Chapter 5: Hampshire Constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service
Complaints against Detective Superintendent James
During 2002, eight families made complaints against Dep Supt James.
The complaints came from the following eight family members:
- Ann Reeves, 15 April 2002 (HCO502213, HCO502230)
- Marilyn Jackson, 30 April 2002 (HCO501929, HCO501928)
- M E Wilson, 30 April 2002 (HCO502334)
- Gillian Mackenzie, 1 May 2002 (HCO502102, HCO502127)
- Marjorie Bulbeck, 7 May 2002 (HCO502278, HCO502291, HCO502292)
- Barney Page, 29 May 2002 (HCO502211, HCO502209)
- Iain Wilson, 3 June 2002 (HCO502253; HCO502349)
- Charles Stewart-Farthing, 28 June 2002 (HCO502054).
The Panel has not seen any documents to confirm that any significant follow-up action or investigation was undertaken in respect of Professor Livesley’s complaint.
The complaints from the above family members variously alleged the failure by Det Supt James to: (i) adequately investigate a serious allegation of crime; (ii) adequately communicate during the course of the investigation; (iii) obtain witness statements; (iv) communicate with families; and (v) provide the expert’s reports.
In addition, the complaints alleged that Det Supt James had: (vi) acted in a conflict of interest by running a private business that could have impacted on the outcome of the investigation; (vii) provided misleading information; and (viii) obtained confidential medical material without consent.
Ch Supt Clacher was appointed to investigate the complaints (HCO502217). On 9 May 2002, he provided his first report to Dep Ch Const Readhead (HCO501918). The report addressed two specific issues; namely, the complaint made against Det Supt James and the desire for a further investigation. The report emphasised that the families felt hostility towards the police and that there was an apparent lack of impartiality between the police investigation and the complaint investigation process. Ch Supt Clacher concluded his report with the following recommendations:
- A complaint should be recorded against Det Supt James.
- A (possibly) external Investigating Officer should be appointed to investigate the complaint.
- The PCA should be informed and consulted about the complaint.
- The allegations should be reviewed (perhaps) by an external police force.
On 22 May, a Regulation 9 notice was served on Det Supt James. The allegation recorded in the notice alleged that the level of contact and communication with the complainants fell well below what should have been expected. No other allegations were included.
It appears that, following the report by Ch Supt Clacher, a decision had been made either by Dep Ch Const Readhead or Ch Supt Stevens (PSD) to limit the scope of the complaint investigation so that it did not include the alleged inadequate investigation.
Asst Ch Const Jacobs was appointed to provide oversight of Ch Supt Clacher’s investigation. This was because of the need to have oversight by an officer senior to the officer under investigation.
On 19 June, Det Supt James provided a report addressed to Ch Supt Stevens entitled “Operation Rochester – Complainant Mr Ian Wilson”. The content of the report was related to a telephone conversation between Det Supt James and Iain Wilson on 24 May 2002, that being before Mr Wilson had lodged his complaint. Det Supt James concluded his report with the following comments:
“That his, and/or the other complainants, motivation in registering complaints against me has the explicit intention of undermining my professional integrity within the organization.”
“That his, and/or the other complainants, motivation and intention in pursuing complaints is, in part, to have me removed from any responsibility for Operation Rochester and another SIO appointed.”
“That the highly personal nature of the repeated remarks that he and/or the other complainants seek an outcome that would ‘destroy my career’ I find disturbing.”
“I did during my career break from the Force have a properly declared business interest in providing care for adults with learning disabilities. That interest was declared before I commenced the career break. I no longer have any interest in that business which is small scale and owned entirely by my parents-in-law.” (HCO502255, pp1–3)
Ch Supt Clacher and Dep Ch Const Readhead were informed about Det Supt James’s report and the nature of his outside business interests.
On 29 May 2002, Ch Supt Clacher emailed Dep Ch Const Readhead directly, indicating that a persuasive argument was being made to reopen the investigation and obtain detailed witness statements from all material witnesses. However, he recognised the considerable difficulties this could cause to both the Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA and Hampshire Constabulary and suggested an alternative way forward, with the PCA directing a review by an outside police force and conducting a new police investigation. Ch Supt Clacher highlighted the need to act sooner rather than later to avoid growing criticism from the complainants and to provide the answers they were seeking (HCO502470).
On 27 June, Ch Supt Clacher provided an interim report to Ch Supt Stevens. He expressed surprise at Det Supt James’s contact with Iain Wilson and advised that this might be investigated in future. He advised against any future contact with any of the complainants (HCO502258). This recommendation prompted a response from Dep Ch Const Readhead who wrote to Det Supt James on 9 July advising against any further contact with the complainants.
On 21 July, Ch Supt Clacher provided his final report to Asst Ch Const Jacobs and Dep Ch Const Readhead (‘the Clacher report’). While recognising that each complainant had specific grievances, his report identified the following common points:
“The enquiry into the death of their elderly relatives was not conducted diligently or professionally and failed to take into account all of the evidence available.”
“… the police failed to keep the complainants appraised of the conduct and progress of the enquiry”.
“… no witness statements, material to the circumstances surrounding the deaths of their relatives, were ever sought or taken”.
“… having made the decision to discontinue enquiries, John JAMES indicated by letter that he would be releasing expert witness reports about the case and treatment of the deceased parties, only to withdraw that offer following two meetings at Fratton Police Station in February 2002”. (HCO501909, p2)
The Clacher report set out the evidence that supported the above allegations while recognising that the complaint investigation was incomplete. In particular, no police officer, including Det Supt James, had been interviewed regarding their actions, and no policies or decisions in respect of the documentation were reviewed within the report. In this regard, it concluded: “It would therefore be premature to arrive at any firm conclusion as to whether any discipline breaches have occurred. The only reasonable assumption to come at this stage is that there is a case to answer” (HCO501909, p23).
The Clacher report concluded with the following recommendations:
- additional matters to be reconsidered by the Head of PSD regarding further Regulation 9 notices to be served on Supt James (p26)
- consideration needed on whether to inform the PCA, if it appears that supervising officers were responsible for directing the conduct of the enquiry, particularly after 19 June 2001
- “a Senior Investigating officer be appointed from an outside force to fully investigate professional standards issues raised”
- “Outside force be invited to review the handling and decision making process in the Richards case as well as subsequent matters reported to the constabulary in April 2001” (p27)
- “the PCA be consulted and informed about the nature of the complaints”
- in an Addendum, Professor Livesley to be seen to establish the nature of his allegation.
Dep Ch Const Readhead concluded that, following consultation with Asst Ch Const Smith and Det Ch Supt Watts, it had become apparent that the additional evidence obtained by Det Supt James during his investigation had not been subject to analysis by the CPS, although both Det Ch Supt Watts and Asst Ch Const Smith thought that it had been (HCO502057).
On 23 July 2002, Dep Ch Const Readhead wrote to Mr Daw at the CPS outlining the investigation and the failure to refer four investigation files to the CPS for review (HCO502056).
On the same day, Dep Ch Const Readhead also wrote to Asst Ch Const Jacobs, Ch Supt Stevens, Ch Supt Clacher and Det Supt Stickler, setting out the following actions:
“To consider the service of additional, or more detailed, Regulation 9 Forms to be served on Chief Superintendent John James. ACC ‘TO’ to consider and action after CPS have reviewed all the evidence.”
“That an early assessment is made as to whether the Police Authority should be informed of the ‘ detail of this complaint and if supervising officers were responsible for directing the conduct of the enquiry. DCC to progress on return from annual leave.”
“That an SIO is appointed from outside the Force to fully investigate Professional Standards issues raised on the Case to Answer Sheet. Not at this stage.”
“That an outside Force be invited to review the handling and decision making processes in the Richards’ Case. Not at this stage.”
“That the PCA be informed and consulted about the nature of these complaints. Not at this stage.” (HCO502057, p1)
Dep Ch Const Readhead decided to await the response from the CPS before concluding the investigation into the complaints against Det Supt (now Detective Chief Superintendent) James (HCO502018, p3).
Det Supt Stickler was subsequently instructed to gather all of the evidence relating to the other four cases and pass it to the CPS. It was made clear to him and to the families that this would not be a reinvestigation of the cases considered by Det Ch Supt James and no new evidence would be gathered (HCO502080, p1).
In August and September 2002, several families wrote to Hampshire Constabulary, the PCA, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and a number of parliamentary offices to express their dissatisfaction with the state of affairs (for example, HCO502075).
On 1 September 2002, Det Ch Supt James wrote to Dep Ch Const Readhead to explain his understanding of what had taken place in relation to the failure to refer the four additional cases to the CPS. Dep Ch Const Readhead acknowledged that this decision was made by Det Ch Supt James alone, and that his failure to communicate his decision to senior officers was not due to any intention to deliberately or inadvertently mislead the senior command within Hampshire Constabulary (HCO501991, pp2–3).
On 18 November, Asst Ch Const Jacobs and Dep Ch Const Readhead agreed not to delay the complaint investigation any further. Subsequently, a new Regulation 9 notice was served to Det Ch Supt James on 25 November 2002. The allegations contained in the notice were as follows:
“(a) On 21 May 2001 you were appointed Senior Investigating Officer in respect of Operation ‘Rochester’. The subsequent enquiries into the deaths of elderly relatives of Mrs Jackson, Mrs Bulbeck, Mrs Mackenzie, Mr Page, Mrs Reeves Mr I Wilson and Mr M Wilson, were not conducted diligently or professionally and the investigation failed to take into account all of the evidence available.
(b) During the course of the enquiries you failed to keep the relatives mentioned at (a) above appraised of the conduct and progress of the enquiry.
(c) That no witness statements, material to the circumstances of the deaths of their relatives were ever sought or taken from those people mentioned in (a) above.
(d) Having made a decision on the 28th January 2002 to discontinue the enquiries into deaths at Gosport War Memorial Hospital you indicated that you would release expert witness reports about the case and the treatment of the deceased parties to the relatives of the deceased persons ... you subsequently withdrew this offer ...” (HCO501964, p1)
On 31 January 2003, Det Ch Supt James submitted a written statement. He was not interviewed. The statement was detailed and provided a chronology of his investigation and responses to the complaints (HCO501911, pp1–57).
On 19 February, Asst Ch Const Jacobs confirmed that he was now in a position to finalise his review and prepare a report with recommendations for the PCA (HCO502120).
Around 25 March, Asst Ch Const Jacobs supplied a written report (IPC100115, p741) (‘the Jacobs report’) (pp743–58). The complaint by Iain Wilson was noted as withdrawn (p744). The allegation against Det Ch Supt James was noted as a complaint that his “level of communication with them fell below what would be expected” (p745).
Asst Ch Const Jacobs concluded that in his opinion any decisions made by Det Ch Supt James were “taken in the honest belief they were correct and justified” (IPC100115, p757). No evidence was supplied to support this claim other than what is stated by Det Ch Supt James in his statement. Asst Ch Const Jacobs recommended that “no further action” should be taken regarding “these matters” (p757).
Asst Ch Const Jacob’s report presented the allegation as relating to the level of communication with the families but did not include the other complaints raised in the Regulation 9 notice dated 25 November 2002. Asst Ch Const Jacobs did not appear to question any decisions made by Det Ch Supt James during the investigation. The report seemingly accepts, as fact, Det Ch Supt James’s statement.
With regard to the complaints about lack of communication, Asst Ch Const Jacobs concluded: “It is the responsibility of the Senior Investigating Officer to ensure appropriate communication is made … The appointment of a Family Liaison Officer would have established effective lines of communication; this was not done.” He also noted that Det Ch Supt James had acknowledged that some of the complainants were not kept appropriately up to date (IPC100115, pp757–8).
Asst Ch Const Jacobs did not address the rescinded offer to the families to disclose expert reports and the failure to inform senior officers about the decision not to refer the four investigation files to the CPS.
The Jacobs report concluded with a recommendation that Det Ch Supt James should receive operational advice (IPC100115, p758).
On 26 March, Hampshire Constabulary reported to the PCA that the complaint against Det Ch Supt James related to poor communication, and made no reference to the other allegations of inadequate investigation. The report to the PCA effectively consisted of two paragraphs and recommended that Det Ch Supt James receive operational advice with regards to these matters (HCO501962).
On 31 March, Ch Supt Stevens informed Det Ch Supt James by telephone of the recommendation to the PCA, but with the caveat that the PCA might change that outcome (HCO502420).
On 3 April 2003, Emily Yeats, Mrs Wilkie’s granddaughter, wrote to the PCA and alleged that, during a telephone conversation on 1 April 2002, Ch Supt Stevens had advised her that the PCA would ‘rubber-stamp’ the recommendations in ACC Jacobs’ report. Emily Yeats expressed shock at the recommendation and concern that the PCA, an independent body, would ‘rubber-stamp’ the recommendations. She requested that the PCA examine the case carefully (HCO502032).
Ch Supt Stevens subsequently issued update letters to the complainants, taking care to explain that the role of the PCA was to undertake a misconduct review and that it had responsibility for providing quality assurance of the complaint investigation and the recommendations (for example, HCO502090).
On 19 June 2003, Alison MacDougall of the PCA contacted Dep Ch Const Readhead by letter. She explained that the complaint investigation was incomplete and that several issues highlighted within the Clacher report remained unresolved. Alison MacDougall suggested that the recommendations within the Clacher report be adopted (HCO502033).
On 9 July, Dep Ch Const Readhead responded by letter. He confirmed that documentation would be provided to address some of the issues raised by the PCA. He also explained that an ongoing criminal investigation was being undertaken under the direction of Asst Ch Const Smith and the Major Crime Investigation Team. He asserted that “at no stage” were the words “rubber stamped” used as had been alleged (HCO502034, p2). Dep Ch Const Readhead also informed the PCA that Det Ch Supt James had never been connected with a care home for disabled children, nor on a regular basis was liaising with members of the “Local Health Trust” or members of the medical establishment (p2). This was not correct. Det Ch Supt James had previously acknowledged that, during his 12-month career break, he had helped his in-laws set up a care home for disabled adults and children. The Panel therefore notes that, during that period, he might have been in contact with medical professionals.
It is not clear why Dep Ch Const Readhead apparently misinformed the PCA in this regard.
On 20 July, Det Insp Mike Dodds compiled a report. This appears to have been prepared in response to the PCA’s request for additional information. Det Insp Dodds concluded that he was unable to comment upon judgements made by Det Ch Supt James and recommended that Det Ch Supt Watts should be asked to comment (HCO502035).
In turn, Dep Ch Const Readhead offered the PCA an opportunity to meet with members of the current Operation Rochester team as well as the PSD team to enable the PCA to reach a conclusion.
An internal PCA memo from Alison MacDougall to Ian Bynoe highlighted that Hampshire Constabulary had not addressed the outstanding complaints, and that: “on the face of it the recommendation of advice about poor communication seems a completely inadequate response. The flavour of the SIO’s actions seems to be, to direct the problem towards a CHI investigation after the police ran into problems with their first expert” (IPC100115, p108). Mr Bynoe in his response of 10 September was very critical of the Jacobs report and indicated a lack of diligence in the complaint investigation. Mr Bynoe also raised a concern about the potential issue regarding Ch Supt James and his external business interests. Mr Bynoe agreed that a review of the complaint by an external force should be a major consideration as the complainants had little confidence in the Assistant Chief Constable. He concluded that the Jacobs report “does not address issues of neglect, diligence and compliance with current homicide investigations” (IPC100115, p104).
Mr Bynoe suggested that it was too late for formal supervision of an ongoing investigation; however, the professional standards issues should be the subject of a review. Mr Bynoe recognised that Dep Ch Const Readhead wanted to keep control of the issue and did not want to refer the investigation to an outside body (IPC100115, pp103–4).
On 11 September, a meeting took place between Alison MacDougall and Dep Ch Const Readhead. The note of the meeting records that Dep Ch Const Readhead had been anxious to resolve the outstanding issues. Matters included the decisions made by Ch Supt James and his discussion with Counsel at a “Treasury Counsel meeting”. When Alison MacDougall enquired as to the precise nature of this conversation, “Mr Readhead explained that the rule about it was that no notes were allowed to be taken” (HCO005270, pp12–13). It was agreed that a suitable SIO would be appointed to review the adequacy of Det Ch Supt James’s investigation (IPC100115, pp101–2).
Chief Superintendent (Ch Supt) David Johnston, Head of CID at Avon and Somerset Constabulary, was subsequently appointed to undertake a review of Det Ch Supt James’s investigation. On 1 December, Alison MacDougall informed all interested parties of the review by letter (HCO502038).
On 1 December, the following terms of reference were agreed between Avon and Somerset Constabulary and the PCA:
“Examine the actions taken, and the investigation conducted following the original report in 1998 by Mrs Mackenzie; and to consider whether the response with the known information at the time was appropriate.”
“… further review the wider inquiry conducted by Det Supt James between May 2001 and January 2002, and advise on the appropriateness of that investigation, given the information known at the time”. (HCO502038, p3)
The agreed terms of reference indicated that the PCA was at that stage not content that a robust complaint investigation had been conducted, which adequately addressed all issues raised by the complainants.
On 8 January 2004, a meeting between Alison MacDougall and Ch Supt Johnston took place. The note of the meeting indicated that Ch Supt Johnston and colleagues had spent several days in Hampshire reviewing material. The overall conclusion was that Det Ch Supt James’s investigation was inadequate (IPC100115, pp89–90). The note indicated the following:
- Det Ch Insp Burt had supported the widening of the enquiry but that this was prevented.
- The investigative strategy was almost entirely lacking with no clear terms of reference.
- Det Ch Supt James oversaw the investigation conducted by Det Ch Insp Burt and did not undertake any review when he took over.
- Policy Files lacked detail, particularly in relation to key decisions about not taking action.
- It was unclear who made the decision to close the investigation. Det Ch Supt James had indicated that he was told to close it; however, there were no documents available to support this.
- No notes of meetings between Hampshire Constabulary, Counsel and the CPS regarding Professor Livesley’s report could be found.
On 2 February, Ch Supt Johnston provided his report to the PCA (‘the Johnston report’, HCO501982).
Within paragraph 21 and 22 of his report, Ch Supt Johnston was critical of the Policy Books created by Det Ch Insp Burt and questioned the integrity of the books.
Ch Supt Johnston recorded on several occasions that decisions, apparently documented by Det Ch Insp Burt, appeared to indicate that senior influence was being applied. Paragraphs 30 to 32 of the Johnston report provide a full summary of the issues that Ch Supt Johnston identified with the Burt investigation.
From paragraph 33 onwards, Ch Supt Johnston provided observations on the actions of Det Ch Supt James. He found that Det Ch Supt James had not undertaken or instigated a review of the case on taking control. No family liaison officer had been appointed. Policy Books for both Det Ch Insp Burt and Det Ch Supt James failed to comply with guidance. The investigation conducted by Det Ch Supt James was not carried out with sufficient depth or quality given the facts known at the time.
Ch Supt Johnston observed: “It is clear … that D/Supt JAMES was following some unwritten policy from the corporate entity of the force. Notwithstanding this, he had a duty as the SIO and failed to effectively perform that duty to investigate allegations of serious crime” (p18).
On 12 February, Dep Ch Const Readhead sent an internal memo to Ch Supt Stevens (PSD) requesting that Assistant Chief Constable (Asst Ch Const) Simon Cole act on behalf of the Hampshire Constabulary (HCO501976). The appointment of Asst Ch Const Cole was approved by the PCA on 23 February. On 3 March, Asst Ch Const Cole was supplied with the relevant documents in order to undertake his role (HCO501960).
Dep Ch Const Readhead had indicated that there might be a possible need to reconsider the ongoing criminal investigation if it became apparent that Det Ch Supt Watts and/or Asst Ch Const Smith had influenced the previous investigation conducted by Det Ch Supt James.
The IPCC was due to take over the PCA and become operational on 1 April 2004. The records indicate that Dep Ch Const Readhead contacted and met with Laurence Lustgarten, the new IPCC Commissioner with responsibility for Hampshire (HCO502200, p1). The Panel has not seen any documents to confirm the reason for the meeting.
On 5 April, Det Ch Supt James was served with a new Regulation 9 notice. The notice records the complaint as follows:
“That the investigation into the deaths at Gosport War Memorial Hospital reported to Hampshire Constabulary by the complainants, and for which you were the Senior Investigating Officer, were not conducted effectively and thoroughly and in accordance with guidance issued to SIO’s in the MIRSAP Manual of Guidance.
It is also alleged that you failed to keep the families fully updated as to the progress of the investigation, key investigative milestones, or significant decisions affecting the process of the investigation.
Whilst not specifically alleged by the complainant, an independent review conducted by an officer from Avon and Somerset Constabulary, suggests that the investigation was lacking in the following areas:
You did not arrange for an independent review of the investigation, the absence of which is contrary to the guidance included in the MIRSAP Manual of Guidance to SIO’s;
You did not establish clear terms of reference or an investigative strategy;
You did not deploy Family Liaison Officers, which led to a break down in the communication process between the SIO and the families;
Your policy books did not comply with guidance contained in the MIRSAP Manual of Guidance;
There was a lack of structure relating to the construction of strategy and policy on issues such as Forensic matters, Suspect Categories, witnesses, finance and set up;
The investigation was not carried out with sufficient depth or quality;
Failing to engage the ten families who reported concerns.” (HCO501978, p1)
“That you failed to investigate these complaints and failed to forward a file of evidence to the CPS and Counsel for consideration, based upon the failure of the Richards case. It is alleged that this was a flawed decision.
That you were working to an ‘unwritten policy’ possibly emanating from the ‘corporate entity of the force’, and therefore failed in your duty as an SIO to effectively perform that duty to investigate allegations of serious crime.” (HCO501979, p1)
On 12 July, Det Ch Supt James responded to the allegations with a written statement. He was not interviewed. The first 12 pages of his statement appear to address issues related to Det Ch Insp Burt’s investigation. Det Ch Supt James explained in detail his appointment as SIO of Operation Rochester and the limitations placed upon him as a result of operational and manpower constraints (HCO501981). His statement concluded with the following:
“I believe that I acted professionally, responsibly and with integrity throughout my tenure as SIO for Operation Rochester. I acknowledge, with the benefit of hindsight, that some aspects of the investigation fell short of the very high standards that I set for myself. I would assert that I was seeking to balance throughout my tenure as SIO a range of competing interests in a complex matter with, at times, inadequate information. There was no organisational guidance for investigations of this nature and I was making decisions based upon the best judgments at the time. I would suggest that there is personal and organisational learning from every investigation and that this should be taken into account when considering the responses I have provided to the allegations made.” (HCO501981, p38)
It is not clear whether Asst Ch Const Cole had sight of the Clacher report at any stage.
On 15 June 2005, Dep Ch Const Readhead wrote to the Hampshire Police Authority. In his letter, he expressed criticism of the IPCC for the time it had taken to deal with the matter and stated:
“As fate would have it Chief Superintendent James has decided to retire from the police service and his last working day will be at the end of August. I have deliberately not advised the IPCC of this information as it should have no impact upon their conclusions with regard to the complaint investigation. Nonetheless on the basis of their historical speed of concluding issues I anticipate that Chief Superintendent James will have left the police service before they actually reach any decision which of course will nullify any conclusion that they may reach. I sense that the original complainants’ may feel thwarted that the matter was not resolved within a sensible length of time. I am grateful for the authority’s support on this matter and will of course brief members at the next complaints panel meeting.” (HCO502044, pp1–2)
On 22 June, the IPCC learned that Det Ch Supt James “had handed in his resignation” and expressed the need to deal with matters urgently to avoid accusations that the IPCC waited until James had left before concluding the investigation (IPC100115, p302).
On 28 June, the IPCC submitted provisional decision letters to each of the complainants and also to Hampshire Constabulary (IPC100115, pp21–9). By that time, the IPCC decision was that the only complaint which was substantiated was that Det Ch Supt James “failed to implement a communication strategy between the force and the affected families” and that the IPCC was minded to agree with the recommendation that the officer receive operational advice with regard to the communications failings (p25).
The complainants responded expressing dissatisfaction with the IPCC outcome. They voiced concerns and a feeling of a loss of trust in the organisation. Mrs Reeves suggested that the process had simply been a rubber-stamping exercise (IPC100115, pp289–90).
On 20 October, an internal IPCC email was sent by the allocated case worker at the IPCC. Her email highlighted the anger displayed by complainants, who had only just found out that Det Ch Supt James had retired before the complaint had been finalised. The email raised concerns that the complainants would be going to the press and that this action would seriously damage the reputation of the IPCC. It also raised concerns about the handling of the complaint and concluded that the case file did not conform with procedures for a misconduct review and that the IPCC could potentially be legally challenged. The case worker finished by stating that the Commissioner handling the case (Mr Lustgarten) had not kept her updated on progress and had been communicating directly with the force and the complainants without informing her. The final paragraph of the email indicated that a new, separate complaint had been made by Mrs Mackenzie and was being investigated by the IPCC (IPC100115, pp270–1).
On 21 October, the IPCC released a press statement publicly apologising to six complainants, indicating a number of problems with the handling of the complaints (IPC100115, p233). The press release generated emails from the complainants expressing their dissatisfaction with the IPCC. Following the emails, it was again agreed that no formal conclusion of the case would occur before full consultation had been achieved with the complainants (IPC100115).
On 21 November, a letter to the complainants confirmed that a decision had been made to reallocate the case to another IPCC Commissioner (Rebecca Marsh) and a new case work manager, both working out of the Cardiff office. The letter concluded with the IPCC accepting that the handling of the complaint to date had fallen below their usual high standards. Arrangements were then put in place to attempt to meet with the complainants (IPC100115, p19).
The letters stated:
“I explained that your complaint was dealt with under the Police Act 1996 which meant that the PCA (Police Complaints Authority) and latterly the IPCC had limited powers to deal with such complaints and had no powers to investigate, i.e. only had the powers to agree or disagree with the discipline recommendations made by the force on a misconduct review case. With the advent of the IPCC on 1 April 2004, new legislation came into force (Police Reform Act 2002), which afforded us wider and more comprehensive powers than the PCA. Unfortunately, the new legislation is very clear and does not allow us to invoke powers where the complaint relates to an incident covered under the old legislation. New complaints, i.e. those complaints that were never identified prior to 1 April 2004, may be dealt with, but they would only be dealt with under the old legislation. Any ‘new’ complaints relating to complaints after 1 April 2004 may be subject to the new legislation providing they fulfil the legislative criteria. I think that it is important to distinguish at this stage the difference, as you may wish to make new complaints and you should understand what powers the IPCC would have to deal with them. As we discussed, you had expectations of a higher discipline outcome for the officer. I must inform you that I am hereby confirming the provisional decision, outlined in the letter to you dated 28 June 2005. I know that this is not the outcome that you were hoping for, but I can assure you that a full and comprehensive review of all the documents and information relating to your complaint has been conducted and that the outcome as detailed in our previous letter is appropriate in terms of the powers available to us – that is to determine whether there is a realistic prospect of showing that the officer’s behavior has fallen below the standards set out in the Police Code of Conduct. This has to be proved on a balance of probabilities, which means that the tribunal must decide that it is more likely than not that an allegation is true. In this case, we do not believe a panel would find that the officer’s conduct fell below the required standards and therefore a higher discipline outcome would not be forthcoming. You raised the issue of the officer’s retirement and promotion. I would reiterate that the IPCC, and formerly the PCA, would not have had any influence over the officer’s retirement whilst having an outstanding complaint. Even if a criminal charge were outstanding against the officer he may still have been able to leave the force and would then be subject to the findings of a criminal court. Retirement is a matter for the force and the officer.” (IPC100537, IPC101047, IPC101048, IPC101051, IPC101052, IPC101053)