Page 36 - Top Cover Issue 4

TOP COVER +557'

.#9 4')5

TAKING STOCK

OF THE IPCC’S NEW POWER

TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT

INTERVIEW

94+66'0 $; 5%166 +0)4#/ 5'0+14 24+0%+2#. .#9;'4 %4+/+0#. /+5%10&7%6

5+0%' /#4%* 6*' +2%% *#5 *#& 6*' his power was given by
6*
219'4 61 %1/2'. # 21.+%' 1((+%'4 9+60'55 +0 the Government in the
Police (Complaints and
# &'#6* 14 5'4+175 +0,74; (1..19+0) 21.+%' Conduct) Regulations
2013, and has the
%106#%6 +08'56+)#6+10 &5+ 61 #66'0& # 5'6 potential to impact

.1%#6+10 #6 # 5'6 6+/' 61 $' +06'48+'9'& Tmajorly on the post
incident process which until recently has
worked well. T ere have been a number
of DSIs since this date and so we can take
stock of how this power is being deployed.
T e process that had been followed
prior to the introduction of the new
power was for ‘principal Officers’,
specifically those who had used force to
provide an initial account before going off
duty and then a detailed statement not
less than 48 hours thereafter. T is process
followed guidance given by ACPO in T e
Manual of Guidance on the Management,
Command and Deployment of Armed
Officers. Following the Guidance gave
the Officers concerned, the investigating
Officer and the PIM protection should
they be cross examined about the post
incident process at a coroner’s inquest.
T e Guidance specifically recognises the
right of the Officers concerned to write
their own statements rather than have
statements prepared by the IPCC in an
interview process.
T e IPCC regularly sought to obtain
detailed statements by inviting the
5%166 +0)4#/ Officer witness to be interviewed as a
significant witness, or where statements
had been prepared by the Officers
6 themselves (usually with the benefit of
legal advice) the IPCC sought to obtain
9 YYY UNCVGTIQTFQP EQ WM 2QNKEGNCY further information by inviting the