The Police Act 1976
| Published date | 01 April 1977 |
| Date | 01 April 1977 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201837704100212 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Police Act 1976
continued
The
police havesome cause to be suspicious of the Police Complaints
Board, for the Act, unfortunately, seems to assume
that
charges
should
follow the receipt
of
acomplaint
made
by a
member
of the public
against apoliceofficer.
When
achiefofficer of police receives the report
ofan investigation into acomplaint the Act requires
him
to provide the
Board with a copy
of
the complaint
and
a
memorandum
stating,
inter
alia, whether he has preferred disciplinary charges against the officer
and
if
not, his reasons for not doing so (section 2
(I)
).
There
is no
corresponding provision for reasons to be provided where disciplinary
charges
have
been preferred.
Whether
charges
are
to be preferred or
not
the chiefofficer
must
state his
opinion
of the
merits
of
the complaint
(section 2), why then the additional requirement
that
he
must
justify
his decision not to prefer charges?
The
requirement would seem to
indicateasituation in which the prefermentofcharges is to be regarded
as the norm. Achiefofficer of police who conforms with the
norm
and
prefers charges against the policeman concerned need give only his
opinion of the merits of
the
case, whilst the chiefofficer who
departs
from the norm
must
furnish his reasons for so doing. At the Billstage
there was provision for a report by the chiefofficer which would include
"his
reasons for, or for
not"
preferring charges.
It
was
stated
in the
House by Dr. Summerskill
that
the wording
had
been changed because
"the
reqUlrement to give reasons for deciding to prefercharges does not
appear
to serve
any
useful purpose".
The
original wording was,
of
course, useful in so far as it was more neutral
than
the wording
ultimately adopted. Where, as in the case of this Act, there are
competing interests to be protected, the use of words which tend to
establish a
"standard"
procedure which
appears
to threatenone group,
without
actually enhancingthe interests of the other, should be avoided
on purely tactical grounds.
When
the complaint
and
memorandum
are received by the Board
they
may
request from the chiefofficer such further information as they
may
reasonably
require (section 3
(I)
).
This
requirement
that
the
actions of the Board
must
be reasonable make only a briefappearance,
however, for if the Board disagree with the chiefofficer's decision not to
prefer charges they may recommend to
him
the charges which
they
consider
should be preferred
and,
if the chiefofficer is still
reluctant
to
prefer the charges
the
Board
consider
appropriate
the
Board
may
direct
him
to prefer such charges as
they
may
specify
(section 3 (2) ).
This
direction
must be obeyed (section 3 (7) ).
It
seems strange
that
the requirement
of reasonableness should relate to a mere request for further
information
but
not to the
mandatory
direction
that
charges should be
preferred.
It
is also worth noting
that
whilst the Board
can
direct
that
charges should be preferred, where they have not been, the Board has
149
To continue reading
Request your trial