[Closed] police shooting and ipcc powers

The ipcc is a ball-less sack that almost always comes down on the side of the police anyway. This sounds like a diversion, lip service to direct any criticism away from the ipcc..

I heard this on Today this morning. Could not quite believe my ears. Have submitted written accounts but can legally refuse to be interviewed. Totally appalling.

Seeing as the IPCC have already released highly inflammatory and false statements on the events of that day, and additionally seems to have withheld evidence from and undermined the supremacy of the Coroners Inquest, which is essentially a court of law, and where its quite possible that those officers could still be called to give evidence under oath in front of a jury - you can sort of understand their reluctance to not give any more information than they legally have to.

I think its right and proper that the Coroners Inquest should have supremacy over an internal investigation that those outside the police feel is a whitewash, and those inside the police feel is a which hunt.

Mildly outraged here.

erm, they are being classes as 'witnesses'? Not as members of the hit squad that assassinated someone in the street?

I think its right and proper that the Coroners Inquest should have supremacy over an internal investigation that those outside the police feel is a whitewash, and those inside the police feel is a which hunt.

This. The coroners inquest will always have supremacy and they can/will be compelled to give evidence there. They are simply following legal advice given to all officers in this situation. I agree though that the Met don't do enough to spell this out in the form of some sort of press release because from the outside it does look completely farcical.

If a criminal offence was suspected of being committed by any of the officers they of course would be interviewed under caution as would any other suspected criminal.

Its a basic issue with the whole way these investigations are run.

clearly there is something not right as unarmed people keep getting shot. whats is needed IMO is a "no fault" incident investigation so the police do not feel under pressure to cover up things to protect each other and thus we get full disclosure meaning we can more easily establish what went wrong and prevent it happening again.

almopst always its multiple mistakes - from the selection and training of the officers to teh intelligence on the ground to the briefings from senior officers to communication failures.

Only if there is clear serious criminal conduct should individuals be at risk of prosecution.

the judge in the dememezes shooting concluded that the officers involved didnt follow procedure and then colluded to lie about it afterwards

it seems to me that firearms officers are afforded special treatment because they have such a tough job?

Thats why we need a "no fault" investigation - so they don't collude and we get to know what really happened to prevent it happening again.

In the deMenzies case there were multiple mistakes over a period of time from many officers of different ranks

clearly there is something not right as unarmed people keep getting shot

Who are these unarmed people who keep getting shot, the total police shooting deaths in England and wales from 2010 - 04/2011 is 3

( http://inquest.gn.apc.org/website/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody/police-shootings)

the IPCC ...additionally seems to have withheld evidence

Have they or is this the RIPA part 1 material that legaly cannot be used in eveidence or indeed even disclosed to a coroner -not sure under RIPA s19 if the IPCC can even have access to the material.

Kilo - its not frequent but it continues to happen. the best way of stopping it is to know why it happens, the best way of establishing that is full and frank disclose which human nature being what it is will only happen when people are not worried about incriminating themselves

when [s]people[/s] the guilty are not worried about incriminating themselves

Actually the problem with this case is that the IPC set out to clear the officers involved, rather than find the truth. When they do so in such a lethal and public case, what confidence can the public have in any IPC investigation. The police must have the same standard of law applied to them as any member of the public.

I don't think that a no fault investigation would increase honesty at all, it would just move the line of dishonesty far further from the public interest.

In this case it looks very much like if an honest account of events had been given from the start it would have been all over a long time ago. It's the dishonesty that has caused the problem.

Though I dont trust the police to be transparent on this, for the purposes of balance - Duggan wasnt unarmed. And can someone remind me what his occupation was?

[i] refused to give evidence to the enquirery[/i]

Well, no, they haven't. They've submitted written evidence but have declined to be interviewed.

It's not ideal, but innaccurate statements like that don't help either.

Though I dont trust the police to be transparent on this, for the purposes of balance - Duggan wasnt unarmed. And can someone remind me what his occupation was?

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/18/mark-duggan-ipcc-investigation-riots ]Duggan was not armed[/url]

He was a [b]suspected[/b] drug dealer, although given the unreliable evidence released so far by the police and the IPC, that is hardly proof of anything.

He at best seems to be a fantasist involved on the outskirts of gang culture, maybe he was deeper involved, we don't know that, we do know that the police and IPC have made blatant lies to cover the events of that day.

Though I dont trust the police to be transparent on this, for the purposes of balance - Duggan wasnt unarmed. And can someone remind me what his occupation was?

Duggan was not armed

'Investigators find no forensic evidence that man whose death triggered riots was [u]holding gun[/u] (my underlining)

[u]A gun collected by Duggan earlier in the day was recovered 10 to 14 feet away...'[/u] (my underlining)

He was armed as far as I'm concerned.

The Police knew for a fact that the suspect has obtained a firearm, they tried to apprehend him, perhaps he made a suspicious move...imagine if they hadn't neutralised him and the suspect had gone on a shooting rampage?

The Police knew for a fact that the suspect has obtained a firearm, they tried to apprehend him, perhaps he made a suspicious move...imagine if they hadn't neutralised him and the suspect had gone on a shooting rampage?

Exactly, I imagine that is very close to what happened, apart from that scenario does not need lies to cover it up, so why the lies?

I suspect the police over reacted to the situation, maybe understandable given the possible scenario. I think that if they had been honest from the start any sensible person would say OK lets look at the way they operate and see what can be done to avoid similar actions in the future.

But to attempt to hide the truth after the fact is completely unacceptable

To be clear I am not suggesting that the Duggan should or should not have been shot, just that it is bizarre that the IPCC investigation does not interview the police witnesses, shows what a farce they are. I dont blame the officers involved either they are playing by the rules, the rules seem like crap to me though.

they are playing by the rules

Actually that is the point that is most suspect, did they play by the rules or did they overstep the mark and go out to "take a criminal down"!

In the Alfie Meadows case, his brief asked the IPCC to stop their investigation, and it did. I wonder why he asked. And if a copper were facing trial, could his lawyer do the same? I suspect not.

IIUR, working cops have little trust in the IPCC. Someone already mentioned leaks. The IPCC can take 4 months to investigate a simple case, during which time the cop may be suspended from work, under stress, at risk of losing their job (and house, and car....).

Exactly, I imagine that is very close to what happened, apart from that scenario does not need lies to cover it up, so why the lies?

Probably because there's a baying mob waiting to find any chink in a defence and rip it to pieces whether it deserves it or not. I know nothing of this case so I'm speaking completely without bias, but it'll be a sad day when people are forced to give evidence - after all, if someone does not want to give evidence (maybe they feel its meaning will be twisted, maybe they feel they are doing a right-acting colleague a disservice) you're going to have to torture them to make them give evidence, or expect it to be a lie.

It sets a really great example to the public for when the police are asking people to testify as witnesses doesn't it.

Probably because there's a baying mob waiting to find any chink in a defence and rip it to pieces whether it deserves it or not.

So you think the police should be subject to a different level of justice, investigation and honesty from the rest of society? And in this case, which you are apparently ignorant of, the lies led to the baying mob.

So you think the police should be subject to a different level of justice, investigation and honesty from the rest of society? And in this case, which you are apparently ignorant of, the lies led to the baying mob.

No, not at all - everyone has the right not to give information as far as I'm aware, meaning everyone is equal. When it's the other way around it's the police looking for anything they can possibly nail on you, it's a two way road.

It sets a really great example to the public for when the police are asking people to testify as witnesses doesn't it.

True, and unfortunate.

Was the MSP's Grauniad story a leak, perhaps?

"the police looking for anything they can possibly nail on you,"

That's a bit strong, there's rules, and the prosecution has to convince a jury.

No, not at all - everyone has the right not to give information as far as I'm aware, meaning everyone is equal. When it's the other way around it's the police looking for anything they can possibly nail on you, it's a two way road.

I can't remember the exact wording, but I think a member of the public involved in a suspicious death, would not be given the option to refuse interview, they could choose to not answer the questions in interview under the understanding that failing to do so may be used as evidence supporting guilt.

"everyone has the right not to give information as far as I'm aware"

Quite the opposite every one is assumed to be a competent and compellable witness unless they fall into an exception. Compellable means they can be forced on pain of contempt of court. A refusing witness can be arrested and dragged to court in handcuffs. That this rarely happens is for practical reasons not rights.

The officers in this case have given their witness evidence to the investigation but in written format. That is their right as I understand it. I don't agree that this is the proper way of doing things in a IPCC investigation but given it's part of the rules you can't draw any inference of guilt or cover up on an individual case basis.

I disagree with this procedure because I feel the police and in particular armed officers should be subject to a high degree of scrutiny and transparency so that the public can have informed trust and confidence in them. The written statement followed by no comment is something criminal suspects use when they have something to say and something to hide (not necessarily guilt) or when they have mental or cognitive problems so they are incapable of giving a clear account or resisting pressure. Neither scenario fits with my view of the ideal police officer.

The written statement followed by no comment is something criminal suspects use when they have something to say and something to hide (not necessarily guilt) or when they have mental or cognitive problems so they are incapable of giving a clear account or resisting pressure. Neither scenario fits with my view of the ideal police officer.

Police officers are part of society and have the same rights when under investigation as anyone else. Unless you think we should start grading rights according to occupation.

So who should get full rights and who should get less because they should know better. MPs? Lawyers? Judges? Doctors, etc.

In fact police officers already have less rights as unlike anybody else they are compelled to give a statement when under investigation for misconduct.

Crankboy - I still don't see the reason why a quasi-judicial internal police process is wanted or needed, when it challenges the supremacy, and indeed in this case has witheld evidence from, the coroner.

The right place for an inquest into all the events leading to the death of Mark Duggan is the coroners court.

Quite the opposite every one is assumed to be a competent and compellable witness unless they fall into an exception. Compellable means they can be forced on pain of contempt of court. A refusing witness can be arrested and dragged to court in handcuffs. That this rarely happens is for practical reasons not rights.

Are you perhaps confusing a coroners inquest with a criminal prosecution case in HM Courts?

It's quite amazing how ill-informed chinese whispers pass as fact on this forum.

Nonsense - Member

It's quite amazing how ill-informed chinese whispers pass as fact on this forum.

So correct them if you have anything useful to add.

And could this be another IPCC leak?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-17840610

"the police looking for anything they can possibly nail on you,"

That's a bit strong, there's rules, and the prosecution has to convince a jury.

From my recent observations of people close to me that's far from untrue. It worked something like:
Person breaks minor law (think picking up and binning litter) while trying to make up for friend breaking minor law (think person littered).
Police spot person binning litter don't accept good intentions (assumed they'd only picked it up because they'd just thrown it and seen police).
Police put person in car, not under arrest, and when person tries to phone for legal advice while being quizzed about identity, police go (physically) mental then arrest person for police assault when they resist. Even one of the officers in question said to a witness that other officer shouldn't be doing what they were doing.
Person wishes to complain, complaint handled by officers being complained about.
Police, in direct and acknowledged retaliation to complaint being levied press several vaguely applicable (but all wrong) charges.
Person spends 18 months of their life in and out of court having to prove the police were to blame and getting successfully equitted of all of the above while the officers to blame colluded and tried to weasel out of it.

Unless you know your legal rights and are willing to put your neck on the line you can and will get screwed over.

Unless you know your legal rights and are willing to put your neck on the line you can and will get screwed over.

This is my experience also.

I know quite a few coppers. This does not surprise me the least.

Terrible culture of covering their colleagues back. Truly. I've heard some horrendous examples.

I dont trust the police to be transparent on this, for the purposes of balance - Duggan wasnt unarmed. And can someone remind me what his occupation was?

In any case, the critical factor for the spark that ignited the riots was not imo the exact circumstances of the death of Duggan himself but the widespread lack of confidence that the death would be appropriately investigated and (if necessary) prosecuted.

it disappoints me a lot but doesn't surprise me atall
(*someone who [along with his family] has experienced the police in 'action')

"Terrible culture of covering their colleagues back" - how depressingly true this is.

TuckerUK I was responding to the general proposition that people have the right not to be witnesses. HM's Coroner can compell attendance under Civil Procedure Rule 34.4 .Powers will get stronger when shedule 5 of the Coroners and justice Act 2009 comes into force.

Z-11 the Coroner's court is "not a court of blame" but a means of establishing how someone died ( yes i know some narative verdicts rightly for soldiers abroard wrongly for cyclists in newcastle seem to move away from this.) So the IPCC does have a role in activley investigating the responsiblility element. Given that neither the aggreeved complaining public nor the police like the IPCC they are either doing something right and walking a difficult middle ground or have made a real hash of things.

ck - saddened to read that.

And in general, no doubt it will all improve when G4S take over.

The written statement followed by no comment is something criminal suspects use when they have something to say and something to hide (not necessarily guilt) or when they have mental or cognitive problems so they are incapable of giving a clear account or resisting pressure. Neither scenario fits with my view of the ideal police officer

But in criminal proceedings thats a different kettle of fish used when someone is being interviewed under caution and when PACE gives the investigator a power to interview them, that's not the case here, the officers have given a witness statement and declined to be interviewed by the IPCC as witnesses (as I understand from media coverage on legal advice), they have not said they will no comment when asked by a coroner or questioned in a court. The IPCC has no right under PACE to conduct an interview.

Actually the problem with this case is that the IPC set out to clear the officers involved, rather than find the truth.

What absolute tosh. The IPCC are nothing to do with the Police whatsoever. The clue in fact being in the name..... and also being the reason why the name was changed from the Police Complaints Authority a few years back.
If anything the Police Officers apparent refusal to be interviewed by the IPCC suggests the exact opposite if anything.

[url= http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17544932 ]Might be worth reading this[/url]

OK, so you didn't follow the case then? How the IPC misled the public, they were forced to change tact because they were caught.

A bit patronising MSP if you don't mind me saying so.

The fact that they ****ed up does not necessarily mean that they were trying to "clear the officers involved". Especially when the vast weight of evidence suggests the exact opposite, including the fact that the 31 officers involved as witnesses will not speak to the IPCC. Not really the actions of those having their backs covered for them is it?

The trouble with this sort of thread is its easy to wile away the day making up all sorts of conspiracy theories, but the reality usually is a lot more mundane, i.e. someone somewhere has dropped a bollock and then tries to cover it up because the consequences of that bollock being dropped are so dire.

But hey, lets not let reality or facts get in the way of a bloody good whinge.

Incidentally, are you still convinced that 9/11 was carried out by the US government?

i.e. someone somewhere has dropped a bollock and then tries to cover it up because the consequences of that bollock being dropped are so dire.

almost certainly several people - each of which in isolation would not have led to the killing but when taken together do

Quite so TJ, but its a bit chicken and egg, it leads to a culture like that, which then goes into a downward spiral of covering backs, which ultimately is corrupt and so on. But if anyone thinks thats unique to the Police come and work in my company for a few days. You never get a call from anyone saying "I've dropped a clanger can you help me", its always "I've received this product from you and it was damaged when I got it" etc etc etc. No real difference, apart from the fact hopefully no one dies.

So this RIPA stuff, there's evidence that was obtained using covert methods, that influenced the police's actions/operation, and they aren't allowed, by law, to disclose this to the inquest or IPCC?

That doesn't seem very fair, either on the bloke's family, who can't be told the full reasons behind the polices actions, or the police, who might have been justified in what they did but aren't allowed to show why.

TACK.

I loved the comments from an UKSF officer a while back who was involved with training some Met firearms officers, his words were effectively that the officers were special forces walts who considered guns to be toys.

The problem with the police force is that they don't get as many intelligent graduates as the forces, they don't have the same culture of educated officers.

So this RIPA stuff, there's evidence that was obtained using covert methods, that influenced the police's actions/operation, and they aren't allowed, by law, to disclose this to the inquest or IPCC?

That doesn't seem very fair, either on the bloke's family, who can't be told the full reasons behind the polices actions, or the police, who might have been justified in what they did but aren't allowed to show why.

It (RIPA part 1 refers to product from phone taps carried out in the UK and not all covert methods such as surveillance and probes which can be evidential, it's not evidence because under UK law it cannot be used in court, furthermore it basicaly cannot be disclosed to anyone bar a few exceptions these being broadly police, hmrc, box, etc questions can't be asked about it in court and other restrictions about it are also in place.