Analysis of Police Accountability System and Its Maintenance

Introduction

Where there is an existence of crime, many areas of the criminal justice system are involved in resolving the outcome. A key point of concern is police accountability, which determines whether the justice system can be held responsible and answerable for deviations from its goals and values when resolving such matters. When investigating highly controversial issues and events, it is relevant to question the accounts of truth: is it possible for there to be a final definitive version of the truth, or when faced with conflicting accounts, whose account is to be believed? When the policing systems are inadequate for the circumstances, it is vital to differentiate between organizational and individual accountability and explore ways to address these issues.

Background and Development of Police Accountability Systems

The most current system for police complaints is the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), established in 2018 from the Policing and Crime Act, which replaced the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) established in 2004 from the Police Reform Act in 2002. The IPCC originated from widespread calls for change within the system, including the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence and the overall questioning of the police service itself. Before the introduction of the IPCC, the first police complaints system was the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), but the system struggled to achieve any sort of credibility. To counter this, the IPCC and IOPC place strong emphasis on their independence as they are not part of any government department and are completely independent from the police service. Features of the IPCC and IOPC include the ability to independently investigate, manage, or supervise investigations into all deaths following police contact and other serious allegations, with investigators possessing all the powers of a police constable. The duty of these organizations is to improve the police's handling of complaints, enhance confidence in the system, and ultimately determine where responsibilities lie within the system.

Case Study: The Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes

Surrounding the police departments themselves and their ability to cause fatality, by law and policy, it is an individual police officer's responsibility to decide whether to shoot or not, and by the Criminal Law Act, "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of crime" (Criminal Law Act, 1967). In the case of Jean Charles de Menezes (JCDM) and his fatal shooting on 22 July 2005, this was not the circumstance. In response to four previous suicide bomb attacks and a further four failed attempts, the police developed tactics for special circumstances, including a system named Operation Kratos, which enables the police to fire without warning with the intent to incapacitate the target. According to this operation, instead of an individual officer's decision, the decision to shoot relies on the command of the designated senior officer, in this case, Cressida Dick. The police identified one of the bombers as Hussain Osman and chose to stake out his address and question residents. The surveillance team arrived before the firearms team, and there were not enough officers to question everyone, resulting in JCDM leaving the occupancy without being identified as a possible suspect. Surveillance officers spotted JCDM and identified him as matching Osman's description, following him onto a bus. JCDM left the bus to go to the tube station, which was closed, so he proceeded to get back on the bus; however, his movement was interpreted as an act of anti-surveillance, and officers were persuaded he was the suspect. Once at the tube station, Cressida Dick declared "stop him" to the surveillance officers who asked what to do. As the designated senior officer with the command to shoot, this comment was extremely ambiguous in the circumstance. JCDM got onto the tube and was surrounded by officers; firearms teams arrived in the tube station and approached JCDM. He got up to leave the tube, unaware of the situation, but was pushed back down by force and subsequently shot at 11 times to the head, with eight shots hitting him. After the attack, public witnesses were kept to be interviewed, and a member of the public provided an account where he interpreted three firearms officers running through the station to instead be two firearms officers chasing a target, which was broadcast and thereafter taken as fact by Scotland Yard. The head of Scotland Yard gave an interview, repeating as fact the account given on TV, therefore releasing entirely inaccurate information to the public and press. The case was not conducted orderly but was a result of panic and pandemonium.

Analysis of the Response and Systemic Challenges

As a result of this, the head of the home office asked the IPCC not to investigate the case; however, the IPCC attempted to fight back for control, and this delay in referral of the case for investigation created suspicion. The IPCC was not effective for this case, having only been established in 2004, the system was new and inexperienced. When faced with conflicting accounts from officers, officers delaying to collaborate their notes, and inaccurate information being presented to them by the Metropolitan Police Station, there were many features making it a challenging investigation, which ultimately caused the IPCC to come to no conclusion of responsibility.

Ensuring Accountability and Public Confidence

In instances where police are armed and make potentially fatal mistakes, public confidence in these authorities can be seriously undermined. Structures that help ensure accountability involve procedures such as reviews, which is what Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) intends to do. In the public interest, HMIC provides independent assessments of the effectiveness and efficiency of police forces, interpreting the evidence to make recommendations for improvement based on questions they believe the public want answering. They assess the Police Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Legitimacy (PEEL) of all 43 police forces in England and Wales by drawing together evidence from annual all-force inspections. For example, rising themes from the 2018-2019 report praised the use of digital technology to achieve faster responses and increased knowledge and awareness of protecting people with mental health, but also noted some forces having inexperienced and under-qualified officers investigating high-volume crimes without appropriate supervision, which was a matter of concern (HMIC, 2019). Furthermore, the establishment of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) in 1951, followed by the Human Rights Act, generally provided a very strong legal framework for authorities, making them accountable and responsible for their actions on occasions where authorities have breached rights. The IPCC also takes into account the Human Rights Act when investigating complaints of misconduct among the police. The HMIC and ECHR provide a brief guidance for authorities' conduct.

Tripartite System of Accountability

The HMIC supplies advice to the home secretary, the police authorities, and the police forces, and these three components make up part of a tripartite system of accountability for the 43 forces in due course from The Police Act. The system allocates responsibility between the home office, the police authority, and the chief constable, providing accountability through the local police authorities to local populations and also to parliament through the home office. Endorsing this tripartite system are later legislations such as the more recent 2002 Police Reform Act. The inclusion of a hierarchical ranking structure provides an organizational accountability which is directed to give a controlled service. This accountability is an aspect of being able to distinguish between "organizational and individual dimensions of accountability," including the "direction and control of organizational policing policies concerned with overall priorities" (Jones, 2007).

Challenges and Future Directions

Police accountability is addressed by a wide range of agencies; however, it is still argued that some of the key components of the system are not truly independent, which in turn undermines accountability. Up until the establishment of the IPCC and IOPC, police investigations were carried out by the police themselves, only changing with the introduction of the IPCC to allow independent investigation. Similarly, surrounding HMIC, in operation HMIC has previously conducted within limits bound by the home office or home secretary, which does not aid in reducing criticism surrounding the issues of accountability. Up until the appointment of Lay inspectors, it was only from the ranks of senior police officers that inspectors were specially recruited. Human Rights matters also continue to be challenged and arise discomfort within the public surrounding diverse issues through incidents such as unlawful circumstances where a member of the public has been shot by a police officer, much like the JCDM case, and also the investigation into the fatalities during or following Police Custody, which over the last 10 years varies from 14-23 deaths per year (IPCC, 2020).

Conclusion

The most effective approach authorities could adopt when under pressure is the ability to remain open to points of scrutiny and criticism and to also be accessible to the public. By maintaining a relationship with the public, it will ultimately result in stronger community policing, which will be able to retain respect.

References

• Criminal Law Act. (1967).
• Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). (2019). Annual Assessment Report.
• Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). (2020). Annual Report.
• Jones, T. (2007). "Organizational and Individual Dimensions of Accountability." Policing Journal.