Page 25 - Top Cover Issue 6

TOP COVER ISSUE 6 25

LAW & REGS
Are Post Incident Procedures

‘fit for purpose’? WRITTEN BY SCOTT INGRAM,

SENIOR PRINCIPAL LAWYER, SLATER & GORDON
T he media and the IPCC would have However, to meet the call for transparency discussed the areas where improvement
ACPO proposes the PIM or other senior could be made. But the more recent
us believe that the current procedure
that guides how firearms officers
provide evidence after an incident is not officer be present in the room when initial change - where the IPCC was given the
accounts and detailed statements are power to compel a police officer witness
‘fit for purpose’. The IPCC is on record prepared. to attend an interview - had no such
stating it is seeking the Home Secretary’s consultation process and is viewed by
approval to enable it to segregate officers Commander Basu the head of armed police officers and Federation lawyers with
immediately after an incident in order to policing within the Met has recommended scepticism and remains a controversial
prevent conferring. that the PIM remains in the room when issue.
accounts are written, that body worn
During the recent Mark Duggan inquest cameras will be tested, that the conferring Of course improvements can be made,
the jury was invited by the Coroner in warning be given by the Tactical Firearms but these should be decided upon after
his summing up to consider whether the Commander at the initial briefing, and proper consultation and analysis. They
way Met firearms officers had provided that training on how to record and deliver should not be knee jerk reactions. Any
initial accounts on the day and detailed evidence will be built in to refresher changes that are to be made to this
statements a few days later was “…a training. important process by which officers
satisfactory…or unsatisfactory way of provide their accounts must be carefully
getting evidence…” and to “…put [this] The Police Federation of England & Wales thought through. Firearms officers and
into the balance when you come to issued guidance in JBB Circular 007 of 2014 experienced PIMs should be consulted
consider what weight or reliability to put entitled PFEW Guidance on Conferring in and this must be done before any changes
on their accounts…”.The officers who Death and Serious Injury Investigations on are implemented. Otherwise the process
gave evidence were accused by lawyers 26 February 2014. This cites the decision of is unlikely to achieve buy-in by those
acting for the Duggan family of ‘planting’ the High Court in the judicial review claim affected.
the gun, concocting false evidence brought by Pamela Duggan challenging
during the statement writing process the failure of the IPCC to take steps to It is a sad fact of life that our society
and lying when they gave evidence. The prevent officers conferring, as referred to needs armed police officers.Officers who
Post Incident Manager was called by by Simon Chesterman. The High Court volunteer to carry firearms have to have
the Coroner to give evidence and was said “…there is no general prohibition trust in the process. If changes are rushed
questioned by the family’s lawyers and upon officers conferring before giving an through without proper consultation
asked whether putting all the officers account of an incident…” The Court also with those who are affected by it, it won’t
in one room to write their statements said that paragraph 7.39of the APP which work. We must learn from the past and
aided ‘transparency’. The jury declined states “…officers are not to be separated work out a way to implement change and
the invitation to comment on this part before initial accounts are taken…” does aid transparency but in an educated and
of the process and returned a lawful not violate Article 2 of the ECHR and informed way – working with firearms
killing verdict. Implicit in this verdict and therefore is not legally challengeable. officers. Not without them.
their disinclination to add any narrative
comment on the post incident process The conclusion that can be drawn from this
is a rejection of the suggestion that the is that the current process and guidance
process followed was unsatisfactory. And is fit for purpose. But can improvements
yet the IPCC continue to state that the be made and if so how can change be
process is ‘not fit for purpose’. implemented in a way that works?

The Police Service rightly says it is open In 2011 the ACPO guidance was
to reviewing its procedures. ACPO issued amended to clarify the process under
Interim Advice on Separation of Principal which accounts should be provided by
Officers in Post Incident Procedures on introducing the four stage process –
23 January 2014. The interim advice is situational information, PIM basic facts,
to “…decline any request to physically officers’ initial accounts and officers’
separate officers post incident…” Simon detailed statements.
Chesterman states the ACPO guidance
in the Armed Policing APP Module 7 has This improvement was effected after a
been subject to judicial review and has short consultation process in which all
been found to be justified and reasonable. of the stakeholders, including the IPCC,