Chapter 5: Hampshire Constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service
Complaint against Detective Superintendent Williams and others
Following the conclusion of the IPCC review of Det Ch Supt James’s investigation, Mrs Mackenzie raised complaints about failures in the ongoing investigation being conducted by Det Supt Williams. A new investigation into Mrs Mackenzie’s new complaint was commenced (IPC101193).
The Panel has not seen any documents to confirm the full extent and outcome of this investigation.
However, during the Coroner’s inquest regarding the death of Mrs Richards, Mrs Mackenzie gave evidence on 12 May 2013, and provided an explanation as to why the investigation ended. She said:
“All my complaints against the police, as you know, have been upheld. When it got to 2004 and I was able to … [inaudible] on which of course I could not comment I did go to the IPCC to make a further complaint. It took four hours and I said I hoped they would record it (which they didn’t do) and then about six or seven weeks later I was told they couldn’t read their shorthand and I am afraid I gave up at that stage.” (PCO001778, p16)
On receipt of Mrs Reeves’ complaint, the IPCC noted:
“The whole situation with the investigation into the Gosport War Memorial Hospital is very complex and has been a prolonged affair involving many different bodies, agencies and changes in legislation. Hampshire Constabulary are on their third Operation Rochester Investigation … The Family liaison strategy has been poor and it seems a defensive position has been taken in correspondence from the force to the families, in particular with Mrs Reeves and latterly with Mrs Graham. The complaints now made formally by Mrs Reeves are of sufficient seriousness to undermine public confidence in the police and require an appropriate degree of action by the IPCC … Paul Close at the CPS has indicated to Mrs Reeves that information given to her by Hampshire about the progression of the file to CPS is not correct. He has also indicated he would cooperate with an IPCC investigation and this may highlight other failings on the part of the force. Paul Close has been spoken to by Peter Miller and he has indicated that at this stage he cannot comment to us, as the files are currently under consideration by CPS and it would not be appropriate to do so … Given the high level of public interest in the case, the clear repeated failures of the force in communicating with and supporting the complainants through each phase of the reinvestigations, together with the clear evidence provided, I believe that the IPCC should call in the complaints and an investigation should be conducted independently … This would be the most appropriate option and need not be resource intensive given that much of the evidence would be ‘paper trailed’. It would be an opportunity to restore some public confidence in the police and would give the IPCC the opportunity to tackle issues with one of the worst performing police forces in the country.” (IPC100667, pp1–3)
The IPCC commenced an investigation into Mrs Reeves’ complaint (IPC100006, pp62–72):
“An IPCC strategy meeting [was] convened on 5th December 2006 to include the IPCC Commissioner Rebecca Marsh and Regional Director Jane Farleigh to discuss the detail of the new complaints from Mrs Reeves and agree how any investigation will proceed.” (IPC100119, p1)
In November 2006, Paul Davies was appointed as the Investigating Officer and he started a Policy Decision Book (IPC000086, p9).
Following the CPS decision in December 2006 that there would be no prosecutions, Mrs Reeves lodged further complaints that some of the evidence she had presented to Hampshire Constabulary regarding her mother’s state of health had not been passed to the CPS (IPC000021). On 14 February 2007, an internal email between Mr Bynoe and Mr Davies (IPCC) identified that they felt that the IPCC held sufficient information on which to reach a decision (IPC100019).
On 22 March 2007, Mr Davies provided his final report concluding his investigation (IPC100179).
On 29 March, a letter from Mr Bynoe to Ch Supt David Peacock (PSD) provided a copy of the final IPCC report and requested proposals on how to deal with the recommendations contained within the report (IPC100006, p7).
On 23 April, Ch Supt Peacock responded as follows:
“I have now had the opportunity to review the file and can confirm that, following consultation with Deputy Chief Constable Ian Readhead, the Constabulary make the following proposals under Schedule 3, paragraph 23 (7) of the Police Reform Act 2002 in relation to the complaints, as listed and made by Mrs Reeves:
1-3) No disciplinary action will be taken against David Williamson. This decision being based on the outcome that the complaints have not been substantiated.
4) No disciplinary action will be taken against Constable Kate Robinson. However, in accordance with the IPCC recommendation, Detective Superintendent Williams will be tasked to undertake a structured de-brief of Operation Rochester. This will seek to identify good practice and highlight any lessons that might be learnt, in particular relating to family liaison strategies. Constable Robinson will also be made aware of Mrs Reeves’ criticisms and updated on any learning issues that are identified from the structured de brief.
5) No disciplinary action will be taken against Detective Superintendent Williams. This decision being based on the outcome that the complaint has not been substantiated.
6) No further action will be taken in respect of the generic complaint made against Hampshire Constabulary. However, it is accepted that the structured de-brief, referred to in paragraph 4 above, may identify measures that could avoid future situations where victims of crime are left confused over changes in procedures and protocols, made during the course of an investigation, thereby leaving them with an unrealistic expectation of the Constabulary.
7) It is a matter for Hampshire Police Authority to determine any future actions, when considering the complaints made against Deputy Chief Constable Ian Readhead. However, the fact that the complaint was not substantiated is noted.
8) It is a matter for Hampshire Police Authority to determine any future actions, when considering the complaints made against Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan. However, the fact that the complaint has been deemed to be a direction and control matter is noted.
9) The recommendation made, relating to the manner in which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decision, not to prosecute any individuals related to the Gosport Memorial Hospital, is noted. However, it is felt that the Constabulary did everything within its power to set a clear and precise strategy with the CPS but that this strategy was actually frustrated by internal differences within the CPS resulting in this unfortunate outcome. Therefore, whilst the Constabulary would welcome a joint review with the CPS on this point, it cannot accept the suggestion that a robust strategy, based on existing protocols, had not been adopted.” (IPC100006, pp5–6)
On 31 May, the IPCC sent Mrs Reeves a copy of the final report. The letter identified that her complaints did not constitute breaches of the Police Code of Conduct. However, the report highlighted failures in certain areas and made recommendations. The covering letter informed Mrs Reeves that “the report should be considered as final and there is no right of appeal” (IPC100006, p3).
On 20 July, Mr Bynoe sent Ch Supt Peacock (PSD) a letter. It noted that the IPCC involvement in the matter was now at an end. It also confirmed that Mrs Reeves had received a copy of the final report and had made no comment on its content (IPC100006, p4).
The Panel is reminded that, during a family liaison meeting with Ann Alexander and Claire Amos of Alexander Harris Solicitors on 6 November 2002, Det Ch Supt Watts had stated that he had considered the investigative steps taken by Det Ch Supt James and that he was happy with the way in which Det Ch Supt James was conducting his investigation (HCO501718, p2).