An act of parliament that provides the core framework of police powers to combat crime and provide codes of practice for the exercise of these powers.
Leads and manages the development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The body that represents the interests of all police constables, sergeants, and inspectors.
Department within a police force that deals with complaints and conduct matters.
The average is calculated using the individual results of the forces in that most similar force group.
An investigation carried out by IPCC staff.
Carried out by the police under their own direction and control. The IPCC sets the terms of reference and receives the investigation report when it is complete. Complainants have a right of appeal following a supervised investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
This act sets out how the police complaints system operates.
How a police force is run, for example policing standards or policing policy.
An investigation carried out by the police under the direction and control of the IPCC.
An intelligence-led agency with law enforcement powers, it is also responsible for reducing the harm that is caused to people and communities by serious organised crime.

The appropriate authority can be:

  • the chief officer of the police force
  • the Police and Crime Commissioner responsible for the police force you complained about
  • the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (if your complaint is about the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service)
  • the Common Council for the City of London (if your complaint is about the Commissioner of the City of London police).
Investigations carried out entirely by the police. Complainants have a right of appeal following a local investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
A person is adversely affected is he or she suffers any form of loss or damage, distress or inconvenience, if he or she is put in danger or is otherwise unduly put at risk of being adversely affected.
IPCC guidance to the police service and police authorities on the handling of complaints.
Parameters within which an investigation is conducted.
This could be the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer complained about.
Consists of a chair, two deputy chairs, and commissioners – each responsible for specific police forces, guardianship work and individual cases.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever manner it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only take place in certain limited circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
Used to house anyone who has been detained.
Complainants have the right to appeal to the IPCC if a police force did not record their complaint or notify the correct police force if it was made originally to the wrong force.
The purpose of an investigation is to establish the facts behind a complaint, conduct matter, or DSI matter; and reach conclusions. An investigator looks into a complaint and produces a report that details the outcome of each allegation. There are four types of investigation: local investigation, supervised investigation, managed investigation and independent investigation.
A person who makes a complaint about the conduct of someone serving with the police.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
An independent judicial officer, the coroner enquires into deaths reported to him/her.
A record is made of a complaint, giving it formal status as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
Casework involves assessing appeals. Casework staff also have a role in overseeing the police complaints system to help ensure police forces handle complaints in the best possible way.
The IPCC must be notified about specific types of complaint or incidents to be able to decide how they should be dealt with.
Conduct includes acts, omissions, statements and decisions (whether actual, alleged or inferred). For example: language used and the manner or tone of communications.
An application by a complainant for a police decision to be reviewed.

IPCC decisions on MPA referrals relating to the conduct of Sir Paul Stephenson, John Yates, Andy Hayman and Peter Clarke in connection with the Metropolitan Police Service response to phone hacking

Aug 17, 2011

 

The IPCC has today notified four (senior and former senior) Metropolitan Police officers of decisions made in relation to referrals made to the IPCC by the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) in the wake of the ‘phone hacking scandal’.

The MPA made referrals in relation to former Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, former Assistant Commissioners, John Yates and Andy Hayman and former Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke.

The IPCC has made an independent assessment of these referrals and has decided the following:

o That in relation to their alleged respective roles in the “phone hacking” investigation, the conduct of none of these officers amounts to recordable conduct;

o That in relation to the separate matter regarding John Yates’s alleged involvement in securing employment for the daughter of Neil Wallis, this will be the subject of an independent investigation.

IPCC Deputy Chair Deborah Glass said, “The role of the Metropolitan Police in its response to allegations of phone hacking by News of the World has rightly come under huge public scrutiny. There can be no doubt about the damaging effect of the perceived inadequate response – in particular, the failure to notify its many apparent victims – on public confidence. Sir Paul Stephenson and John Yates both acknowledged this in their decisions to resign.

“But while there can be little doubt of the effect on the public’s mind about the series of revelations regarding connections between senior police officers and News International, the IPCC must identify what is, and what is not, conduct that needs to be investigated. A clear line must be drawn between what is a recordable conduct matter – in effect, conduct that is either criminal or for which an officer should be disciplined - and public concerns that will be addressed and scrutinised by Lord Justice Leveson’s public inquiry.

“In making these decisions I have considered the supporting documentation provided by the MPA and the remit of the IPCC. I have also considered the background to the MPS response to phone hacking, transcripts of evidence of all four individuals to the Home Affairs Select Committee, the report of that Committee, the extensive media reporting of these matters and the role of the Leveson Inquiry, whose team I have met.

“In relation to Sir Paul Stephenson, his conduct was referred by the MPA because of his responsibility for the alleged failings of John Yates. But while he is in principle answerable for decisions made on his watch as Commissioner for the Metropolis, I do not think he committed a misconduct offence because one of his officers may have carried out a poor investigation.

“I also considered whether the public interest requires any other matter to be investigated by the IPCC, including Sir Paul’s acceptance of hospitality from a family friend at Champneys Medical, unconnected to his professional life, while he was on sick leave. The public will make its own judgements about whether any senior public official should accept hospitality to this extent from anyone - or indeed about a policy which regards hospitality as acceptable merely because it is disclosed. But whether or not the acceptance of hospitality amounts to recordable conduct, I do not consider that it is necessary to investigate it further. Sir Paul Stephenson has given a public account of his actions and of course, has resigned.

“In relation to John Yates, considering that he has been questioned about his involvement in phone hacking over many hours in six separate Parliamentary sessions, it is difficult to see what further investigation would achieve. We would agree that he made a poor decision in 2009. He himself has acknowledged that, given what is now known, he made a poor decision for which he has now taken responsibility. Had no new investigation into phone hacking begun this may well have been a recommendation, but the current investigation which started in January 2011 makes this unnecessary.

“In relation to Peter Clarke, who was responsible for the original investigation, he has explained the parameters of the investigation, as well as the reasons why the huge volume of material seized at the time was not subject to analysis. Had a complaint been made about the original investigation, fairness would require any investigation to consider whether his decision to set narrow parameters was reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances as they existed at the time, which included some 70 live operations relating to terrorist plots.

“In relation to Andy Hayman, while the original investigation was within his command, he was not responsible for it. Although not referred to us by the MPA, his social contacts with News International and subsequent employment by the Times have been criticised. While there are serious issues that need to be scrutinised about the extent of contact between senior police officers and the media, and particularly around hospitality, in the absence of any actual evidence of impropriety these are, in my view, for the Inquiry to explore.

“The IPCC is now involved in three investigations in relation to these matters – an independent investigation into the Chamy media contract and the MPS Director of Public Affairs, an independent investigation into John Yates’s alleged involvement in securing a job for the daughter of Neil Wallis, and a supervised investigation into alleged police corruption that is linked to the current phone hacking investigation, Operation Weeting.

“Should any further evidence emerge, through our investigations or from the Leveson Inquiry, of any impropriety by an officer, retired or otherwise of any rank, I would expect it to be recorded by the appropriate authority and referred to the IPCC. On this basis I will keep all of these decisions under review as the Inquiry progresses”.

The assessment and rationale behind these decisions can be found in full here http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/Documents/MPA%20referrals%20decision%2017%20Aug%202011.pdf

 

Ends

Issued by Trish Keville, Press Officer for London and south east on 0207 166 3130.

 

An act of parliament that provides the core framework of police powers to combat crime and provide codes of practice for the exercise of these powers.
Leads and manages the development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The body that represents the interests of all police constables, sergeants, and inspectors.
Department within a police force that deals with complaints and conduct matters.
The average is calculated using the individual results of the forces in that most similar force group.
An investigation carried out by IPCC staff.
Carried out by the police under their own direction and control. The IPCC sets the terms of reference and receives the investigation report when it is complete. Complainants have a right of appeal following a supervised investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
This act sets out how the police complaints system operates.
How a police force is run, for example policing standards or policing policy.
An investigation carried out by the police under the direction and control of the IPCC.
An intelligence-led agency with law enforcement powers, it is also responsible for reducing the harm that is caused to people and communities by serious organised crime.

The appropriate authority can be:

  • the chief officer of the police force
  • the Police and Crime Commissioner responsible for the police force you complained about
  • the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (if your complaint is about the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service)
  • the Common Council for the City of London (if your complaint is about the Commissioner of the City of London police).
Investigations carried out entirely by the police. Complainants have a right of appeal following a local investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
A person is adversely affected is he or she suffers any form of loss or damage, distress or inconvenience, if he or she is put in danger or is otherwise unduly put at risk of being adversely affected.
IPCC guidance to the police service and police authorities on the handling of complaints.
Parameters within which an investigation is conducted.
This could be the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer complained about.
Consists of a chair, two deputy chairs, and commissioners – each responsible for specific police forces, guardianship work and individual cases.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever manner it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only take place in certain limited circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
Used to house anyone who has been detained.
Complainants have the right to appeal to the IPCC if a police force did not record their complaint or notify the correct police force if it was made originally to the wrong force.
The purpose of an investigation is to establish the facts behind a complaint, conduct matter, or DSI matter; and reach conclusions. An investigator looks into a complaint and produces a report that details the outcome of each allegation. There are four types of investigation: local investigation, supervised investigation, managed investigation and independent investigation.
A person who makes a complaint about the conduct of someone serving with the police.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
An independent judicial officer, the coroner enquires into deaths reported to him/her.
A record is made of a complaint, giving it formal status as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
Casework involves assessing appeals. Casework staff also have a role in overseeing the police complaints system to help ensure police forces handle complaints in the best possible way.
The IPCC must be notified about specific types of complaint or incidents to be able to decide how they should be dealt with.
Conduct includes acts, omissions, statements and decisions (whether actual, alleged or inferred). For example: language used and the manner or tone of communications.
An application by a complainant for a police decision to be reviewed.