Page 37 - Top Cover Issue 4

TOP COVER +557'

Officer to attend an interview. Legal whilst a second investigator typed up the IPCC to segregate saying that there
advice given to Officers generally had a draft statement on a laptop. T e was no general prohibition on Officers
been that it was in their best interests to Officer was sent out whilst the IPCC conferring and that it was impossible to
write their own statements rather than investigators completed the draft of the argue that the absence of guidance on
have the IPCC draft the statement for Officer’s statement and then invited the this issue was a breach of Article 2 of the
them because, when it came to giving Officer back in to check and sign the European Court of Human Rights. T e
evidence at the inquest, they needed to statement. T e Officer declined to sign court commented that it was entirely
be entirely comfortable that what was the statement because he perceived there reasonable for the IPCC to conclude that
in their statement reflected the evidence to be numerous differences between what the effectiveness of an investigation may
they would give when in the witness box he believed he had said or what he had be undermined by adopting a procedure
and that problems could arise because of intended to convey and that contained which conflicts with the ACPO guidance.
the interpretation that inevitably occurs in the draft. It took some time for the So, provided Officers follow the
when someone else drafts the statement. Officer to amend the statement into a ACPO guidance they should be ‘copper
T ere was also the issue of conflict in form which he was happy to sign. bottomed’ when giving evidence at the
that the IPCC’s responsibility is to gather It is clear the IPCC intends to use inquest. T e ACPO guidance recognises
evidence to establish whether the use of its new powers to change the tried and the right of Officers to write their own
force is justified and thus are not in the tested process of Officers providing detailed statements rather than have
best position to assist an Officer who is statements themselves, and therefore these prepared by the IPCC in an
struggling to express himself clearly as to attack the process as recognised in the interview. Legal advice given by Slater &
his justification for his use of force. ACPO guidance. T is puts Officers Gordon will always be that it is in your
In a recent DSI in T ames Valley and, in particular, the PIM in a difficult best interests for you to write your own
the IPCC wrote to key Police witnesses position. Do you follow the ACPO statement albeit with the clear intention
inviting them to attend to be interviewed guidance or the process suggested by of assisting the IPCC in its investigation.
and indicating that they could exercise the IPCC? In time it is hoped that the granting of
their power to compel them to attend A recent attempt by the family of this extra power to the IPCC will be seen
should they not do so voluntarily. T e Mark Duggan (and another claimant to have been misconceived.
majority of witnesses took legal advice in a DSI case in Leicestershire) to For over 50 years, Slater & Gordon
and whilst they attended the interview challenge the IPCC and ACPO on the Lawyers, formerly Russell Jones &
they chose to write their own statements failure to take steps to prevent Officers Walker, has prided itself on providing
rather than have these prepared by the conferring is a good indicator of the great value legal services to Police Officers
IPCC in an interview scenario. One way the courts are likely to go on this and personnel. For more information
Officer who agreed to be interviewed was issue. On the18 June 2013 the High on the subjects covered in this article or
questioned by one IPCC investigator Court dismissed an attempt to force other legal queries please contact us ■