Page 32 - Top Cover Issue 8

32 TOP COVER ISSUE 8

LAW & REGS

THE POST

INCIDENT PROCESS

CONFERRING &

SEPARATION

WRITTEN BY SCOTT INGRAM
CRIMINAL & MISCONDUCT LAWYER, SLATER AND GORDON

The Mark Duggan case has spawned a three month he IPCC wants to radically

inquest and two judicial reviews, one of which made change the current PIP
process by requiring
it to the Court of Appeal. Both the inquest and the separation of officers from
the earliest possible stage in
Court of Appeal judgment impact on the current T order to prevent conferring.

post incident process (PIP), specifically in relation to It also wants principal officers to provide
a detailed statement shortly after the
conferring and separation. incident. It published draft guidance
on its website in March 2014. It invited
responses by way of a consultation.
In the Duggan inquest the PIP
process was challenged. It was challenged
prior to the inquest commencing
when judicial review was sought of
the IPCC investigation claiming a
failure by the IPCC to separate officers
immediately after the shooting rendered
the investigation unlawful. The High
Court refused to grant leave stating the
point was “unarguable”. The matter was
appealed to the Court of Appeal. The
Court of Appeal also refused leave. This
case was heard in October and judgment
given on 19 December 2014.
The PIP process was also challenged
during the inquest. Officers were accused
of improperly conferring and lying
about it when giving evidence. Such an
issue was made of it that the Coroner
invited the jury to comment on the
PIP process, both in terms of whether
it undermined the officers’ integrity so
SCOTT INGRAM that their evidence could not be believed,
and to say in a narrative judgment
whether the process was ‘fit for purpose’.
T 0808 175 7805 After spending nine days considering
its response the jury returned a lawful
W www.slatergordon.co.uk/Policelaw killing verdict and declined to make any