Police Culture
Here are two interesting articles which have something to say about standards of behaviour by the Police.
The first from the Independent considers a four year legal battle which culminated in two officers being sacked for wrongly arresting a man - Kyle McArdle - and using a Taser on him no less than five times.
The McArdle case seems to have involved a real struggle of wills between Merseyside Police who kept clearing their officers of any wrongdoing - and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) who kept challenging what must have looked to them like a 'whitewash'.
I presume that during this four year legal battle the two officers were represented by the Police Federation (the police trade union) - but the IPCC prevailed in the end and justice was served with the two officers finally being dismissed for gross misconduct.
But what does it say about the way in which the Police deal with such matters - because it seems clear that if the IPCC were less determined and resolute that the two officers who have now been sacked - would still be out on the streets of Merseyside going on with their duties as 'normal'.
The second article in the Times is from David Davis - a former shadow home secretary - who makes two key points - the first being that what is needed is an even tougher regulator in the shape of a 'beefed up' IPCC, not a new regulatory body - and the second that police officers should routinely be wearing cameras and microphones to record exactly what they are doing.
Hear, hear.
Two police officers sacked over using Taser on innocent man five times
Kyle McArdle was put into the back of a police van and hit with five Taser rounds after he was spotted urinating in an alley
By PAUL KEAVENY
Two police officers have been sacked after they wrongly arrested a man and Tasered him five times.
The pair were only dismissed after a drawn-out legal battle which saw them twice cleared by their own force and after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) upheld two complaint appeals.
Kyle McArdle, 26, was detained by officers from Merseyside in December 2009 when he was spotted urinating in an alley off Elliot Street in Liverpool city centre.
He was put into the back of a police van and hit with five Taser rounds, including three times in drive-stun mode - where the weapon was pressed against his chest, leg and upper abdomen.
The arresting officers said he was violent and the Taser was needed to restrain him.
Taser barbs were also removed from Mr McArdle's chest in contravention of Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) guidelines which say they should only be removed by a medical professional unless there is an "operational necessity". The officer who took them out said he feared Mr McArdle would remove them himself and use them as weapons.
Mr McArdle, 26, was charged with assaulting two of the officers but was found not guilty at a Magistrates' Court hearing.
He said: "After three Merseyside Professional Standards Department investigations and nearly four years since the original complaint, I'm very happy that it went to a misconduct hearing. I would like to sincerely thank the IPCC for upholding my appeals. I feel that justice has now been done and I can get on with my life."
After he was cleared by magistrates, Mr McArdle made a number of complaints, including that multiple use of the Taser in the confined space of a police van was disproportionate.
But Merseyside Police recommended the officers receive only "management advice" about their lawful use of powers.
Unhappy that the force had not properly addressed his complaint about the extent of force used against him, Mr McArdle appealed to the IPCC.
The appeal was upheld and the IPCC recommended Merseyside Police re-investigate, this time considering if the use of the Taser would be justified had the victim been lawfully arrested.
Merseyside Police then asked its lead Taser instructor to examine the case.
The officer concluded that the force used was "necessary, proportionate, reasonable and in line with the officers' training and Acpo guidance".
A second appeal, which was also upheld, was lodged with the IPCC, which found that the officers should have been served with notices for gross misconduct and interviewed under caution.
The IPCC also said that insufficient weight was given to Mr McArdle's version of events and the evidence that supported his account.
That evidence included CCTV footage which did not support the officers' claims that Mr McArdle had been violent and needed to be restrained.
The IPCC also said it was concerned that Merseyside Police's lead Taser instructor was uncritical of the officers' use of the weapon and relied solely on their version of events.
Following the second upheld appeal, Merseyside Police held a misconduct hearing for two of the officers, which began on September 30. It ended with the dismissal of Pcs Simon Jones and Joanne Kelly after gross misconduct was proven.
A third officer, a sergeant, had already been dismissed from the force for an unrelated matter.
IPCC Commissioner James Dipple-Johnstone said: "To enjoy public confidence it is important police officers only use force, including Taser, as a last resort; and then only at the minimum level necessary for the threat they actually face.
"The IPCC recognises that there is public concern over the considerable increase in Taser use - not only in the number of officers using it but also in circumstances where it would not have been used previously - and the significant rise in complaints that has accompanied that.
"Incidents such as this do nothing to alleviate that public concern.
"While we welcome the robust action eventually taken by the force in response to our appeal findings, it is a concern that Merseyside Police's lead Taser instructor lacked objectivity and presented as fact the officers' version of events without challenge.
"It is important that, when things do go wrong, complaints are addressed thoroughly and responded to robustly. We hope the force will take on board learning from these events for the future"
Police culture needs root-and-branch reform
Hear, hear.
Two police officers sacked over using Taser on innocent man five times
Kyle McArdle was put into the back of a police van and hit with five Taser rounds after he was spotted urinating in an alley
By PAUL KEAVENY
Two police officers have been sacked after they wrongly arrested a man and Tasered him five times.
The pair were only dismissed after a drawn-out legal battle which saw them twice cleared by their own force and after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) upheld two complaint appeals.
Kyle McArdle, 26, was detained by officers from Merseyside in December 2009 when he was spotted urinating in an alley off Elliot Street in Liverpool city centre.
He was put into the back of a police van and hit with five Taser rounds, including three times in drive-stun mode - where the weapon was pressed against his chest, leg and upper abdomen.
The arresting officers said he was violent and the Taser was needed to restrain him.
Taser barbs were also removed from Mr McArdle's chest in contravention of Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) guidelines which say they should only be removed by a medical professional unless there is an "operational necessity". The officer who took them out said he feared Mr McArdle would remove them himself and use them as weapons.
Mr McArdle, 26, was charged with assaulting two of the officers but was found not guilty at a Magistrates' Court hearing.
He said: "After three Merseyside Professional Standards Department investigations and nearly four years since the original complaint, I'm very happy that it went to a misconduct hearing. I would like to sincerely thank the IPCC for upholding my appeals. I feel that justice has now been done and I can get on with my life."
After he was cleared by magistrates, Mr McArdle made a number of complaints, including that multiple use of the Taser in the confined space of a police van was disproportionate.
But Merseyside Police recommended the officers receive only "management advice" about their lawful use of powers.
Unhappy that the force had not properly addressed his complaint about the extent of force used against him, Mr McArdle appealed to the IPCC.
The appeal was upheld and the IPCC recommended Merseyside Police re-investigate, this time considering if the use of the Taser would be justified had the victim been lawfully arrested.
Merseyside Police then asked its lead Taser instructor to examine the case.
The officer concluded that the force used was "necessary, proportionate, reasonable and in line with the officers' training and Acpo guidance".
A second appeal, which was also upheld, was lodged with the IPCC, which found that the officers should have been served with notices for gross misconduct and interviewed under caution.
The IPCC also said that insufficient weight was given to Mr McArdle's version of events and the evidence that supported his account.
That evidence included CCTV footage which did not support the officers' claims that Mr McArdle had been violent and needed to be restrained.
The IPCC also said it was concerned that Merseyside Police's lead Taser instructor was uncritical of the officers' use of the weapon and relied solely on their version of events.
Following the second upheld appeal, Merseyside Police held a misconduct hearing for two of the officers, which began on September 30. It ended with the dismissal of Pcs Simon Jones and Joanne Kelly after gross misconduct was proven.
A third officer, a sergeant, had already been dismissed from the force for an unrelated matter.
IPCC Commissioner James Dipple-Johnstone said: "To enjoy public confidence it is important police officers only use force, including Taser, as a last resort; and then only at the minimum level necessary for the threat they actually face.
"The IPCC recognises that there is public concern over the considerable increase in Taser use - not only in the number of officers using it but also in circumstances where it would not have been used previously - and the significant rise in complaints that has accompanied that.
"Incidents such as this do nothing to alleviate that public concern.
"While we welcome the robust action eventually taken by the force in response to our appeal findings, it is a concern that Merseyside Police's lead Taser instructor lacked objectivity and presented as fact the officers' version of events without challenge.
"It is important that, when things do go wrong, complaints are addressed thoroughly and responded to robustly. We hope the force will take on board learning from these events for the future"
Police culture needs root-and-branch reform
By David Davis
It’s not only their mindset that must change. Officers should be wearing cameras and microphones too
When doubts first emerged about the police account of the Andrew Mitchell affair, Andrew expressed concern about the police forces investigating themselves. I told him I thought we could rely on the police investigating officers to do a proper job of identifying their own bad apples.
I now think I was wrong. My doubts were strengthened by Monday’s Police Federation statement, which made no attempt to apologise to Andrew and which tried to disguise deliberate misconduct as innocent misjudgment.
West Mercia Police’s whitewashed inquiry into the conduct of three Police Federation officials was a disgrace. When those officers go before the Home Affairs Select Committee today, I suspect the questions will be tougher. Unfortunately, though, this is merely the latest in a long list of police investigations set up to seek the truth but conducted as clumsy cover-ups.
The Hillsborough Independent Panel found serious flaws in the police investigation of the incident which killed 96 Liverpool fans. Notes which reflected badly on South Yorkshire Police were deleted from more than a hundred statements.
When Jean Charles de Menezes was wrongly identified as a suicide bomber and shot, the Met tried to prevent an external inquiry, refused to hand over documents and even lobbied MPs to try and influence the investigation.
Then in the case of Ian Tomlinson, who died at the G20 protests in 2009, the first statement from the Met made no mention of any assault on him and made exaggerated claims that police officers were pelted with missiles while trying to resuscitate him.
However, the problem extends beyond police conduct of formal investigations into their alleged wrongdoing. There are suggestions of a culture of cover-up, and a worrying trend of police smearing innocent people to cover their own mistakes.
After his death, de Menezes was the victim of a character assassination based on claims he was an illegal immigrant high on cocaine. When police raided the home of suspected terrorists in Forest Gate, London, but found no evidence of terrorist activity, it was a similar story. One man was shot in the raid. The press were briefed that his brother was responsible. It later emerged that a police officer fired the bullet accidentally. Another suspect was accused of possessing child pornography. No charges were brought. Most infamously of all, an undercover police officer was allegedly ordered to find “dirt” to use against relatives of Stephen Lawrence.
The problem is serious, but it is not new. In 1975 the Birmingham Six were sentenced to life imprisonment for bombing pubs, only to be acquitted after police were found to have fabricated evidence. The Bridgewater Four, convicted of killing a paperboy, were later freed on the same grounds.
The consequence not just of the Andrew Mitchell affair but of the dozens of misdemeanours stretching back decades is that the public no longer trust the police to investigate themselves. If the police are in the dock, they cannot be judge and jury too.
So what is the solution? I am not convinced by Sir Hugh Orde’s idea for a new police ombudsman. I worry that it would take too long to reach conclusions and would lack the powers needed to expose wrongdoing.
What we need is not a new regulator, but a tougher regulator. Earlier this year a parliamentary inquiry concluded that the Independent Police Complaints Commission “has neither the powers nor the resources that it needs to get to the truth when the integrity of the police is in doubt”. The Government should respond by giving the IPCC the powers and resources to outrank and overrule every chief of police in the land — to become a British “Untouchables”. Never again should a police force be able to delay or frustrate an IPCC investigation.
However, while a tougher IPCC would ensure rigorous investigation of police misconduct, identifying such misdemeanours after the event is not enough. Nor is this a problem that can be solved by the Government’s recent Winsor-inspired reforms. The issues are bigger than pay, paperwork and pensions. This is a crisis of ethics.
Britain needs root-and-branch reform of policing culture, a feat beyond the powers of even a powerful independent regulator. The Government should appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the conduct of the police. The lessons about what behaviour is expected from a British police officer should be instilled from Day 1.
Of course, the commission should not limit its focus to new recruits. In recent days, as the truth about Andrew Mitchell’s meeting with Police Federation officials has emerged, it has been senior officers who have responded with a series of implausible denials. The mindset of the whole officer class should not be off limits.
Technology can help too. The police put millions of innocent people under surveillance in order to catch a tiny minority of wrongdoers. Perhaps now it is time to make officers wear a camera and microphone while on duty. When they tried this in California, use of force by police officers dropped by two thirds in a year. This technology could also help to defend police officers who have vexatious claims made against them.
But we need more than one or two good ideas: we need a whole new coherent approach. Regrettably it appears that the Mitchell case is merely a high-profile example, not an isolated one. The decline in public trust in the police is a serious threat to the ability of the vast majority of decent officers to do the job they signed up for, catching villains and protecting the public. A full scale Royal Commission and then root-and-branch reform is the minimum necessary to give those officers back the trust, confidence and power to do the job that society demands.
It’s not only their mindset that must change. Officers should be wearing cameras and microphones too
When doubts first emerged about the police account of the Andrew Mitchell affair, Andrew expressed concern about the police forces investigating themselves. I told him I thought we could rely on the police investigating officers to do a proper job of identifying their own bad apples.
I now think I was wrong. My doubts were strengthened by Monday’s Police Federation statement, which made no attempt to apologise to Andrew and which tried to disguise deliberate misconduct as innocent misjudgment.
West Mercia Police’s whitewashed inquiry into the conduct of three Police Federation officials was a disgrace. When those officers go before the Home Affairs Select Committee today, I suspect the questions will be tougher. Unfortunately, though, this is merely the latest in a long list of police investigations set up to seek the truth but conducted as clumsy cover-ups.
The Hillsborough Independent Panel found serious flaws in the police investigation of the incident which killed 96 Liverpool fans. Notes which reflected badly on South Yorkshire Police were deleted from more than a hundred statements.
When Jean Charles de Menezes was wrongly identified as a suicide bomber and shot, the Met tried to prevent an external inquiry, refused to hand over documents and even lobbied MPs to try and influence the investigation.
Then in the case of Ian Tomlinson, who died at the G20 protests in 2009, the first statement from the Met made no mention of any assault on him and made exaggerated claims that police officers were pelted with missiles while trying to resuscitate him.
However, the problem extends beyond police conduct of formal investigations into their alleged wrongdoing. There are suggestions of a culture of cover-up, and a worrying trend of police smearing innocent people to cover their own mistakes.
After his death, de Menezes was the victim of a character assassination based on claims he was an illegal immigrant high on cocaine. When police raided the home of suspected terrorists in Forest Gate, London, but found no evidence of terrorist activity, it was a similar story. One man was shot in the raid. The press were briefed that his brother was responsible. It later emerged that a police officer fired the bullet accidentally. Another suspect was accused of possessing child pornography. No charges were brought. Most infamously of all, an undercover police officer was allegedly ordered to find “dirt” to use against relatives of Stephen Lawrence.
The problem is serious, but it is not new. In 1975 the Birmingham Six were sentenced to life imprisonment for bombing pubs, only to be acquitted after police were found to have fabricated evidence. The Bridgewater Four, convicted of killing a paperboy, were later freed on the same grounds.
The consequence not just of the Andrew Mitchell affair but of the dozens of misdemeanours stretching back decades is that the public no longer trust the police to investigate themselves. If the police are in the dock, they cannot be judge and jury too.
So what is the solution? I am not convinced by Sir Hugh Orde’s idea for a new police ombudsman. I worry that it would take too long to reach conclusions and would lack the powers needed to expose wrongdoing.
What we need is not a new regulator, but a tougher regulator. Earlier this year a parliamentary inquiry concluded that the Independent Police Complaints Commission “has neither the powers nor the resources that it needs to get to the truth when the integrity of the police is in doubt”. The Government should respond by giving the IPCC the powers and resources to outrank and overrule every chief of police in the land — to become a British “Untouchables”. Never again should a police force be able to delay or frustrate an IPCC investigation.
However, while a tougher IPCC would ensure rigorous investigation of police misconduct, identifying such misdemeanours after the event is not enough. Nor is this a problem that can be solved by the Government’s recent Winsor-inspired reforms. The issues are bigger than pay, paperwork and pensions. This is a crisis of ethics.
Britain needs root-and-branch reform of policing culture, a feat beyond the powers of even a powerful independent regulator. The Government should appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the conduct of the police. The lessons about what behaviour is expected from a British police officer should be instilled from Day 1.
Of course, the commission should not limit its focus to new recruits. In recent days, as the truth about Andrew Mitchell’s meeting with Police Federation officials has emerged, it has been senior officers who have responded with a series of implausible denials. The mindset of the whole officer class should not be off limits.
Technology can help too. The police put millions of innocent people under surveillance in order to catch a tiny minority of wrongdoers. Perhaps now it is time to make officers wear a camera and microphone while on duty. When they tried this in California, use of force by police officers dropped by two thirds in a year. This technology could also help to defend police officers who have vexatious claims made against them.
But we need more than one or two good ideas: we need a whole new coherent approach. Regrettably it appears that the Mitchell case is merely a high-profile example, not an isolated one. The decline in public trust in the police is a serious threat to the ability of the vast majority of decent officers to do the job they signed up for, catching villains and protecting the public. A full scale Royal Commission and then root-and-branch reform is the minimum necessary to give those officers back the trust, confidence and power to do the job that society demands.
