Page 34 - Top Cover Issue 4

TOP COVER +557'

popular belief, never for fun or outright attended the PIM suite and offered the and significant witness interview in a
bloody mindedness. T eir training opportunity for the Principal Officers to more ‘bullish way’. I do ask the question
clicks in and they make a decision on meet them. T is is an integral part of the if there is some political agenda or
what they see in front of them at that process because the SI can declare the interference on this issue? I am sure
particular time. Sure, they make mistakes Officers’ current status as a professional that there is a belief in some circles
we are only human after all. But I status or suspect at that very early stage; that Officers get together after a Police
believe as Police Officers carrying out an something that the Officers’ find useful. shooting, collude and make up a story
extremely difficult role in often extreme Of course I, as a PIM, must be respectful that is clearly not true. All I can say is
circumstances they deserve to be treated of the Officers’ wishes as they may “not on my watch” and that any such
as professional witnesses and not as not wish to face the SI at that time; a presumption that they do is as far from
suspects, unless there is very good reason response also respected by the SI. the truth as it could possibly be.
(‘suspicion’) to do otherwise. T erefore T e SI will ask the PIM if the rules We all know that since the 7th
every forensic request should be done so of conferring have been applied. Rest March 2013 the IPCC have the power
with due consideration, necessity and be assured PIM training obviously includes to compel Officers to attend interview
legal! An “I want everything” request is in depth considerations around this but the Officers are not obliged to
simply not justified and at times borders subject and PIMs are advised to ensure answer questions. We are aware that this
on breaching the human rights of that power was brought in to help the IPCC
Officer. As I have said many times before, with the Hillsborough Enquiry but
treat them like suspects and they will as Police Officers seems to have been gleefully utilised in
react like suspects. I temper that view Police shooting incident investigations.
with a total understanding of the difficult carrying out Some of the early applications and use
role the Investigator has to perform. of this power that have come to my
It is my experience that the Police an extremely notice do leave me cold. Is this not a
IIO will initially and understandably be ‘sledgehammer to crack a nut’? Why
very busy at the scene of the incident. don’t we allow Officers to do what they
Contact with the PIM is sometime later difficult role in do professionally on a day to day basis
into the process and limited. In the case – write their statements (in accordance
of a death at the hands of the Police they often extreme with Stage four of ‘Providing Accounts’)?
are ‘holding the fort’ until the inevitable If it is then deemed necessary to conduct
mandatory referral and take over by the circumstances an interview – fine! Officers will have
IPCC. T at contact is generally by phone the appropriate legal protection and
confirming that AFOs involved are at the they deserve support necessary. It seems to me that
suite, that weapons will need to be seized Investigators are too keen to serve
and (again based on my experience) some to be treated principal Officers with a notice at the
discussions around clothing seizure and PIM suite to compel them to attend
enquiring as to the names of the Officers. as professional interview which I believe puts them,
Rest assured Post Incident Managers their Federation Representatives and
via relevant courses are taught to their legal advisors immediately on
challenge and delve into the reasons for witnesses and the back foot. T e Police Service
specific requests and their legality, and appears to have a hang-up about the
will politely but strenuously challenge not as suspects word ‘interview’ which is however
those requests. understandably interpreted in the same
context as ‘suspect’. I repeat: let them
6*' +2%% 5'0+14 provide statements and then conduct an
+08'56+)#614 5+ during the PIM’s meet, greet and brief interview if necessary. It is my experience
I keep on saying it, but in my own that the rules around conferring are that Officers’ statements have attracted
experience a different approach is explained and that Officers make a widespread praise from Investigators as to
apparent. Cordiality and a businesslike note of any conversations they may their content.
manner clearly shine through. Any have had between the shooting incident Via various sources I have become
requests made are thought through and and arriving at the PIM suite. I have aware of an even more alarming,
not plucked out of the air at random. It to say that this works and I repeat my simmering and potentially damaging
appears to me that any particular forensic professional observation over many years direction from the IPCC that Officers
recovery requests made are specific to the that principal Officers act in a compliant should be separated at the scene and the
circumstances and usually justified. and complicit way. PIM suite post shooting. I thought the
T e Senior Investigators I have dealt Regrettably I have become aware of PIM process was supposed to be moving
with have been courteous to the Officers’ a ‘see-saw’ change in the approach of forward on this subject and not going
involved and supported their needs in the IPCC over the last year. I am aware in reverse back to the dark ages! If this is
respect of their anonymity, both at the and have knowledge that the IPCC is true have the IPCC really thought this
PIM suite and beyond. T ey have always approaching the subject of conferring through? Are they again acting under