4 November 2004
For Immediate Release

IPCC says firearms officers must be accountable but investigated fairly

Firearms officers must be held accountable for their actions but the process of accountability should be proportionate and fair, the chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission told a London conference today.  

Nick Hardwick said: “On the consequences of the awful death of Harry Stanley - we have no formal role in the decision as to whether the officers involved should be suspended.   We believe that this is rightly a decision for the Metropolitan Police Service.  However, we have argued in similar cases that we should be consulted.  I understand we will be consulted in this case and I am pleased about this.

“My personal view, that I have not discussed with colleagues, is that in this case, given the verdict of the Inquest jury, I believe the Metropolitan Police had little choice but to suspend the officers concerned.

“Firearms officers have a unique and awesome responsibility.   I believe they accept that they must be accountable for how they exercise that responsibility.  But they are entitled to expect that the process of accountability should be proportionate and fair and that those who judge - with hindsight and in the comfort of an office or a court room - the actions they take, when split second, life and death decisions have to be made, do so with great care and a degree of humility.

“Whatever the final outcome, it is nothing short of scandalous that the Stanley case should have taken so long and that now five years after the incident the case is still not resolved and the agony of the family and the trauma of the officers involved continues.  I and my colleagues are determined that there must be radical change to the way these incidents are dealt with and have already begun that in the way we work.

“From April the IPCC has been responsible for that process.  It is one of the most important responsibilities we have.  We will manage or independently carry out investigations in to all police firearms incident and have done so in a number of cases already.  These incidents are a real test of whether we have and will honour the commitments we have made and whether the officers themselves and the public can have confidence in our approach to the task.”

Mr Hardwick set out the key principles that will underpin IPCC investigations into these incidents.

“Our starting point will be to investigate the incident and not an assumption that any individual is to blame.   I do not believe that firearms officers, where there is no evidence to suggest that they have done anything else but carry out their duties in accordance with their training and orders, should be made to feel like criminals. Our investigations will be a search for the truth.  

“It may be, that as the investigation progresses, we need to focus on the performance or conduct of individuals and where we believe they are at fault we will be rigorous in holding them to account.  But that will not be our starting point.

“Let me give you an example.  In May officers from the Metropolitan Police Service shot and killed an armed man in Thornton Heath.   We investigated the incident thoroughly and professionally.  We did not make the assumption the officers were at fault.

“Second, our involvement ensures these investigations are both independent and competent.   We could be as independent as you like – but unless we were also competent we would satisfy no one.  But however competent we were, our investigations would lack credibility unless they were also seen to be independent.  

“Thirdly, this combination of independence and competence enables us to ensure our investigations are conducted in a proportionate and timely way.

We completed the investigation into the Thornton Heath shooting in four months – which we believe is about 50% quicker than a similar police investigation under the previous system would have been.  Furthermore, the arrangements we have in place to ensure close co-operation between our own legal teams and investigators and the CPS, means that we can significantly speed the post-investigative phase of a case.   

Fourthly, one of the biggest concerns put to me about these cases by the PoliceFederation and others is what they perceive as a lack of consistency in the way they are investigated.  Firearms Officers have aright to know how any incident will be investigated and indeed, I believe this should be more effectively integrated into their training.  There should be no surprises about the process.  

Fifthly, we will make the system more open.   We have said that we will do all we can to ensure that the family or victims of an incident are kept properly informed about the investigation.  That applies equally to the officers involved and I think it is acknowledged that we have achieved good communication on all the firearms incidents we have investigated so far.   I think this openness is crucial to achieving confidence and trust in the process.”

“Finally, we have always said that when things go wrong it is often more useful to ask what can we learn rather than who is to blame.  We have sought to identify the quick time learning arising our of our fire arms investigations.

“A good example is the review of the Highmoor Cross shooting.   The review we oversaw of that incident was welcomed by Thames Valley officers and the family and neighbours of the murder victims alike. It shows that when those affected feel they have been properly informed, when they feel mistakes are acknowledged and when they believe there will a genuine determination to make the changes necessary to prevent a similar situation occurring again – then in these circumstances they do not want heads to roll.

“In conclusion, I think the principles I have given here and the description I have given of the way in which we have tried to put them into practice, apply to many aspects of our work.,” he said.

Notes to editors:

• The IPCC has taken on the investigation into three firearms incidents since May, involving two fatal shootings and one non-fatal shooting.
• The IPCC took over responsibility for police complaints in England and Wales on 1 April 2004 from the Police Complaints Authority.
• The IPCC has many increased powers and responsibilities.  All serious incidents involving death or serious injury, allegations of racially discriminatory behaviour and corruption must be referred to the IPCC.  It then decides how the investigation should be investigated.  
• Since 1 April the IPCC has started to investigate 14 incidents independently, using its own team of investigators - including a fatal shooting in Launceston, Cornwall and complaints concerning the pro-hunting lobby of Parliament on 15 September.   The IPCC is also managing 62 new investigations and started supervising inquiries into 339 incidents.
• The IPCC has powers to decide appeals against the police service’s refusal to record a complaint and the outcome of complaints investigated by the police service themselves.   It also has a guardianship role and is responsible for setting standards that the police service must meet when investigating complaints from members of the public.
• The 18 Commissioners appointed to the Commission have never, by law, been employed by the police service.
• The IPCC has its headquarters in London and four regional offices serving London & South East, Wales & South West, Central and Northern England.

Issued by Richard M Offer 020 7166 3214 or 020 7166  3142/ 3250.  Out of hours 07717 851 157.