Divisional Court
| Date | 01 October 2009 |
| Published date | 01 October 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2009.73.5.586 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
Divisional Court
Refusal to Respond to Request for Further Information
R (on the application of the Independent Police Commission) v Commissioner
of the Police for the Metropolis [2009] EWHC 1566 (Admin)
Keywords Police misconduct; IPCC; Abuse of process; Investigation;
Disciplinary procedures
At 12.12 am on 5 May 2003 a 13-year-old boy was arrested by the
Metropolitan Police on suspicion of the robbery of a bus driver. A police
dog was used to facilitate the arrest, which resulted in the boy being
bitten by the dog. The boy was taken to a police station where he was
further detained and his mother was contacted to attend the police
station as an appropriate adult. She arrived at 3.30 am, but became
hysterical and aggressive and had to be escorted from the custody area.
The boy was released from custody unconditionally without charge at
6.30 am. Following the arrest the mother made a complaint alleging that
the dog handler (the arresting officer) had used excessive force and that
the custody officer had failed in his duty of care. Some eight weeks later
on 19 July 2003 the boy was rearrested for theft and charged, but the
case was discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service after it was
revealed that the victim had convictions for dishonesty.
The complaint was investigated internally by the Directorate of Pro-
fessional Standards (DPS) and the custody officer was interviewed;
however, for reasons not explained, the arresting officer was not inter-
viewed. On 8 September 2004 the investigating officer provided a report
recommending that the complaints made by the boy’s mother against
the arresting officer and the custody officer were unsubstantiated with
insufficient evidence to support disciplinary proceedings.
In cases where the chief officer considers that the report does not
indicate that a criminal offence may have been committed by a member
of the police force for his area, the chief officer is obliged to send a
memorandum to the IPCC to either state that disciplinary proceedings
will be taken or that disciplinary proceedings will not be taken citing
reasons (Police Act 1996, s. 75(5)).
The DPS sent the memorandum to the IPCC on 10 September 2004,
but it was not received until 18 October 2004, and it was not until 1
March 2005 that an IPCC case worker provided a response agreeing with
the recommendations made by the investigating officer. With the re-
sponse was a draft letter that the IPCC proposed to send to the complain-
ant four weeks later. The draft letter contained the following text:
Based on the evidence available, the IPCC is not satisfied that there is a
realistic prospect that a tribunal would find that the conduct of the officers
fell below the required standard. We are therefore minded to conclude that
misconduct proceedings cannot be justified. (emphasis supplied)
371The Journal of Criminal Law (2009) 73 JCL 371–377
doi:10.1350/jcla.2009.73.5.586
To continue reading
Request your trial