25 August 2015 Dear Justice for Luton Re: Community Update Thank you for your invitation to attend a public meeting to update the community in Luton on various investigations. I understand there is particular interest and concern from the community about these cases, and I have previously attended both community meetings and meetings of the CCCPG to hear these concerns, and to provide information about the IPCC and our investigations. However, as you acknowledge in your invitation, due to the fact that all three of these cases are ongoing, the information that can be provided to the community is limited, as we need to ensure that the investigations and any proceedings that may result from these are able to progress without any risk of prejudice. We have been closely liaising with the family and their representatives about the IPCC investigations, and have been providing them with regular detailed updates. I would like to provide the following update to the community in respect of the IPCC investigations. I would be grateful if you could provide this information to the community at your meeting to inform them about these investigations. We will also make this information available on our website. 1. Leon Briggs Five police officers and a police detention officer remain under criminal and gross misconduct investigation due to their involvement in the restraint of Mr Briggs on 4 November 2013. In relation to the criminal investigationthe offences are of unlawful act manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, misconduct in public office and section 7 Health & Safety at Work Act. Four of those officers, a police constable and three sergeants, were served with further gross misconduct notices in December 2014, which relate to allegations of conferring at the police post-incident procedure on 4 November 2013. The final investigation report is in the process of being written. We have recently received a second draft and will now review this and begin draft conclusions. We are not in a position to say how long this will take. We are keeping Mr Briggs’ family, the coroner, Bedfordshire Police and those under investigation updated. Following completion of the final report, the commissioner will consider whether it is appropriate to refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). HM Coroner will also consider the timing of the next pre-inquest hearing and inquest. 2. Faruk Ali The IPCC supervised the investigations into complaints made by the Ali family, and the conduct of the officers. In supervised investigations the IPCC’s role is different to when the IPCC carries out an independent investigation. Our more limited role includes agreeing the Terms of Reference of the investigation and the investigation plan. Once the investigation has been completed, the IPCC agrees whether it has met the Terms of Reference. We do not have a role in agreeing the actual conclusion of the investigation. At the end of the investigation the complainants have a right to appeal any of the findings should they wish to do so. If this occurs then the IPCC will consider the appeal. The investigation itself has been carried out by Leicestershire Police, who have now completed all of their investigations, and provided their reports to the IPCC. The IPCC is still considering one report in relation to Mr Ali’s brothers complaint about the actions of the officers who attended the Ali address after the incident, which we have only recently received. The IPCC has agreed that all of the other investigations have met the Terms of Reference. Bedfordshire Police is now responsible for responding to the investigation reports. This includes considering whether any person has a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct, whether the report should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and what action the police is required to take in respect of the matters dealt with in the report. As you are aware, two officers faced a criminal trial in respect of these matters, and were acquitted. I understand Bedfordshire police have determined that there is a case to answer for both officers involved in this case, for misconduct and gross misconduct, and are in the process of making arrangements for a misconduct hearing which will be held in public. The IPCC will be consulted about these arrangements. 3. Istiak Yusuf Mr Yusuf was arrested by Bedfordshire Police officers at an address in Luton at 8:47am on Saturday 13 June 2015 and taken into custody. He subsequently became unresponsive in his cell and died at the scene. An IPCC independent investigation was declared at 1:45pm and IPCC investigators were deployed to Luton Police Station to begin collecting evidence. They also attended the post incident procedure during which officers provided initial accounts. A post mortem was carried out on Sunday 14 June and witnessed by an independent doctor from the local community. The preliminary report has shown no indication of physical contact as a potential cause for death and no evidence of any restraint. The Inquest is scheduled for December 2015. Subject to change, the investigation is expected to be concluded shortly prior to the inquest. IPCC investigators have recovered CCTV of Mr Yusuf's time in custody, including when he was being booked in and his time in a cell. They have also received initial accounts from officers and staff members who were present. Since Mr Yusuf's death we have met with Mr Yusuf's wife and family several times to update them on the progress of our investigation. The investigation is focussing on the adequacy of searches conducted when Mr Yusuf was arrested and later booked into custody and the adequacy of cell checks conducted during Mr Yusuf’s time in custody. All CCTV has been reviewed and a number of police witnesses and independent witnesses have been interviewed. Five police officers and three detention officers have been served with misconduct notices. One of these notices is for gross misconduct. Four of these notices are in relation to the potential inadequacy of any search conducted by arresting and transporting officers on Mr Yusuf upon arrest and at custody. The three notices to detention officers are in relation to potential inadequacy of cell checks. A notice has been served to the custody sergeant in respect of his role in overseeing the search and cell check. The three detention officers attended misconduct interviews last week. The IPCC will come to a conclusion about their conduct at the end of the investigation. I understand the continued community interest and concern about these matters, and I will continue to provide updates on the progress of our investigations to the families but also the wider community as we have more information that we can share in public. It may well be that further questions or concerns arise from your community meeting. I would like to suggest a meeting between myself, Liberty Louise, Mr Malik and another representative of Justice for Luton at our offices to discuss any concerns that arise, and how we can keep Justice for Luton and the wider community informed as these investigations proceed. Yours sincerely
Mary Cunneen Commissioner Independent Police Complaints Commission |
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.
Deals with someone’s inability or failure to perform to a satisfactory level, but without breaching the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Focuses on putting an issue right and preventing it from happening again by encouraging those involved to reflect on their actions and learn. It is not a disciplinary process or a disciplinary outcome.
Department within a police force that deals with complaints and conduct matters.
Refers to lower-level misconduct or performance-related issues, which are dealt with in a proportionate and constructive manner.
This means doing what is appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the facts and the context in which the complaint has been raised, within the framework of legislation and guidance.
The average is calculated using the individual results of the forces in that most similar force group.
An investigation carried out by IOPC staff.
Carried out by the police under their own direction and control. The IOPC 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 IOPC.
The organisation that is responsible for assessing how to deal with a complaint. For example – whether it can be handled locally or reaches the criteria for referral to the IOPC. The appropriate authority may be the chief officer of the police force or the PCC for the force. If a complaint investigation finds that someone has a case to answer for misconduct, the appropriate authority is responsible for arranging any misconduct proceedings. If you make a complaint, the appropriate authority for your case will contact you.
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.
Policing bodies include police and crime commissioners, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
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).
IOPC guidance to the police service and police authorities on the handling of complaints.
A complaint or recordable conduct matter that doesn’t need to be referred to the IOPC, but where the seriousness or circumstances justifies referral.
Parameters within which an investigation is conducted.
A person is adversely affected if 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.
This is where a manager deals with the way someone has behaved. It can include: showing the police officer or member of staff how their behaviour fell short of expectations set out in the Standards of Professional Behaviour; identifying expectations for future conduct; or addressing any underlying causes of misconduct.
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 an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
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 an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A breach of standards of professional behaviour by police officers or staff so serious it could justify their dismissal.
A matter where no complaint has been received, but where there is an indication that a person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain 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.
Quarter 1 covers 1 April - 30 June
Quarter 2 covers 1 April - 30 September
Quarter 3 covers 1 April - 31 December
Quarter 4 covers the full financial year (1 April - 31 March).
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
Used to house anyone who has been detained.
Complainants have the right to appeal to the IOPC 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 matters and produces a report that sets out and analyses the evidence. There are three types of investigations: local, directed and independent.
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.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
A person who makes a complaint about the conduct of someone serving with the police.
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.
List of officers and staff who have been dismissed from policing, or would have been if they had not retired or resigned.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
An independent judicial officer, the coroner enquires into deaths reported to him/her.
A breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that would justify at least a written warning.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
A record is made of a complaint, giving it formal status as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002.
This is a format where information is written in plain English and short sentences.
The IOPC must be notified about specific types of complaint or incidents to be able to decide how they should be dealt with.
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.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
Conduct includes acts, omissions, statements and decisions (whether actual, alleged or inferred). For example: language used and the manner or tone of communications.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.