TAKING STOCK OF THE IPCC’S NEW POWER TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT INTERVIEW

By: Nick Holroyd, Senior Principal Lawyer, Criminal & Misconduct

Since 7 March 2013 the IPCC has had the power under the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Regulations 2013 to compel a police officer witness to attend a set location at a set time to be interviewed. This has the potential to impact on the post incident process (PIP) which until recently has worked well. It is anticipated that the power will primarily be used in Death and Serious Injury (DSI) investigations.

The process that had been followed prior to the introduction of the new power was for ‘principal officers’, to provide an initial account before going off duty and then a detailed statement not less than 48 hours thereafter.  This process followed guidance given by ACPO in The Manual of Guidance on the Management, Command and Deployment of Armed Officers.  Following the Guidance gave the officers concerned, the investigating officer and the PIM protection should they be cross examined about the post incident process at a coroner’s inquest.

Where statements had been prepared by the officers themselves (usually with the benefit of legal advice) the IPCC often sought to obtain further information by inviting the officer to attend an interview.  Legal advice given to officers has however been that it was usually in their best interest to write their own statements.  If it came to giving evidence at an inquest they needed to be entirely comfortable that the content and style of their statement reflected the evidence they would give and their phraseology. 

It is clear that the IPCC may attempt to use its new powers to change the tried and tested process of officers preparing their own statements. Officers should however still follow the ACPO guidance in relation to providing accounts as witnesses.

The other issue that frequently arises in connection with the provision of witness statement is conferring. On the18 June 2013 the High Court dismissed an attempt to force the IPCC to segregate witnesses during a PIP saying that there was no general prohibition on officers conferring.  The court also commented that it was entirely reasonable for the IPCC to conclude that the effectiveness of an investigation may be undermined by adopting a procedure which conflicts with the ACPO guidance.

Legal advice given by Slater & Gordon will always be that it is in your best interests for you to write your own statement albeit with the clear intention of assisting the IPCC in their investigation. In time it is hoped that the granting of this extra power to the IPCC will be seen to have been unnecessary and misconceived.   

For over 50 years, Slater & Gordon Lawyers, formerly Russell Jones & Walker, has prided itself on providing great value legal services to police officers and personnel. For more information on the subjects covered in this article or other legal queries please contact us.

0808 175 7805
www.slatergordon.co.uk/policelaw