Audit Committee Annual Review

Anna.Orourke

Description

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS AGAINST COMMISSIONERS OF THE INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION (IPCC) 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This procedure deals with complaints made against Commissioners and should be read together with the code of conduct for Commissioners of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. 1.2 Complaints made against the IPCC Chair are dealt with separately. 1.3 There is also a separate procedure for dealing with complaints against the IPCC Chief Executive Officer (CEO). 1.4 The Commissioners‟ code of conduct forms part of the terms and conditions of their appointment. It sets out the high standards of conduct expected of them. In particular, it sets out the expectation that they will observe the highest standards of propriety involving impartiality, integrity and objectivity in relation to their responsibilities within the IPCC, and will observe the following seven principles of public life, known as the Nolan principles:  Selflessness – Appointees should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or friends.  Integrity – Appointees should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.  Objectivity – In carrying out public business, including awarding ...

Informations

• Publié par: Chiwyog
• Nombre de lectures: 41
• Langue: English

Extrait

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

1

DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS AGAINST COMMISSIONERS OF THE

INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION (IPCC)

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 This procedure deals with complaints made against Commissioners and

should be read together with the

code of conduct

for Commissioners of

the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

1.2 Complaints made against the

IPCC Chair

are dealt with separately.

1.3 There is also a separate procedure for dealing with complaints against

the IPCC Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

1.4 The Commissioners‟ code of conduct forms part of the terms and

conditions of their appointment. It sets out the high standards of conduct

expected of them. In particular, it sets out the expectation that they will

observe the highest standards of propriety involving impartiality, integrity

and objectivity in relation to their responsibilities within the IPCC, and will

observe the following seven principles of public life, known as the Nolan

principles:



Selflessness – Appointees should act solely in terms of the public

interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other

benefits for themselves, their family or friends.



Integrity – Appointees should not place themselves under any financial

or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might

seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.



Objectivity – In carrying out public business, including awarding

contracts or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits,

appointees should make choices on merit.



Accountability – Appointees are accountable for their decisions and

actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny

is appropriate to their office.



Openness – Appointees should be as open as possible about all the

decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their

decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest

clearly demands.



Honesty – Appointees have a duty to declare any private interests

relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts

arising in a way that protects public interest.



Leadership – Appointees should promote and support these principles

by leadership and example.

1.5

Failure to comply with the code of conduct or follow the standards

expected of those holding public appointments may call into question

continuation of appointment as a Commissioner.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

2

2.

WHAT IS A COMPLAINT?

2.1 The procedure set out in this document concerns complaints about the

conduct of a Commissioner of the IPCC. “Conduct” in this context is

defined as the requirements and standards of behaviour defined in the

terms and conditions of appointment and Commissioners‟ code of

conduct, which includes the Nolan principles, and „misconduct‟ as a

failure against those standards.

2.2 The purpose of this policy is to establish whether a complaint of

misconduct against a Commissioner can be substantiated and whether it

falls within the scope set out above. If it is concluded that there is

evidence to suggest that misconduct has been committed, the next steps

in the process will then depend on the seriousness of that misconduct.

2.3 This process does not cover complaints against the Chair, which are

subject to a separate

procedure

and dealt with by the Home Office.

2.4 This policy does not cover:



Dissatisfaction with the outcome of a police service complaint. The

decisions Commissioners make concerning the outcome of a case are

final. There is no appeal mechanism. The only option available is to

seek judicial review of the decision



Comments about IPCC policies or policy decisions



Matters that have already been fully investigated through this

complaints procedure, or



Anonymous complaints.

2.5 A complaint may be submitted by a member of the public, a stakeholder,

a fellow Commissioner or a member of staff. Members of IPCC staff

should be made aware of the protection afforded by the whistle blowing

policy. All complaints should be submitted to the Commission Secretary

in the first instance.

2.6 We treat all complaints of misconduct against Commissioners seriously,

whether they are made by telephone, by letter, by fax, or by email.

2.7 Any complaint of misconduct against a Commissioner must be supported

by evidence. If evidence cannot be supplied to support the allegation of

misconduct, the complaint will be dismissed.

2.8 Throughout, the aim is to manage complaints within the minimum time

consistent with fairness to all parties and proper consideration of the

complaint. An indicative timetable of the process for dealing with

complaints against Commissioners is set out on page 5.

Complainants

will be treated with courtesy and fairness at all times. The IPCC hopes

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

3

complainants will be courteous and fair in their dealings with IPCC staff

at all times.

2.9 The process covers a maximum of four stages (if the matter is not closed

at either the first or the third stage):



Assessment. An initial consideration to establish whether the complaint

raises an issue of conduct as defined by the code of conduct. If so;



Investigation. Examination of the complaint and advice to the Chair on

whether there has been a failing of conduct and, if so, what courses of

action are appropriate.



Conclusion. Judgement by the Chair of the outcome of the

investigation and whether any follow up action or sanction needs to be

taken.



Review of Appointment. Consideration by the Home Office of

continuation of appointment where the outcome of the complaint calls

this into question.

2.10 The table below shows the indicative timescales we aim to work to

throughout the process.

Complaint acknowledged

Within 2 working days of receipt of

complaint

Initial assessment by Commission

Secretary

Within 1 week of receipt of complaint

Stage 1*: Assessor appointed to

review complaint

Completed within 14 working days

from receipt of complaint by the

assessor

Stage 2*:

Investigator appointed

Investigation within 6 weeks of receipt

of complaint by investigator

Stage 3*:

Conclusion by Chair

Chair

to

review

conclusion

by

assessor and complainant to be

informed of the outcome within 6

weeks of receipt of the investigation

report

Stage 4.

Home Office

Where the Home Office receives

advice from the Chair to consider

termination

of

appointment,

the

matter will be referred to the Director

General of the Crime and Policing

Group for his or her consideration,

advised by the

Director General of

Human Resources

.

The Home Office

should aim to report back to the Chair

within 6 weeks of receipt of his/her

advice.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

4

*An assessment and investigation of a complaint often requires reviewing case files, which

can take time. We will inform the complainant where we anticipate

that

assessment/investigation will take longer than the period of time set out above.

3.

STAGES INVOLVED IN THE HANDLING OF A COMPLAINT

3.1

Stage 1.

Assessment

3.1.1. Complaints against Commissioners, including the Deputy Chair, will in

the first instance be referred by the Chair to an assessor to judge

whether the complaint raises issues that need to be pursued and, if so,

under which route. The assessor will normally be a non-executive

Commissioner of the IPCC to provide distance from the normal

management of the organisation. The appointed assessor must declare

any perceived conflicts of interest and, in such cases, it will be for the

Chair to determine whether or not to appoint someone else. If the

complaint is against a non-executive Commissioner, then it will be for

the Chair to consider who to appoint to carry out the assessment – the

Chair may seek advice from the CEO and the Head of Human

Resources. Support for this and any subsequent stage of the process

will be provided by the Commission Secretary.

3.1.2 Upon receipt of the complaint, an acknowledgement of receipt will be

sent to the complainant within 2 working days of receipt. An initial

assessment will be conducted by the Commission Secretary to

establish the nature of the complaint and advise the Chair

on future

handling. This will be done within 5 working days of receipt of the

complaint.

3.1.3

At this stage, the Commission Secretary will also make the

Commissioner aware that a complaint has been against them.

In most

cases, the Chair will appoint an assessor to review the contents of the

complaint. At this stage, they will confirm with the complainant that they

are content for the details of the complaint to be passed to the

Commissioner who is the subject of the complaint. Where they are not

content, they will be advised that this may prejudice further

investigation. If an internal member of staff is the complainant, they will

be referred to the protection afforded by the whistle blowing policy.

3.1.4 Once consent is obtained, the Commissioner who is the subject of the

complaint will be given the details of the complaint (including the letter

of complaint) and advised of the process that will be followed and his or

her right to make representations should an investigation proceed.

3.1.5 A judgement will be made by the assessor on further action as follows:

.



Complaints that raise a conduct issue will be dealt with using these

procedures. A decision to refer to investigation is neutral, implying only

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

5

that a conduct issue has been raised, not in any way anticipating the

conclusion.



Complaints that relate to the service provided by the IPCC will be

referred for handling under the normal arrangements for dissatisfaction

with the outcome of a service complaint.



Complaints that raise issues about capacity or performance of an

operational Commissioner in carrying out their operational duties will

be dealt with by the Deputy Chair under the normal performance

management arrangements.



Dissatisfaction with the outcome of a case will not be considered under

this procedure.

3.1.6 There will be occasions when the issue of whether or not a complaint is

within the scope of these procedures will not be clear-cut. There may

be, for example, matters that appear to relate to organisational issues

or case decisions or opinions expressed. If such matters are presented

as complaints against conduct, a judgement will be made about

whether the essence of the complaint does, in fact, relate to conduct.

The assessment will be done within 2 weeks of receipt of the complaint

by the assessor.

3.1.7 The non-executive Commissioner/deputy may also decide to take no

further action if he or she judges that the complaint is clearly malicious,

is a service issue that has been „dressed up‟ as a conduct complaint, is

repetitious of previous complaints that have already

been considered,

or is trivial. In these cases, they will advise the Chair of their decision

and the complainant will be notified.

3.1.8 Where the judgment is that the matter raises issues that, in principle,

merit further consideration but the complainant has declined to give

consent to release of their identity and details of their complaint to the

Commissioner who is the subject of the complaint, the assessor will

reach a judgement on how best to proceed. He or she may decide that

the absence of consent could prejudice fair and proper consideration of

the complaint and the legitimate interest of the Commissioner, and that

the matter should not be pursued further as a result. Alternatively, the

assessor may judge that the matter is potentially sufficiently serious

that the weight of public interest is for the matter to be passed on for

investigation despite the constraints of lack of consent and taking

account of any prejudicial effect on the well-being of the complainant.

3.1.9 In all cases, the complainant and Commissioner who is the subject of

the complaint, will be informed of the outcome of this initial

consideration. At this stage, the Chair will be informed of the fact and

nature of the complaint, but not its details.

3.1.10 Exceptionally, the assessor may consider that the issue raised is so

serious as to call into question whether the Commissioner can continue

to carry out his or her normal responsibilities while the investigation

takes place without prejudice to the interests of the IPCC. In such a

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

6

case, the Chair may decide to remove all operational duties from the

Commissioner. Throughout the investigation, the Chair will keep this

decision under review.

3.1.11 The decision to formally suspend a Commissioner is for the Home

Office (as appointment body) acting on the advice of the Chair. In that

case, any suspension needs to be confirmed by the Home Office and

reviewed regularly.

3.2

Stage 2. Investigation

3.2.1 Where the assessor determines that the complaint raises a substantive

conduct issue that requires formal investigation, he/she will refer the

matter to an investigator.

In this context, the term investigator does not

meant an IPCC member of staff of that grade, but the person the Chair

appoints to investigate a complaint. This will normally be a non-

executive Commissioner unless either the potential investigator is

conflicted or this is not practicable for reasons of availability, in which

case the Chair shall appoint an independent external investigator with

suitable experience. In order to ensure maximum impartiality, the

investigator will not be the same person who carried out the

assessment.

The investigation will be completed within 6 weeks.

3.2.2 The complaint investigation should be carried out in accordance with

the principles of natural justice, namely it should be effective, fair,

impartial, timely and proportionate. Its purposes are:-



To establish the facts in relation to the complaint.



To determine whether there is a finding of fault in respect of any of the

allegations of conduct (on the balance or probabilities) and advise the

Chair on the seriousness of the failing.



If so, to advise the Chair on his consideration of any appropriate

sanctions.

3.2.3 While the investigative process is predominantly a written one rather

than an oral one, the investigator may ask to interview the

Commissioner and complainant as part of their investigation. The Chair

also has the option to convene a hearing following the conclusion of

the investigation.

3.2.4 The investigator should write to inform the complainant that he or she

has been appointed to investigate the complaint. Where necessary the

investigator should seek further clarification from the complainant

and/or seek to arrange an interview with the complainant. An interview

may not be necessary if the investigator determines that the

complainant has provided sufficient information.

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

7

3.2.5 The investigator may also commission further evidence via the

secretariat to aid the investigation. Subject to any overriding

confidentiality constraints, the expectation should be that further

material gathered for the investigation and likely to be reflected in the

conclusions should be made available to Commissioner who is the

subject of the complaint.. Where the investigator withholds such

details, the reasons for so doing should be documented.

3.2.6 In all cases the investigator should contact the Commissioner to

arrange a time for interviewing him or her and request any written

response to the complaint. The Commissioner has a right to submit

further material and to attend an interview to put the response in

person unless he or she chooses not to. Exceptionally, if the

Commissioner has requested a personal interview but fails to respond

to reasonable attempts to arrange one, the investigator may proceed

on the basis of the written evidence. Any communication to the

Commissioner should be in the form of a letter marked “personal and

confidential”, unless different arrangements have been agreed with him

or her.

3.2.7 Commissioner who is the subject of the complaint will have the right to

consult with, and be accompanied by, a representative (including a

legally qualified representative) at any interview during an investigation

and at all stages of any subsequent procedures.

3.2.8 The investigator may also make arrangements to interview other

persons as necessary for the purpose of conducting an effective

investigation.

3.2.9 The investigator should ensure that the key stages of the investigation

are recorded, and that all appropriate documents relating to the

complaint are retained. Hard copies of these documents should be kept

for safekeeping after completion of the investigation. Electronic

documents should be stored in a secure folder.

3.2.10 The investigator should keep a record of all interviews and should ask

the subject of the interview to confirm its contents. If the alleged

conduct issue is not serious, the record may be in the form of a note

recording the main points of the discussion. If the complaint raises

serious misconduct issues defined as matters which, if substantiated

would call into question the continued appointment of the

Commissioner, a full transcript of the interview should be kept. In such

cases, the interview should normally be tape-recorded.

3.2.11 When the investigation has been completed, the investigator should

submit a report of the investigation to the Chair. The report should give

full details of the complaint, the investigation, and the findings on

matters of fact. The standard of proof required is the civil standard of

the balance of probabilities. Transcripts or records of interviews should,

however, be redacted if necessary for reasons of confidentiality or lack

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

8

of relevance to the investigation. The report should contain reasoned

conclusions about whether misconduct has taken place. If so, the

report should advise on whether the misconduct is considered serious

and what sanctions might be considered by the Chair.

3.2.12 A copy of the report should be provided to Commissioner who is the

subject of the complaint, at the time it is submitted to the Chair. The

Commissioner involved should be invited to make any further written

representations to the Chair. They may choose to do so within 10

working days of receipt of the report.

3.3.

Stage 3: Conclusion

3.3.1 The Chair should review the investigator‟s report and decide whether

he accepts its findings, taking account of any further representations

made by the Commissioner. The Chair has 6 weeks in which to

consider this. Once he has made his decision, the complainant and

Commissioner will be informed of the outcome of the investigation.

3.3.2 At this point, the Chair will consider whether to convene a hearing.

3.3.3 Where the Chair confirms a finding of misconduct, he will proceed to

judge the seriousness of the failing and what appropriate management

action or sanctions should be imposed, taking account of (but not

bound by) the investigator‟s conclusions. This may include oral or

written warnings, training or other learning responses, management

follow through, or in serious misconduct cases, a recommendation for

termination of the appointment.

3.3.4 Where any follow up action is for management within the IPCC and

does not call into question the continued appointment of the

Commissioner for the remainder of their term of appointment, that

concludes the process. The Home Office should be notified of any

confirmed finding of misconduct should be notified to the Home Office.

3.3.5 Where, however, the Chair judges the misconduct to be incompatible

with the continued appointment of the Commissioner and with

safeguarding the reputation of the IPCC and public confidence in its

work, he should refer the matter to the Home Office for their formal

consideration.

3.4

Stage 4: Review of appointment

3.4.1 Where the Home Office receives advice from the Chair to consider

termination of appointment, the matter will be referred to the Director

General of the Crime and Policing Group for his or her consideration,

advised by the

Director General of Human Resources

.

3.4.2 The Commissioner will be invited to make any further representations

he or she may wish to make. They may make representations in

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

9

person to the Director General. In this case, the Commissioner will

have the same rights to be represented or accompanied as at the

investigation stage of the process. Where, after considering any such

representations, the Director General so judges, he or she will

recommend termination to the Home Secretary, who is formally

responsible for the appointment of Commissioners. The Home Office

should aim to report back to the Chair within 6 weeks of receipt of his

advice.

Revised and agreed by Commission: 2 December 2010