on a voluntary basis. At the end of 2012, following the retirement of 3 long-serving members, the Authority was in breach of the Law for a short period, as there were fewer members than the minimum required by the Law. Following a second recruitment drive, Mr. Howard Cooper, Mr. Graeme Marett and Mrs. Dee Taylor -Cox were appointed as additional members of the Authority by the States on the recommendation of the Minister for Home Affairs (the "Minister"). At that time, the Minister approved the appointment of Mr. Bruce Ridley as the Deputy Chairman. The current members and their respective dates of appointment appear below.

Mrs. Debbie Prosser Mr. Bruce Ridley Mrs. Jane Martin

Dr. John Birtwistle Mrs. Dee Taylor -Cox Mr. Howard Cooper Mr. Graeme Marett

Chairman (since January 2013)

Deputy Chairman (since February 2013) Supervising Member

Supervising Member

Supervising Member

Supervising Member

Supervising Member

Appointed November 2007 Appointed January 2010 Appointed January 2010 Appointed January 2012 Appointed February 2013 Appointed February 2013 Appointed February 2013

The  Authority  is  pleased  to  present  its  13th  Annual  Report  for  the  year  ended 31st December 2013.

Overview

Twenty-two new complaints from members of the Public (24 in 2012) and 4 other non-public complaint cases (5 in 2012) were supervised by the Authority during the year. A total of 10 cases were brought forward from 2012, bringing the total number of cases under supervision during the year to 36, compared with 48 in 2012.

Analysis of complaints

Table 1 – Nature of complaints supervised

The 9 use of force' complaints mainly refer to force allegedly used when arresting and/or  hand-cuffing  a  non-compliant  individual.  Five  of  these  9 complaints  were found  to  be  unsubstantiated  or  incapable  of  investigation,  or  were  withdrawn  or informally resolved. Four of these complaints have been carried forward to 2014 for completion.

Out of the 6 complaints alleging abuse of authority, none had, at the end of the year, been  deemed  to  be  substantiated.  Three  were  carried  forward  to  2014,  and  the remaining 3 had been informally resolved, deemed to be incapable of investigation, or recorded as unsubstantiated.

The introduction of body-worn cameras by the States of Jersey Police in 2013 is, without doubt, an excellent initiative. The evidence provided by these cameras will, amongst other things, inevitably require a different approach to the investigation into complaints about an Officer's conduct. Indeed, it may well be that the immediate evidence offered by the body-worn cameras will reduce the number of complaints against Officers. However, the converse may apply where evidence offered by the body-worn camera may be used to support a complaint against an Officer's conduct. The Authority supervised one investigation during 2013 concerning the conduct of a particular Officer whilst the body-worn camera was in operation.

The 2012 Annual Report referred to the increasing number of breaches of the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005. Three cases were supervised in 2012 and one was supervised in 2013. Of the total number of investigations into breaches of the Data Protection  Law  conducted  during  2012  and  2013,  one  was  found  to  be unsubstantiated, one resulted in criminal prosecution and a disciplinary hearing which

resulted in dismissal, another concluded with a formal disciplinary hearing resulting in dismissal, and one was referred for a disciplinary hearing to be held in 2014. The Officers concerned appealed against the decision to dismiss. Such appeals are heard by a panel of 3 Jurats appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Law. The decision of the Jurats in one particular case, namely the reinstatement of the appellant Officer, is the subject of judicial review, the outcome of which will be known in 2014.

The 9 cases referred to under "Other" include complaints of inappropriate website use, larceny, perverting the course of justice, the conduct of complaint investigations and certain operational procedures. In addition, the Authority supervised 2 investigations following unexpected deaths where there had been contact by the Police with the deceased at a point prior to death: these referrals were voluntary referrals by the States of Jersey Police and were not as a result of any public complaint.

Out of the 26 complaints received, 25 were in relation to a States of Jersey Police Officer and one case related to an Honorary Police Officer.

Outcome of cases supervised

Table 2 – Outcome of cases supervised by year initiated

At the end of 2013, 11 cases which had been initiated in the year were still being investigated, together with 3 cases outstanding from 2012.

20%  of  the  total  cases  investigated  and  concluded  in  2013  were  found  to  be substantiated (19.2% in 2012 and 28% in 2011). The national average of cases which were substantiated in 2011/2012 was approximately 12%1.

Members of the Authority have cause, on occasions, to challenge the findings of the Investigating  Officer  or  to  question  certain  recommendations.  Whenever  such  a challenge is made, the matter is usually concluded to the satisfaction of the Authority.

1 Source: The Independent Police Complaints Commission: Police Complaints and Statistics for England and Wales 2011/2012

Time taken to complete investigations

Previous reports have referred to the length of time taken to complete an investigation. Sometimes  delays  are  outside  the  control  of  the  Investigating  Officer  and  the Authority, particularly when cases are sub judice or where there is an investigation into alleged criminal conduct. It remains the case, however, that there is still a concern over the length of time taken to conclude an investigation. It is not fair on the Officer under  investigation  when  the  conclusion  of  the  investigation  is  delayed  for  a considerable period of time, sometimes exceeding a year. Equally, the complainant is entitled to know the outcome of his or her complaint within a reasonable period of time.

During  the  course  of  2013  the  Authority,  in  conjunction  with  the  Professional Standards Department, discussed with the Law Officers' Department a means by which its  consideration  of  the  Investigating  Officer's  report  into  alleged  criminal conduct by the Officer under investigation could be expedited. An informal agreement has been reached as to the timetable within which an initial response will be received from the Law Officers' Department of 30 days, with a full response within 90 days. Bi-monthly meetings between the Authority, the Professional Standards Department and a member of the Law Officers' Department, implemented in 2013, provide a useful forum for monitoring progress in such cases.

The average length of time taken by the Law Officers' Department to deal with cases with a criminal element was 179.5 days in 2013.

Contact with complainants

During  2013,  the  Authority  continued  the  policy  adopted  in  2012  of  providing complainants  with  the  Authority's  satisfaction  statement  at  the  conclusion  of  the investigation.  As  with  previous  years,  the  Authority  continues  to  receive correspondence  from  complainants  who  are  not  happy  with  the  outcome  of  an investigation or who are unaware of the procedure for instigating an investigation. Where appropriate the Authority gives guidance, but it is worthy of note in this context that the Authority is not empowered to direct that an investigation should be undertaken. It is also worth reiterating that that Authority itself is not an investigative body, that its members are not trained or experienced investigators, and that the role of the  Authority  is  merely  to  provide  supervision  of  the  investigation  to  ensure impartiality, thoroughness and fairness.

The Law does not provide for the complainant to be provided with a copy of the Investigating Officer's report. However, the number of requests for information under the Data Protection Law has increased.

General supervision and oversight

The members, between them, visited all Parish Hall s to view the register of complaints made against honorary police officers, which each Parish is required to maintain pursuant to the Law. These visits are conducted on an annual basis in December. The Chairman and the administrator viewed the States of Jersey Police's complaint register twice during the year. This is a useful monitoring exercise to ensure that all complaints which are made by members of the Public, whether to a particular Parish or to the

States  of  Jersey  Police  are,  where  appropriate,  referred  to  the  Authority  for supervision.

The Chairman observed a number of disciplinary hearings and one appeal during the year.

The Chairman of the Authority worked with the Deputy Chief Officer in conjunction with  leading  UK  Counsel  during  the  year  to  review  the  Law  and  make recommendations for change to the Minister. The Minister agreed to a review being undertaken of the Law, and once that review has been completed and considered, certain  necessary  changes  to  the  Law  will  be  implemented.  There  are  several important changes which are required to be made to the Law to provide the Authority with  more  powers  and  authority  which,  in  turn,  will  hopefully  improve  public perception. The effectiveness of the Authority depends on public confidence. It is becoming  increasingly  apparent  that  the  public  confidence  is  being  affected  by concerns that the investigations are not being conducted independently. Whilst in the view of the Authority this is not a fair criticism, it is clear that perception is important. However, for as long as the conduct of the investigations into complaints against Police Officers remains with the Professional Standards Department of the States of Jersey Police, including the formal appointment of the Investigating Officer, there is always  the  risk  that  members  of  the  Public  will  perceive  there  to  be  a  lack  of independent oversight.

As mentioned above, the Law does not deal with the matter of complaints made against the Chief Officer or the Deputy Chief Officer. It was felt that provisions for dealing with complaints against these senior Officers should be clarified and, whilst not a matter which falls within the remit of this Authority, the Chairman assisted in making recommendations to the Minister for changes to the relevant legislation. It is believed that those changes will be implemented during 2014.

Budget

The budget allocated to the Authority in 2013 was £22,246. The actual costs incurred in 2013 amounted to £20,466.

The Authority employs one part-time administrator and rents office accommodation in the Royal Square. With effect from the beginning of 2013, the working hours of the administrator increased by one third, as a result of which the Authority's office is now open on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday mornings between the hours of 09:30 and 12:30.

All investigation costs are borne by the States of Jersey Police, including the costs incurred in appointing external Police Forces where they are utilised. During the year, 2 investigations  were  conducted  by  an  external  Police  Force.  The  need  for  the involvement  of  an  external  Police  Force  arises  because  of  potential  conflicts  or complex  cases  involving  senior  Officers,  or  because  a  case  is  so  serious  that  it warrants the appointment of an external Force. The Authority is unaware of the costs involved in appointing these external Forces.

New initiatives during the year

With half of the members of the Authority being appointed in 2013, certain training and induction initiatives were implemented as appropriate, and all members benefitted from observing the training courses for new Police recruits, attending the Impact Day in May 2013, and from joining duty Officers on night patrol until the early hours of the morning on 2 separate occasions throughout the year. This has enabled members to witness first-hand the arrest, search and detention procedures implemented by the States of Jersey Police, and the facilities available to the Force to detect crime: of particular interest to members was the operation of the Force control-room. In this connection, it is worthy of comment that the use of CCTV cameras in St. Helier is key to the detection of crime. Whilst there is a view that such cameras constitute an invasion of privacy, it is the view of this Authority that they remain essential, not only to the  detection  of  crime,  but  also to the  gathering  of evidence  pertinent  to  any complaint investigation. For similar reasons, the Authority welcomes the introduction of body worn cameras.

The Chairman and the Deputy Chairman attended part of the Inspectors' Away-Day during the year, which provided a useful opportunity for mutual information-sharing.

During the year, the Authority established its own domain name and now all members communicate  under  the  domain  of  the  Authority –  @jpca.je.  The  Authority's computer software and hardware enjoyed a much-needed upgrade during the year. The Authority's policy and procedure manual benefitted from a thorough review.

Due to the complexity of some of the cases under review, the Authority reached agreement with the Minister that, where deemed necessary and appropriate, additional resources would be made available to the Authority to enable it to employ the services of an independent experienced investigator to assist with the supervision of the more complex investigations. To date, the Authority has not availed itself of this additional resource.

Summary

Whilst the number of complaints remained reasonably consistent with previous years, 2013 was a busy and demanding year for the Authority, with several very complex and time-consuming cases. Members of the Authority continue to probe and challenge where required, in order to ensure complete satisfaction as to the conduct of the investigation and the recommended course of action. There are, however, limitations on what can be achieved, either because the members of the Authority are not trained investigators, or because the Law needs to be reviewed and updated. The Authority looks forward to changes being made to the Law to strengthen its powers and the perception of its independence, in order to continue to provide a meaningful service to the Public.

The Chairman would like to express her gratitude to the members of the Authority who give up their time generously in the conduct of their role, ensuring impartiality and  fairness  at  all  times,  with  particular  thanks  to  her   Deputy  Chairman  for  his support, and the Authority's administrator for her significant contribution throughout the year.