Call for police complaints to be heard in public

WHEN a doctor makes a mistake, the disciplinary hearing into his or her conduct is held in public.

Even in the military, courts martial are open hearings, that can be attended by members of the public and the media.

When it comes to the police, however, there is no such transparency.

Even though the 2002 Police Reform Act enshrined powers to hold hearings into the conduct of police officers in public, those powers have never been used. Until now.

For the first time, police watchdog the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is suggesting that, in "exceptional circumstances" where there are accusations of serious incompetence or neglect, disciplinary hearings into officers' behaviour could be held in the open.

The private nature of police hearings has long led to suspicions of leniency - that when it comes to investigating themselves, police don't pull out all the stops.

So isn't it about time the police started washing their dirty laundry in public?

Retired former York top cop Jim Kilmartin certainly thinks so. Not because the police have anything to hide, the former chief superintendent says - but because they don't.

"The police service stands for integrity. That is its life-blood," he said. "The police have never had anything to hide. These kind of investigations are done thoroughly. The whole process is a very rigorous one. People should be allowed to see that."

Not everybody is so convinced, however.

Police leaders fear that if hearings into officers' conduct were held in the open, they could easily be turned into "pseudo show trials".

They also point out that many complaints against the police are deliberately unfair, and are lodged simply in an attempt to delay justice.

There could also be situations in which police were effectively tried in public twice, they say. They could be prosecuted in a criminal court - and then even if cleared there, could still face a public disciplinary hearing.

At the moment, the IPCC is talking only about holding public hearings in "exceptional cases".

Any such case would have to meet a number of criteria to warrant a public hearing, the police watchdog says.

Such a hearing would be held only of the IPCC "considers that because of the gravity or other exceptional circumstances it would be in the public interest to do so."

Such public hearings would all be about increasing public confidence in policing, a spokeswoman said.

Ruth Potter, the York Labour councillor who is a member of the North Yorkshire Police Committee, concedes that in the most serious of cases, where it is clearly in the public interest, it might be right to hold hearings in public. But not as a general rule.

She can see why people might want police disciplinary hearings held in public. The problem is that the "mud slinging" sticks. If claims of misconduct were proven to be false, the police officers involved would have been publicly humiliated, she says.

So how would police officers themselves react to the idea of disciplinary hearings held in public?

The police had nothing to hide, stressed Mark Botham, chairman of the North Yorkshire Police Federation.

But there would need to be "a lot of consultation and discussion" before the idea of police disciplinary hearings in public could be condoned.

Mr Botham said many complaints against police officers were tactical or simply unsustainable - and it would be unfair that they should lead to an officer's name being dragged through the mud.

"It may be simply a matter of perception," he said.

"For example, there may be a public order arrest where the person arrested thought they were not treated properly, but when they sobered up realised they were being a real pain.

"But you also get cases where people who have been arrested refuse to co-operate and they will put a complaint in to make things awkward. We also get some complaints that are made by people with mental health problems."

Complaints could take months or even years to investigate, Mr Botham said - and if hearings were held in public, officers could have that hanging over them for all that time.

"To have a case that's two years old and still going to appeal - how can that be justice?" he said.

There could also be cases where officers were cleared in a criminal court, but then could still face a public disciplinary hearing. That would be unfair, he said.

Mr Botham stressed that, even though police disciplinary hearings were not held in public, they were still transparent. They were open to scrutiny by the local police authority, he said - whose meetings are open to the public, though few people attend them - and by the IPCC.

In fact, he said, while members of the public might not realise it, police discipline was very harsh.

An officer who was reduced by a rank for some disciplinary offence, even when that offence was not criminal, was effectively being punished by a fine of many thousands of pounds.

He recalled the case of a York custody sergeant many years ago who, because the station central heating was not working properly and the cells were too hot, left the cell hatches open.

A prisoner tried to hang himself from one of the open hatches. Even though he did not die, the sergeant was reduced in rank.

"If you are convicted of a disciplinary offence and reduced in rank, you cannot get promoted for five years," Mr Botham said. "If you are getting £7,000 less every year for a minimum of five years, that is £35,000 - plus the impact on your pension.

"You tell me anybody else who gets dealt with like that."

Police complaint figures

NORTH Yorkshire Police receive about ten complaints a week.

The number of complaints made against the county's police officers and staff between July 1 and September 30 last year was 110 - a slight increase on the 105 the same period the year before.

Between April 1 and June 30, there were 118 complaints - up from 112 the year before.

It takes an average of 67 days to investigate each complaint. Of the complaints lodged between April and June last year, there were 23 allegations of assault and excessive use of force and 28 allegations of rudeness.

By far the biggest category of complaint was "neglect of duty", with 60 allegations being reported.

Of those, 21 claimed officers had failed to properly investigate a crime, 30 said an officer or member of staff had refused to do something expected of them and a further nine were from people who said they had not been updated about the outcome of an incident.

In the central area, which includes York and Selby, 72 allegations were made.

A report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission found that between April and June last year North Yorkshire Police recorded the highest number of complaints per officer of any force. But the commissioner responsible for the report said this was because the force records complaints against police in an "ethical and professional" manner.

In the latest figures, up to the end of September, the force came mid-table in the league of number of complaints per officer, Mr Lemon said.

The force was found to be the best at resolving complaints at a local level.

How police complaints are handled...

Complaints about police officers in North Yorkshire are investigated by the force's Complaints and Professional Standards Department, which is made up of police officers and civilian staff.

All complaints - from rudeness to neglect of duty or even assault - are taken seriously, says Ian Lemon, the unit's head.

Complaints can be made in writing, over the internet, by telephone or in person at a police station - or even with the help of an organisation such as the Citizens' Advice Bureau.

Minor complaints will be dealt with locally, Mr Lemon said. Somebody might want to complain, for example, about a police officer searching their house. A member of Mr Lemon's department would visit such a person, and explain that officers were entitled to search the house.

Someone might complain about the unnecessarily abrupt manner of a police officer - in which case, an apology might be arranged.

More serious cases, such as an allegation that a police officer had punched someone several times while trying to restrain them, would be investigated. Evidence would be gathered, photographs taken, and the complainant interviewed.

If sufficiently serious, the complaint might be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service for criminal prosecution.

Even if the CPS did both think there was sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction, however, a complaint might still be investigated internally.

It would eventually go before a tribunal made up of an assistant chief constable and two superintendents.

Certain cases, for example those involving allegations of police corruption, might be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. They might then be handled by the IPCC in the most serious cases, or by local police and civilian staff acting under IPCC supervision or management.

Mr Lemon said he had no doubt the system worked. "I think it is a rigorous, professional and necessary process that we go through," he said.