Trends in Complaints and Allegations received ... - Police Ombudsman

0 downloads 118 Views 609KB Size Report
an excel spreadsheet that is published on the Police Ombudsman's Internet Site. Additional ... If, for example, a lot of
Trends in Complaints and Allegations received by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, 2013/14 Annual Statistical Report of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland

Published June 2014

CONTENTS Introduction

4

Key Trends

8

Trends

9

Complaints and Allegations Received

9

Complaints and Allegations Received by Month

10

Source of Complaints

11

Main Complaint Factor

12

Type of Allegations Received

13

Location of Incident Leading to Allegation

15

Police Equipment / Weapons

16

Allegations Received by Police District and Area

16

Complaints and Allegations Closed

17

Recommendations Arising from Allegations Closed

18

Recommendations made to the Public Prosecution Service

19

Recommendations made to the Chief Constable/Chief Officer

19

Informal Resolution

20

Officers Complained About

21

About our complainants

23

Appendices: 1. Statistical tables

24

2. Understanding the Complaints Process

38

3. Glossary of terms

41

4. Data availability and Quality

52

1

List of Figures

Figure 1:

Number of Complaints and Allegations received, 2000/01 to 2013/14

Figure 2:

Number of Complaints received by month, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Figure 3:

Number of Allegations received by month, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Figure 4:

Source of Complaints, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Figure 5:

Main factor underlying complaint, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Figure 6:

Type of allegation received, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Figure 7:

Failure in duty allegations, by subtype, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Figure 8:

Oppressive behaviour allegations, by subtype, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Figure 9:

Location of incident leading to allegation, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Figure 10:

Number of Allegations received by Police District, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Figure 11:

Percentage change in the number of allegations received by Police District, 2013/14 compared with 2012/13

Figure 12:

Number of Complaints and Allegations closed, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Figure 13:

Recommendation types arising from Allegations closed, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Figure 14:

Recommendation types made to the Chief Constable/Chief Officer, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Figure 15:

Outcomes of complaints closed by Informal Resolution, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Figure 16:

Number of PSNI officers attracting 3+ complaints and 3+ complaints resulting in investigation or Informal Resolution recommended, 2010 to 2014

2

List of Tables

Table 1:

Complaints and allegations received, 2000/01 - 2013/14

Table 2:

Complaints and allegations received, by organisation, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 3:

Section 55 matters, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 4:

Complaints received by month, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 5:

Allegations received by month, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 6:

Source of complaints, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 7:

Main factor underlying complaints, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 8:

Type of allegations received, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 9:

Failure in Duty allegations, by subtype, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 10:

Oppressive Behaviour allegations, by subtype, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 11:

Location of incident leading to allegations, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 12:

Allegations involving the use of police equipment/weapons, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 13:

Allegations received by Policing Districts and Areas, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 14:

Complaints and allegations closed, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 15:

Recommendation types arising from allegations closed, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 16:

Recommendation types made to the Public Prosecution Service, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 17:

Nature of charges recommended to the Public Prosecution Service, 2009/10 2013/14

Table 18:

Recommendation types made to the Chief Constable/Chief Officer, 2009/10 2013/14

Table 19:

Complaints suitable for Informal Resolution (IR), 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 20:

Outcomes of Complaints Closed by Informal Resolution, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 21:

Outcomes of successful Informal Resolutions, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 22:

Rank of officers complained about, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 23:

Number of PSNI police officers attracting three or more complaints, 2009/10 2013/14

Table 24:

Gender of complainants, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 25:

Age of complainants, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 26:

Religious belief of complainants, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Table 27

Average rate of allegations received 2009/10 - 2013/14 by Policing District and Area per 1,000 of the population per year

Table 28:

Revisions made to number of complaints and allegations received between this publication and the previous published report in November 2013

3

INTRODUCTION This report presents trends and patterns in complaints and allegations received by the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (the Office) up to 31 March 2014. It was produced independently by Statisticians from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency who are seconded to the Police Ombudsman’s Office, and in accordance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics, details of which can be found on the UK Statistics Authority website.

Data use The information presented in this document has been produced to meet the needs of a variety of individuals and organisations who have a particular interest in the issue of police complaints, with the main users being the Office, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB) and the Policing and Community Safety Partnerships (PCSPs). The statistics are used within the Office as management information, to monitor trends in the number of complaints and allegations received as well as monitoring outcomes. Information is used to monitor performance against key performance indicators and also as an indicator of caseloads. The PSNI have an interest in knowing about the trends and patterns in the complaints against their officers and use this information to help identify and address particular problems. Those that hold the police to account, and particularly the NIPB, also have an interest in developing an understanding of what aspects of police conduct are attracting public concern and whether these concerns are of substance. The PCSPs also use this information to monitor police performance and to identify any particular issues of concern regarding policing in their area. The general public have a right to know how both their police service and their police complaints service are performing. In addition to the statistics presented in this report, additional tables are available in an excel spreadsheet that is published on the Police Ombudsman’s Internet Site. Additional geographic breakdowns of the types of complaints and allegations received and recommendations made by the Police Ombudsman are available on the Northern Ireland Neighbourhood Information Service (NINIS).

4

Understanding our findings Those reading this document will range from people with a professional knowledge of policing issues to those with none at all. For those with less knowledge of policing, we have tried to keep the terminology jargon free, but where this has not been possible we have provided an explanation of those terms and an explanation of the police complaints process in the glossary in the appendices of this report. This report should provide users with a clear understanding of the trends and patterns in complaints and allegations received by the Police Ombudsman’s Office over the last five years. We have provided statistics on what we believe would be the main questions asked by our key users: how many complaints and allegations we have received, where they have been made, what they were about and what was their outcome. Commentary has been provided throughout this report, enabling users to have an insight into the context of the statistics and also where possible to provide an explanation or interpretation of the emerging trends. As the number of complaints and allegations received by the Office fluctuates on a daily, monthly and yearly basis it is not always possible to provide explanations as to why they have increased or decreased over time or why they vary between different areas. However, there are a number of factors that may influence whether or not a person makes a complaint. It is important not to take a simplistic view of trends and to consider the following factors when drawing any conclusions: • The number and nature of police operations conducted; • The performance of police officers; • The level of interaction between the public and the police service; • The awareness of the Police Ombudsman’s Office, knowledge of how to make a complaint, and public confidence in the Office; • The size of the police service; • Changes in PSNI’s or the Office’s procedures; • The level of crime in Northern Ireland; • The number of major public order incidents; and • Population demographics of an area. Care should be taken when comparing the number of complaints or allegations received at police district or police area level as some of the differences between areas may reflect variations in their composition, such as the degree of urbanisation, level of deprivation and the balance between the resident population, day-time population and night-time economy. If, for example, a lot of people are employed in the area during working hours or move into it in the evening or at night time to socialise, that can have an effect on the number of complaints made in the area. See Table 27 in Appendix 1.

5

It is also difficult to make valid comparisons around the number of complaints and allegations received across Northern Ireland, England and Wales, and Scotland. Each region uses different systems to record complaints, records and investigates different types of complaints and uses different mechanisms for counting complaints. These factors also impact on all subsequent comparisons e.g. comparisons regarding outcomes to investigations, length of investigations or investigation method.

Publication The Office release statistics on the number of complaints and allegations received biannually (twice a year), and the information is published on a financial year basis (i.e. 1st April to 31st March). This aligns with the Office’s obligation to report performance on a financial year basis. As the statistics were taken from a ‘live’ case handling system, the figures in the latest report supersede those previously published. The publication date is preannounced and can be found via a publication schedule on the Police Ombudsman’s Internet Site and via the release calendar on the UK National Statistics HUB. Previously published bulletins are available in the archive section on the Police Ombudsman’s Internet site.

User feedback We continuously welcome feedback or comments on the statistics released. If you would like to forward your views or receive notifications of statistical releases please email your contact details to the email address below. On a regular basis we contact our key users to review the statistical releases. The last user consultation took place in February 2014. Details of the comments and feedback will be available later this year on the Police Ombudsman’s Internet Site.

6

Contact Details For further information about the complaints and allegations received by the Office or to contact the Office’s Statistics and Research Team please: Email: [email protected] Write to: Statistics and Research Team, Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, New Cathedral Buildings, 11 Church Street, Belfast, BT1 1PG Telephone: 028 9082 8669 Conventions used in Tables and Figures Percentages in the tables and text are rounded to the nearest whole number, and thus may not always add up to 100.

7

KEY TRENDS •

The number of complaints received by the Office in 2013/14 was the highest since the Office opened in November 2000. There was a 14% increase in the number of complaints received between 2012/13 and 2013/14. This followed a period when the level of complaints had been falling for several years.



The Office records how each complaint was made. In 2013/14, the largest increase was in complaints made initially to the police before being forwarded to the Police Ombudsman’s Office.



Where sufficient information is available, the Office records the main factor underlying each complaint received, or the main situation giving rise to the complaint. In 2013/14 this was an Arrest, but for the four years prior to that it was a Criminal Investigation.



There has been a rise in the proportion of complaints received by the Office relating to parades or demonstrations in the last two years. This has increased from 1% in 2009/10 to 4% in 2013/14.



A complaint consists of one or more allegations. In 2013/14 the number of allegations received by the Office increased by 15% from the previous year. As with the number of complaints, this also followed a period when the number of allegations had been falling.



The greatest proportion of allegations made to the Ombudsman’s Office continues to be about Failures in Duty on the part of the police. Allegations about Oppressive Behaviour have increased by 29% from 2012/13, when the number received was at its lowest level since 2009/10.



All police districts saw an increase in allegations in 2013/14. This increase was most apparent in District B where the number of allegations increased by 34% compared with the previous year. This increase is mainly due to South Belfast receiving over 200 more allegations in 2013/14 than in 2012/13.



In 2013/14, 29% of recommendations made were because the complainant did not co-operate with the Office. This was a higher proportion than in previous years.



The Office made fewer recommendations to the Chief Constable for action against officers in 2013/14 than in previous years (508 recommendations were made in 2011/12, this decreased to 250 recommendations in 2013/14).

8

TRENDS Complaints and Allegations Received The Office received 3,734 complaints in 2013/14. This was the highest number of complaints received since the Office opened (Figure 1, Table 1). Figure 1: Number of Complaints and Allegations* received, 2000/01 to 2013/14

Number of complaints and allegations

Complaints

Allegations

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

*Note: Allegations were not recorded separately until the Office opened in November 2000.

The number of complaints received decreased from 2009/10 until 2012/13. There was a 14% increase this year compared with 2012/13. Whilst there is usually some degree of fluctuation in the number of complaints received per year, the increase from 2012/13 to 2013/14 is a greater fluctuation than usual. A complaint is comprised of one or more allegations. For example, a complainant may allege that a police officer pushed him or her and was rude. This would be recorded as two separate allegations forming one complaint. The trend in the number of allegations received has been less stable than that for complaints. The increase in the number of allegations received in 2009/10 coincided with the introduction of the new Police Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling System (CHS), which better catered for the recording of individual allegations and may account for some of this increase. The number of allegations decreased from 2009/10 until 2012/13. In 2012/13 the Office received the lowest number of allegations since 2004/05. There were 6,089 1 allegations received in 2013/14, an increase of 15% compared with 2012/13.

1

The count of allegations includes a small number of residual matters (usually 1-2% of allegations per year). See Glossary in Appendix 3

9

As may be expected, given that it is the largest of the organisations within the Office’s remit, the vast majority of complaints were in relation to the PSNI (Table 2). The Police Ombudsman can also investigate matters even if there has not been a complaint from a member of the public. He regularly investigates matters referred to him by the Chief Constable (section 55 referrals) and he can ‘call himself in’ to investigate matters when he believes it is in the public interest to do so. In 2013/14 there were 37 Chief Constable section 55 referrals, and 10 Police Ombudsman callins. In 2012/13 there were 12 Historical Enquiries Team (HET) referrals but none were received in 2013/14 (Table 3).

Complaints and Allegations Received by Month The number of complaints and allegations received fluctuates month by month and there are some general seasonal trends evident. Figure 2: Number of Complaints received by month, 2009/10 to 2013/14

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

400

Number of complaints

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Generally there are fewer complaints received in December each year. In 2013/14 there were more complaints received in July and August than any other month. Also the number of complaints received in July and August 2013 was higher than in previous years. Some of this increase was a result of complaints arising from public protests (Figure 2, Table 4). During these months there was also a rise in the number of complaints made in person to the police compared with the previous years.

10

Similarly, there were fewer allegations received in December each year. In 2013/14 there were more allegations received in July and August than any other month. The number received in these months was generally higher than in previous years (Figure 3, Table 5). Figure 3: Number of Allegations received by month, 2009/10 to 2013/14 2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

700

Number of allegations

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Source of Complaints The majority of complaints in 2013/14 continue to be received directly to the Office by telephone, although the proportion received this way has been decreasing (Figure 4, Table 6). The number of complaints made in person to the police increased in 2013/14 compared with previous years. There were 340 more complaints made in person to the police in 2013/14 than in 2012/13. The majority of these complaints were made by people who had been detained following arrest. The number of complaints made in person to the police accounted for 19% of complaints received in 2013/14, which was higher than usual (between 8% and 12% in recent years).

11

Figure 4: Source of Complaints, 2009/10 to 2013/14 50%

Percentage of complaints

45%

By telephone to

50%

By telephone OPONI to OPONI

45%

In person to

In person to policepolice

40% 40%

Via Via representative representative

35% 35%

By email By to email to OPONIOPONI

30% 30% 25% 25%

By letter By to letter to OPONI

OPONI

20% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

In person to In person to OPONI

15%

OPONI

Other police

10%

Other police

5%

Other OPONI

0%

Other

Other OPONI

2009/10

2009/10

2010/11

2010/11

2011/12

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2012/13

2013/14

Other

Main Complaint Factor Where sufficient information is available, the Office records the main factor underlying each complaint received, or the main situation giving rise to the complaint. In 2013/14 this was an Arrest but in the four years prior to this it was a Criminal Investigation (Figure 5, Table 7). There was an increase in the number of Arrest complaints in 2013/14. A larger proportion than usual of these complaints were made in person to the police. From 2009/10 to 2011/12, Parade/Demonstration was the main factor underlying around 1% of complaints; this proportion rose to 5% in 2012/13 and was 4% during 2013/14. During the period from December 2012 to March 2014 the Office received 280 2 complaints regarding parades/demonstrations or public protests. Around half of these complaints were attributable to the “flag protest” street demonstrations that took place across Northern Ireland following the Belfast City Council decision to fly the Union Flag on designated days only. The proportions of complaints with underlying factors of Traffic Incident or Police Enquiries have fallen in recent years.

2

These include some complaints where the main complaint factor was Arrest.

12

Figure 5: Main factor underlying complaint, 2009/10 to 2013/14 25%

Percentage of complaints

Arrest

20%

Criminal investigation Search

15%

Traffic incident

10%

Domestic incident Police enquiries

5%

Parade/ Demonstration

0% 2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Historic Investigation

Type of Allegations Received A single complaint can contain one or more allegations. The allegation type describes the types of behaviour being complained about or the separate issues being complained about. For example, a complainant may allege that a police officer pushed him or her and was rude. Over the last five years, Failure in Duty allegations accounted for the greatest proportion of allegations, followed by Oppressive Behaviour and Incivility (Figure 6, Table 8). Numbers of most allegation types increased in 2013/14, but the sharpest increase was in the number of Oppressive Behaviour allegations. In 2013/14 the Office received 29% more Oppressive Behaviour allegations than in 2012/13. However the number of Oppressive Behaviour allegations fell from 2011/12 to 2012/13. A larger number than usual of the Oppressive Behaviour allegations received in 2013/14 resulted from complaints made in person to the police. Following a focused PSNI Complaints Reduction Strategy in 2010, the number and proportion of Incivility allegations fell from 2009/10 to 2012/13, although the fall in numbers did not continue into 2013/14.

13

Figure 6: Type of allegation received, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Number of allegations

3000 Failure in Duty

2500 2000

Oppressive Behaviour

1500 Others

1000 Incivility

500 0 2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Within the category of Failure in Duty, the greatest proportion of allegations were in relation to the conduct of police investigations/incident response (Figure 7, Table 9). Figure 7: Failure in duty allegations, by subtype, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Number of failure in duty allegations

1400

Conduct of Police Investigations/incident response Failures in contact

1200 1000

Other Failure in duty

800 Failure in record management

600 Conduct in custody suite

400

Failure in duty of care

200 0

Failure to act impartially

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Within Oppressive Behaviour allegations, the greatest proportion was of Other Assault (unjustified force or personal violence by the police). The number of Other Assault allegations received in 2013/14 increased more sharply than any other subtype (Figure 8, Table 10). In 2013/14 there was an unusually high number of Other Assault allegations where the initial complaint was made in person to the police.

14

Number of oppressive behaviour allegations

Figure 8: Oppressive behaviour allegations, by subtype, 2009/10 to 2013/14 1200 Other Assault

1000 Oppressive Conduct (OC Not Involving Assault)

800 600

Harassment (Series of Like Incidents)

400

Sexual Assault

200 0 2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Serious non-sexual assault

Location of Incident Leading to Allegation The Office records the location of the incident or matter associated with each allegation made. The greatest proportion of allegations were associated with police stations (Figure 9, Table 11). This includes a substantial number of Failure in Duty allegations. Over a quarter of allegations arise from matters occurring on a street and just over half of these were Oppressive Behaviour allegations. Figure 9: Location of incident leading to allegation, 2009/10 to 2013/14 45%

Percentage of allegations

40% Police Station

35% 30%

On Street

25%

Domestic Residence

20% Other

15%

Unknown

10% 5%

Police Vehicle

0% 2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

15

Police Equipment / Weapons Generally around 4-5% of allegations involve the use of police equipment/weapons. In 2013/14 there was a rise in the number of allegations involving the use of handcuffs (Table12). This coincides with the increase in the number of Oppressive Behaviour allegations. Allegations Received by Police District and Area Although the number of allegations received in each police district and area has fluctuated over the last five years, in general the three police districts that receive the highest number of allegations tended to be Districts A, B and D. Districts F and G tended to receive the lowest number of allegations. However, in 2011/12 District E received the highest number of allegations, which was due to the police conducting a number of major operations involving police searches (Figure 10, Table 13). In 2013/14, the two Belfast police districts (District A and B) accounted for 28% of the total number of allegations received. South Belfast received the highest number of allegations. Figure 10: Number of Allegations received by Police District, 2009/10 to 2013/14 2009/10

1200

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Number of allegations

1000 800 600 400 200 0

Police District

Police Areas

A B C D E F G H

North Belfast and West Belfast East Belfast and South Belfast Ards, Castlereagh, Down and North Down Antrim, Carrickfergus, Lisburn and Newtownabbey Armagh, Banbridge, Craigavon and Newry & Mourne Cookstown, Dungannon & South Tyrone, Fermanagh and Omagh Foyle, Limavady, Magherafelt and Strabane Ballymena, Ballymoney, Coleraine, Larne and Moyle

16

There was an increase in the number of allegations received in each police district in 2013/14 compared with the previous year. The increase was most apparent in District B (34%), and is mainly due to South Belfast receiving over 200 more allegations in 2013/14 than in 2012/13. A larger number than usual of the District B allegations were made in person to the police. Figure 11: Percentage change in the number of allegations received by Police District, 2013/14 compared with 2012/13

13% 34%

District B

10%

District C

8%

District D

24%

District E

3%

District F

20%

District G

2% -20%

-10%

0%

District A

District H

10%

20%

30%

40%

Percentage change

Complaints and Allegations Closed There was an overall decrease in the number of complaints and allegations closed between 2009/10 and 2012/13 reflecting the downward trend in the numbers of complaints and allegations received. However, this downward trend did not continue into 2013/14 (Figure 12, Table 14). Figure 12: Number of Complaints and Allegations closed, 2009/10 to 2013/14 Complaints

Number of complaints and allegations closed

8000

Allegations

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

17

Recommendations Arising from Allegations Closed When the investigation of an allegation is complete, a recommendation for allegation closure is made. It should be noted that one allegation may have more than one associated recommendation; for example, when there are a number of police officers linked to an allegation a recommendation for allegation closure is made for each officer. In 2013/14, 7,330 recommendations for closure were made in respect of 5,536 allegations closed in the same period. The number of recommendations for closure has fallen since 2010/11 (Tables 14, 15). The largest proportion of recommendations made in 2013/14 (35%) was to not substantiate the allegation due to insufficient evidence. Twenty-nine percent of recommendations were made to close the allegation following non co-operation by the complainant. Four percent of recommendations were for some form of action against officers (Figure 13, Table 15). Over the previous four years the proportions of each type of recommendation made by the Office were fairly consistent. However, in 2013/14 there was a greater proportion of recommendations to close allegations because of non co-operation by the complainant and a smaller proportion of recommendations to not substantiate allegations. In 2013/14, looking at complaints which were made in person to the police, there was a higher than usual number of recommendations made to close allegations because the complainant failed to co-operate with the process.

Percentage recommendations

Figure 13: Recommendation types arising from Allegations closed, 2009/10 to 2013/14 100%

Other recommendations

90%

Substantiated - no action recommended

80%

Inf ormally/Locally Resolved

70%

Recommended action

60% Withdrawn by complainant

50% 40%

Ill f ounded

30%

To PPS no criminal charges recommended

20%

Outside remit

10%

Non co-operation by complainant

0% 2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Not substantiated

18

Currently the Office provides information on the closure of complaints in terms of recommendations arising from allegations closed. The Office is considering presenting the outcomes at complaint level in addition to recommendation level. The Office is also considering presenting outcomes as a proportion of complaints that have been fully investigated. In 2013/14 the Office found policing issues of concern in almost 20% of complaints which had been fully investigated.

Recommendations made to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) If the Police Ombudsman determines that a criminal offence may have been committed by a police officer, a file is sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions together with recommendations. This file will contain a recommendation as to whether, based on the evidence on the case, the Police Ombudsman believes the officer should be prosecuted. The number of recommendations made to the PPS for no prosecution, in respect of ongoing and closed investigations, has fallen over the last five years, reflecting to some extent the fall in the number of allegations closed. In 2013/14 the Police Ombudsman made 512 recommendations for no prosecution. He also made 11 recommendations for prosecution (Tables 16, 17).

Recommendations made to the Chief Constable/Chief Officer Following the conclusion of any criminal proceedings or investigations which relate to misconduct matters, the Police Ombudsman may make a recommendation to the Chief Constable/Chief Officer, who will consider whether action should be taken against the police officers who were subject of the complaint. The number of such recommendations made to the Chief Constable/Chief Officer fell between 2011/12 and 2013/14 from 508 recommendations to 250 recommendations. The majority of recommendations made to the Chief Constable/Chief Officer, in respect of ongoing and closed investigations, were that the officer receives Advice and Guidance. The rise in the number of recommendations of Superintendent’s Written Warnings in 2011/12 and 2012/13 was partly the result of two investigations (Figure 14, Table 18). The majority of the recommendations were accepted by the PSNI.

19

Figure 14: Recommendation types made to the Chief Constable/Chief Officer, 2009/10 to 2013/14

Number of recommendations

400 350

Advice and Guidance

300 Superintendent's Written Warning

250 200

Management Discussion/Training

150 100

Formal Disciplinary Proceedings

50 0 2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Informal Resolution The proportion of complaints considered to be suitable for Informal Resolution (IR) has been falling in recent years (Table 19). This is partly as a result of reductions in Incivility and certain Failure in Duty type allegations following the implementation of the PSNI Complaints Reduction Strategy. Also, in 2013/14, 44 complaints were referred for Local Resolution (LR) in District D, and these would have been considered for IR had the LR project not continued there. The proportion of complainants agreeing to participate in the IR process had also been falling up until 2012/13. Further enquiries are continuing with complainants and the consent level for IR may increase for 2013/14. Over three quarters of complaints referred for IR each year were successful (Figure 15, Table 20). This is mainly because the officer in question has been made aware of the issue, has been given advice, or other action has been taken which satisfied the complainant (Table 21). This proportion has increased in the last year.

20

Figure 15: Outcomes of complaints closed by Informal Resolution, 2009/10 to 2013/14 Successful

Failed

Withdrawn

Percentage of complaints closed by IR

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Officers Complained About Approximately 60% of the complaints recorded have officers associated with them. There will not be officers associated with a complaint when it is closed at too early a stage for the officers to be identified, e.g. through the withdrawal of the complaint, non co-operation by the complainant, or when the complaint is closed as outside the remit of the Office. Generally each year about 8 out of 10 officers complained about are constables, with the remainder being of higher ranks (Table 22). This reflects the composition of the Police Service. The Office supplies information to the Service Improvement Department of the PSNI highlighting officers who have attracted three or more complaints in the previous 12 month period. This information is then passed to District Commanders who consider whether any officer in their command has an abnormally high number of complaints whilst considering the policing environment and the nature of duties in which they are engaged. It should be noted that being the subject of a complaint does not necessarily mean that the officer will be investigated, for example, when the complainant fails to cooperate a meaningful enquiry is not possible. In some cases an officer is associated with a complaint at an early stage but after further enquiries however this complaint is deemed to be outside the remit of the Office. In instances like this and in cases where complaints are closed as duplicate or repetitive, the officer is removed from the complaint and this does not contribute to the tracking and trending information supplied to the PSNI.

21

The figures presented show the number of officers who have attracted three or more complaints using data extracted from the CHS usually about three days after the 12 month period has ended. This is to allow direct comparisons to be made over time. It should be noted that as investigations proceed, the number of complaints with which each officer is associated with may fluctuate. The number of officers who attracted three or more complaints decreased from 341 during the 12 months ending March 2010, to 213 in the 12 months ending March 2013 and then increased again to 324 in 12 months ending March 2014 (Figure 16, Table 23). Figure 16: Number of PSNI officers attracting 3+ complaints and 3+ complaints resulting in investigation or Informal Resolution recommended 2010 to 2014

Of f icers who attracted three or more Complaints

Of f icers who attracted three or more complaints resulting in an investigation or where Inf ormal Resolution has been recommended

400 350

Number of officers

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Mar 2010

Jun 2010

Sept 2010

Dec 2010

Mar 2011

Jun 2011

Sept 2011

Dec 2011

Mar 2012

Jun 2012

Sept 2012

Dec 2012

Mar 2013

Jun 2013

Sept 2013

Dec 2013

Mar 2014

Twelve month period ending

The PSNI have amended the trigger points for management intervention regarding the tracking and trending of complaints received. Prior to April 2013, the PSNI tracked officers who attracted three or more complaints in each 12 month period. From April 2013 management intervention is now triggered when an officer receives three or more complaints which result in service of an OMB3 3 (regulation 9 notice) or are dealt with by Informal / Local Resolution. The number of officers who attract three or more complaints of this nature is always considerably lower than the number attracting three or more complaints. During the 12 month period until March 2014, 93 officers attracted three or more complaints of this nature.

3

This informs the officer that an allegation has been made against him/her and that the matter is to be investigated.

22

About our complainants To fulfil its obligations under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act (1998) the Office conducts an equality monitoring survey of complainants. In 2013/14 more complaints were made by males than females, and also one fifth of complaints were made by persons aged between 16 and 24 years. This is a similar gender and age profile of persons who made complaints in 2012/13. The religious belief of persons making complaints was reflective of the most recent Census in 2011 (Tables 24, 25, 26). The Police Ombudsman Equality Monitoring Reports presents these findings in detail and are available at www.policeombudsman.org. The 2013/14 information will be published in December 2014.

23

APPENDIX 1: STATISTICAL TABLES Table 1: Complaints and allegations received, 2000/01 - 2013/14 Year

Complaints

Allegations

2000/01*

3,436

-

2001/02

3,600

4,368

2002/03

3,214

4,389

2003/04

2,979

4,238

2004/05

2,887

4,401

2005/06

3,140

5,515

2006/07

3,283

5,615

2007/08

2,997

5,435

2008/09

3,091

5,415

2009/10

3,542

6,500

2010/11

3,335

6,330

2011/12

3,344

6,005

2012/13

3,272

5,284

2013/14 3,734 6,089 *1,905 of these complaints were received by the RUC/PSNI before the Office opened; the remaining 1,531 were received by the Office. Allegations were not recorded separately until the Office opened .

24

Table 2: Complaints and allegations received, by organisation, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Complaints Organisation

Allegations

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

3,528

3,316

3,290

3,215

3,648

6,479

6,299

5,938

5,210

5,989

Designated Civilian

6

10

34

36

63

6

13

44

42

74

G.B Officers*

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

3

G8*

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

Northern Ireland Airport Constabulary

1

0

2

2

1

2

0

5

8

1

Harbour Police

1

4

3

2

1

7

12

3

4

1

Serious and Organised Crime Agency

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

Other / Unknown

5

4

15

17

18

5

5

15

20

19

Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI)

Total 3,542 3,335 3,344 3,272 3,734 6,500 6,330 6,005 5,284 6,089 *By virtue of section 60 of the Police (N.I.) Act 1998, entered into agreements with other UK police authorities to the effect that any complaint made by or on behalf of the public regarding the conduct of officers serving in Northern Ireland under mutual aid arrangements would be dealt with by the Office of the Police Ombudsman

Table 3: Section 55 matters*, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Section 55 matters

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Chief Constable Referral

35

40

32

34

37

Police Ombudsman Call-In

2

4

11

11

10

PPS Referral

3

0

4

1

1

HET Referral

0

1

4

12

0

Total 40 45 51 * These matters are included in the number of complaints received

58

48

25

Table 4: Complaints received by month, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Year

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Total

2009/10

271

305

348

274

311

302

323

344

221

230

309

304

3,542

2010/11

281

276

288

330

290

283

285

289

167

237

278

331

3,335

2011/12

246

295

272

280

337

285

274

295

208

315

272

265

3,344

2012/13

248

264

262

237

329

266

295

268

232

326

285

260

3,272

2013/14

281

309

316

356

360

302

317

315

283

298

273

324

3,734

Table 5: Allegations received by month, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Year

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Total

2009/10

539

501

616

481

553

539

604

628

396

489

574

580

6,500

2010/11

510

508

524

649

547

586

565

537

339

430

506

629

6,330

2011/12

471

549

465

461

646

526

532

503

372

558

467

455

6,005

2012/13

414

436

444

395

525

414

501

440

357

488

429

441

5,284

2013/14

455

504

498

580

597

514

488

490

433

525

464

541

6,089

Table 6: Source of complaints, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Source of complaints received

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

By telephone to OPONI

46%

44%

38%

39%

36%

By email to OPONI

7%

10%

9%

10%

12%

By letter to OPONI

8%

7%

6%

7%

6%

In person to OPONI

6%

6%

6%

6%

5%

Other OPONI

2%

2%

3%

3%

2%

OPONI

68%

69%

63%

65%

60%

In person to police

12%

8%

12%

11%

19%

Other police

5%

4%

5%

4%

3%

PSNI

17%

12%

17%

15%

22%

Via representative

15%

19%

20%

20%

18%

Other

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Total

3,542

3,335

3,344

3,272

3,734

26

Table 7: Main factor underlying complaints, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Main underlying factor

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Arrest

17%

17%

20%

19%

24%

Criminal Investigation

21%

24%

23%

22%

22%

Search

9%

10%

10%

10%

10%

Traffic Incident

13%

11%

9%

8%

7%

Domestic Incident

5%

5%

5%

5%

6%

Police Enquiries

15%

9%

7%

6%

6%

Parade/Demonstration

1%

1%

1%

5%

4%

Historic Investigation

0%

0%

1%

2%

2%

Other

15%

19%

20%

20%

17%

Unknown

4%

3%

4%

3%

3%

3,542

3,335

3,344

3,272

3,734

Total

Table 8: Type of allegations received*, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Allegation Type

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Failure in Duty

2,436

2,513

2,164

1,981

2,235

Oppressive Behaviour

1,883

1,906

1,954

1,535

1,985

Incivility

856

696

623

508

539

Search Unlawful/Unnecessary Arrest/Detention

285

295

271

258

310

230

245

224

204

229

Mishandling Of Property

68

105

107

105

156

Malpractice

153

115

124

110

135

Discriminatory Behaviour

71

74

81

77

106

Traffic

68

71

65

69

48

Section 55 Referral

42

45

51

58

48

Others

408

265

341

379

298

6,500

6,330

6,005

5,284

6,089

Total

*Note: More detailed information on types of allegations received is available in the excel spreadsheet on the Police Ombudsman’s Internet Site.

27

Table 9: Failure in Duty allegations, by subtype, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Failure in Duty Subtype

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Conduct of Police Investigations/incident response

941

1,134

1,027

947

1,151

Failures in contact

286

413

363

294

274

0

40

20

27

220

145

143

130

121

175

Failure in duty of care

0

0

0

5

83

Failure to act impartially

0

0

0

3

72

1,064

783

624

584

260

2,436

2,513

2,164

1,981

2,235

Failure in record management Conduct in custody suite

Other Failure in duty Total

Table 10: Oppressive Behaviour allegations, by subtype, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Oppressive Behaviour Subtype

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Other Assault

894

858

889

708

989

Oppressive Conduct (Not Involving Assault)

721

742

755

580

700

Harassment (Series of Like Incidents)

213

243

241

183

225

Sexual Assault

24

35

36

36

41

Serious non-sexual assault Total

31

28

33

28

30

1,883

1,906

1,954

1,535

1,985

28

Table 11: Location of incident leading to allegations, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Allegation Location

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Police Station

38%

41%

37%

39%

38%

On Street

27%

29%

26%

27%

26%

Domestic Residence

18%

16%

20%

18%

20%

Police Vehicle

4%

4%

4%

3%

3%

Other

7%

8%

8%

7%

7%

Unknown

5%

3%

5%

6%

5%

6,500

6,330

6,005

5,284

6,089

Total

Table 12: Allegations involving the use of police equipment/weapons, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Police equipment/weapons

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Handcuffs

134

130

165

115

214

CS Spray

51

69

51

42

46

Baton

48

41

57

51

60

Taser

10

13

9

13

17

Misuse/Discharge of Firearm

15

15

12

7

12

AEP/Baton Round/Riot Gun

3

9

12

12

14

Other

7

18

10

18

17

No weapon involved

6,232

6,035

5,689

5,026

5,709

Total

6,500

6,330

6,005

5,284

6,089

29

Table 13: Allegations received by Policing Districts and Areas, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Policing District and Area

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

North Belfast

543

600

430

390

487

West Belfast

337

354

353

303

297

District A

880

954

783

693

784

East Belfast

299

241

237

204

237

South Belfast

484

472

462

480

682

District B

783

713

699

684

919

Ards

153

167

139

147

136

Castlereagh

174

187

167

141

161

Down

172

179

143

188

195

North Down

206

262

205

194

245

District C

705

795

654

670

737

Antrim

209

194

198

206

184

Carrickfergus

90

80

37

40

62

Lisburn

485

311

333

281

324

Newtownabbey

199

233

198

177

189

District D

983

818

766

704

759

Armagh

141

119

160

91

132

Banbridge

165

158

167

89

139

Craigavon

275

287

340

214

246

Newry & Mourne

196

183

257

180

196

District E

777

747

924

574

713

Cookstown

94

79

87

78

54

Dungannon & South Tyrone

140

137

159

110

115

Fermanagh

173

250

166

115

170

Omagh

186

196

146

145

123

District F

593

662

558

448

462

Foyle

316

396

345

285

380

Limavady

145

121

124

81

71

Magherafelt

100

65

70

60

67

Strabane

72

77

58

65

70

District G

633

659

597

491

588

Ballymena

288

174

191

163

208

Ballymoney

24

53

49

56

54

Coleraine

382

413

331

301

256

Larne

93

77

63

71

71

Moyle

13

27

18

11

28

District H Unknown/Other Organisations

800

744

652

602

617

346

238

372

418

510

6,500

6,330

6,005

5,284

6,089

Total

30

Table 14: Complaints and allegations closed, 2009/10 - 2013/14 2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Complaints

3,534

3,585

3,326

3,244

3,452

Allegations

6,487

6,884

6,065

5,445

5,536

Table 15: Recommendation types arising from allegations closed, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Recommendation Type

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Not substantiated

41%

42%

41%

40%

35%

Non co-operation by complainant

20%

18%

22%

22%

29%

Outside remit

6%

6%

7%

8%

8%

To PPS no criminal charges recommended

10%

10%

10%

9%

7%

Informally/Locally Resolved

7%

6%

5%

5%

5%

Withdrawn by complainant

6%

6%

5%

5%

5%

Ill founded

4%

5%

3%

4%

4%

Recommended action

4%

4%

5%

5%

4%

Substantiated - no action recommended

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

Other recommendations

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

9,823

9,900

8,878

7,527

7,330

Total

Table 16: Recommendation types made to the Public Prosecution Service*, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Recommendation Type Recommendations for no prosecution Recommendations for prosecution*

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

1,041

975

916

648

512

5

14

6

13

11

Number of charges recommended* 7 17 9 19 11 *Please note that the number of recommendations for prosecution and the number of charges recommended has been manually adjusted to reflect the fact that recommendations may be recorded on the CHS against Chief Constable Referrals and complaints regarding similar incidents.

31

Table 17: Nature of charges recommended to the Public Prosecution Service, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Nature of charges

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Common Assault

2

1

2

2

5

Careless Driving

0

3

1

1

1

Dangerous Driving

0

0

0

0

1

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

1

1

0

0

2

Causing Death By Dangerous Driving

0

1

0

0

0

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

0

1

0

0

0

Disorderly Behaviour

0

0

0

1

0

Fabrication of False Evidence

0

0

1

0

0

Grievous Bodily Harm

0

1

0

0

0

Intent to pervert the course of Public Justice

0

0

3

1

1

Misconduct in a Public Office

1

2

2

0

0

Offence against the Data Protection Act

0

0

0

4

1

Offences under the Computer Misuse Act

0

0

0

4

0

Perjury

2

1

0

0

0

Perverting The Course Of Justice

1

5

0

0

0

Resisting a police officer in execution of duty

0

0

0

2

0

Threats to Kill

0

1

0

3

0

Unlawful Disclosure Of Information (Data Protection Act)

0

0

0

1

0

Total

7

17

9

19

11

32

Table 18: Recommendation types made to the Chief Constable/Chief Officer, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Recommendation Type

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Advice and Guidance

85%

65%

63%

51%

65%

Management Discussion/Training

3%

16%

11%

22%

14%

Superintendent's Written Warning

9%

13%

23%

24%

16%

Formal Disciplinary Proceedings

3%

6%

4%

3%

4%

Total

419

327

508

315

250

Table 19: Complaints suitable for Informal Resolution (IR), 2009/10 - 2013/14 Complaints suitable for IR

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

3,528

3,316

3,290

3,215

3,648

Complaints suitable for IR

858

619

502

461

476

Consent for IR obtained

587

384

309

273

278

Consent for IR not obtained

271

235

193

188

198

2012/13

2013/14

Number of complaints received

Table 20: Outcomes of Complaints Closed by Informal Resolution, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Outcome of complaints referred for IR 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Successful

78%

76%

75%

76%

80%

Failed

20%

23%

23%

24%

19%

Withdrawn

2%

1%

2%

0%

1%

Total

531

414

278

276

203

33

Table 21: Outcomes of successful Informal Resolutions, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Outcomes of successful resolutions

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Brought to officer(s) attention

21%

22%

21%

30%

35%

Action taken accepted

27%

23%

25%

26%

32%

Constructive advice

23%

23%

23%

15%

7%

Apology from officer

10%

11%

11%

10%

8%

Explanation accepted

7%

11%

9%

10%

4%

Apology on behalf of PSNI

6%

5%

4%

5%

10%

Accept nothing further could be done

2%

2%

5%

3%

1%

Brought to senior officer(s) attention Brought to attention of District Commander

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

0%

2%

1%

0%

0%

Expression of regret

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

Face to face meeting with officer

2%

0%

0%

0%

1%

Total

415

313

209

209

162

Table 22: Rank of officers complained about*, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Rank

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Constable

82%

82%

82%

82%

82%

Sergeant

15%

14%

15%

14%

14%

4%

4%

3%

5%

4%

Inspector and Above *Where the Officer’s rank is known

34

Table 23: Number of PSNI officers attracting three or more complaints, 2009/10 - 2013/14

Number of officers who attracted three or more complaints*

Number of officers with OMB3 served or a recommendation for Local/Informal Resolution has been made**

March 2010

341



June 2010

327



September 2010

318



December 2010

283



March 2011

277



June 2011

270



September 2011

277



December 2011

267



March 2012

266



June 2012

267



September 2012

235



December 2012

240



March 2013

213



June 2013

237

98

September 2013

272

80

December 2013

301

91

March 2014

324

93

Twelve month period ending

*As investigations proceed, the number of complaints with which each officer is associated with may fluctuate. The figures presented in this table show the number of officers who have attracted three or more complaints in the previous 12 month period using data extracted from the CHS about three days after the 12 month period has ended. This means that valid comparisons can be made over time. **From April 2013 the PSNI track and trend the number of officers who have received an OMB3 or a recommendation for LR or IR has been made

35

EQUALITY MONITORING

Table 24: Gender of complainants, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Gender

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Male

68%

70%

69%

69%

71%

Female

30%

28%

29%

28%

27%

Not Applicable

2%

2%

2%

3%

2%

3,494

3,299

3,299

3,190

3,569

Total

Table 25: Age of complainants, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Age Group

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

16-17

3%

4%

3%

2%

3%

18-24

18%

21%

17%

16%

17%

25-34

20%

21%

25%

25%

26%

35-44

24%

24%

22%

24%

21%

45-54

21%

18%

20%

20%

21%

55-64

9%

7%

9%

8%

8%

65+

4%

5%

4%

4%

4%

1,900

1,650

2,196

2,146

2,564

Total

Table 26: Religious belief of complainants, 2009/10 - 2013/14 Religious Belief

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Catholic

34%

40%

42%

41%

41%

Presbyterian

23%

19%

20%

18%

18%

Church of Ireland

21%

17%

15%

15%

16%

Methodist

3%

3%

4%

4%

4%

Other Christian

6%

7%

6%

7%

7%

Other Religion

2%

1%

1%

3%

1%

No Religion

11%

13%

12%

12%

13%

Total survey respondents

967

830

710

566

488

36

Table 27: Average rate of allegations received 2009/10 - 2013/14 by Policing District and Area per 1,000 of the population per year

Policing Area North Belfast West Belfast District A East Belfast South Belfast District B Ards Castlereagh Down North Down District C Antrim Carrickfergus Lisburn Newtownabbey District D Armagh Banbridge Craigavon Newry & Mourne District E Cookstown Dungannon & South Tyrone Fermanagh Omagh District F Foyle Limavady Magherafelt Strabane District G Ballymena Ballymoney Coleraine Larne Moyle District H

Average rate of allegations (2009/10 - 2013/14) per 1000 of the population per year 6 6 6 3 8 5 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 1 6 2 1 3

37

APPENDIX 2: UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLAINTS PROCESS To help understand the information in this report, we have provided this short summary of the police complaints service in Northern Ireland and how it works. What we do The Police Ombudsman's Office opened on 6 November 2000, marking the beginning of an entirely new system for investigating complaints against police officers in Northern Ireland. The Office provides for the independent and impartial investigation of complaints about the police in Northern Ireland. The Police Ombudsman is committed to providing a police complaints service in the way he thinks best calculated to secure the confidence of the public and the police. He believes that for such confidence to be forthcoming, it is essential that people are informed about the nature of his work. The Police Ombudsman has the remit to investigate the conduct of police officers within six organisations which operate in Northern Ireland: • Police Service of Northern Ireland including Designated Civilians; • Larne Harbour Police; • Belfast Harbour Police; • Belfast International Airport Police; • Ministry of Defence Police; and • Serious and Organised Crime Agency. The Office deals primarily with complaints made by members of the public about the conduct of police officers. It also deals with matters referred to it by the PSNI Chief Constable (referred to as Chief Constable section 55 referrals). These include: • All discharges of police firearms (including those used in riot situations); • All fatal road traffic collisions involving police officers; • Any death which may have occurred as a result of the actions of a police officer; and • Any other serious allegation. It also deals with matters referred to it by the NIPB, the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the PPS (section 55 referrals). 38

The Police Ombudsman also has the power to initiate an investigation without a complaint having been made if it appears to him to be desirable and in the public interest (referred to as a “call-in”). In most circumstances the Police Ombudsman can only investigate incidents which have occurred in the previous 12 months. However, there is no time limit on the investigation of grave matters, or where exceptional circumstances exist. Many of the investigations the Office is undertaking into incidents during which happened between 1968 and 1998 (the period known as the Troubles) are matters the Police Ombudsman viewed as grave or exceptional. The Police Ombudsman does not investigate complaints against officers whose conduct has been the subject of disciplinary or criminal proceedings; or complaints about off-duty police officers, unless the fact that he or she is a police officer is relevant to the complaint. The Office also does not investigate matters relating to the direction and control of the police service by the Chief Constable.

How we do it By law the Police Ombudsman must keep a register of complaints. A complaint does not need to be communicated in writing, nor does it need to explicitly say that it is a complaint for it to be recorded as such. All complaints are recorded on the CHS, even where they are later determined to be outside the remit of the Office. A complaint from a member of the public will invariably include a number of allegations. For example, if a person alleges a police officer pushed them and was rude to them, it would be recorded as one complaint with two allegations on the system. Once a complaint has been received, the Office will consider if the matter can be resolved informally. Before we decide to take such an approach, the person who has made the complaint must agree. If this proves unsuccessful, the Police Ombudsman will refer the allegation for investigation. When a matter has been the subject of a formal investigation, and the evidence indicates that police officers may have committed a criminal offence or breached the police Code of Ethics, the Police Ombudsman can recommend that they are prosecuted or disciplined.

39

Where the Police Ombudsman considers that a criminal offence may have been committed by a member of the police, he must send a copy of the investigation report to the PPS, making appropriate recommendations. The PPS then decides whether or not to prosecute the police officer under investigation. If the Police Ombudsman decides that no criminal offence has been committed, he is required to consider whether it is appropriate to recommend disciplinary proceedings and to send a memorandum to the relevant disciplinary authority, recommending whether or not such proceedings should be brought and stating the reasons for his decision. If he recommends disciplinary proceedings should be brought in relation to a particular investigation and the Chief Constable is unwilling to do so, the Police Ombudsman may, after consultation with the Chief Constable, direct him to do so. To help in the understanding of the police complaints process we have produced a glossary of terms used in this Report at Appendix 3.

40

APPENDIX 3: GLOSSARY OF TERMS This glossary is designed to assist users of our statistical information to understand the terms which we use to describe data contained in the statistical bulletin. Terms are listed in the order in which they appear in the report.

Complaint A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction by or on behalf of a member of the public about a member of the police service or an officer of another service over which the Office has jurisdiction. This could be about the way the individual was treated or the service they received.

Allegation This describes the types of behaviour being complained about or the separate issues being complained about. A single complaint can contain one or more allegations. For example, a complainant may allege that a police officer pushed him or her and was rude. This would be recorded as two separate allegations forming one complaint. Allegations are categorised into main allegation types and subtypes. These subtypes facilitate greater understanding of what the allegation relates to.

Residual matters A small number of residual matters are included in the number of allegations (usually 1-2% of allegations each year). A residual matter is one identified by the Office’s Investigator, which has not been previously complained of by the complainant. Examples include failure to complete notebook records, anomalies in custody record, and failure to supervise situations adequately.

Section 55 referral Under section 55 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 the Police Ombudsman can investigate matters about which no complaint has been made. The Chief Constable, The Director of PPS, the NIPB and the DoJ can refer non complaint matters to the Office. In addition the Police Ombudsman may investigate a non complaint matter if it appears to him that a police officer may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings and it is considered desirable in the public interest to do so.

41

Main factor behind complaint The Office also records information on the type of situation which has led to the complaint. When the Complaints Officer determines that there are several factors that have led to the complaint, the main factor behind the complaint is recorded. Factors behind complaints are categorised as follows: Criminal investigation - where the main burden of the complaint relates to the police conduct of a criminal investigation. Arrest - where the main burden of the complaint relates to events taking place during or immediately after the complainant’s arrest. Search - where the main burden of the complaint relates to an incident involving a search. This may be a police stop and search of a person, usually the complainant; a police search of premises; or a police search of a vehicle. Traffic related incident - where the main burden of the complaint relates to any incident involving police where traffic is a relevant factor, encompassing road traffic collisions, breath tests, parking offences and the manner of police driving. Police enquiries (no investigation) - where the main burden of the complaint relates to an incident where police carried out preliminary enquiries but no formal investigation took place. Domestic incident - where the main burden of the complaint relates to a domestic incident including incidents of domestic violence or neighbour disputes. Parade/Demonstration - where the main burden of the complaint relates to an incident which took place during a parade and/or demonstration. Historic investigation - an investigation (potentially criminal and/or misconduct) into the actions of police where the allegation(s) made are considered Grave or Exceptional, “Troubles” related (1969-1998) and predates the establishment of the Good Friday Agreement, 10 April 1998. Other category - where the main burden of the complaint relates to other situations including, for example, incidents during the interview or detention of the complainant; a death in custody or following other types of police contact; police attempting to recruit the complainant as an informer; police response or lack of response; lack of investigation by police; issues around records management or the disclosure of information; seizure, return or disposal of property; other operational/policy matters or some other off-duty incidents.

42

Allegation types and Subtypes Failure in duty This allegation type includes situations where the complainant alleged that the officer failed in his or her duty as a police officer. Currently on the CHS, failure in duty allegations are categorised into 23 subtypes. In February 2014, a ‘user consultation’ meeting was held which was attended by key stakeholders of the Office. One of the main outcomes of this meeting was an acknowledgement that there were, especially for reporting purposes, too many failure in duty allegation subtypes. It was also noted that a large number of failure in duty allegations were categorised within the ‘other failure in duty’ subtype. In order to address these issues and to simplify the allegation subtype table in this report, it was decided to re-categorise failure in duty allegations into the following: Conduct of police investigations / incident response Conduct of police investigations - where the alleged failure in duty is specific to the conduct of an ongoing or completed police investigation. Failure to supervise / adequately supervise4 - where supervision of an officer has either not taken place or is perceived to have been inadequate. This subtype will most commonly be used where a failure to supervise has been identified by Ombudsman investigators as a residual matter. Failure to investigate - where the complainant alleges a failure of police to carry out any investigation into an incident. Delay/failure to respond to incident4 - where the complainant alleges that police have been excessively slow to attend or failed to attend a reported incident. This also includes incidents relating to the delay or failure to respond to emergency calls made via the ‘999’ system. Improper disclosure of information - where the complainant alleges that one or more police officers have disclosed information inappropriately. Failure/refusal to identify self - where the complainant alleges that police have failed to identify themselves when dealing with the complainant or have refused to do so when asked. Failures in contact Failure to attend appointments / undue delay in police response5 - where the complainant alleges that police have either failed to keep arranged appointments or have been excessively slow to attend / failed to attend a reported incident. Failure to return telephone calls and/or reply to correspondence5 - where the complainant alleges that police have failed to return telephone calls and / or reply to correspondence sent. ___________________________ 4 5

New failure in duty categories used from April 2013. Failure in duty categories used 2009/10 to 2012/13.

43

Failure to return telephone calls / reply to correspondence / attend appointments4 - where the complainant alleges that police have either failed to return telephone calls, failed to reply to correspondence sent, or failed to keep arranged appointments. Failure to update - where the complainant alleges that the police have failed to update him or her appropriately on the progress of a police investigation or other enquiries.

Conduct in custody suite Denied access to legal advice - where the complainant is alleging that he or she was denied access to legal advice whilst in custody. Denied access to medical attention - where the complainant is alleging that he or she was denied access to medical attention. This may be either in custody or at the scene of an incident. Detention, treatment & questioning - where an alleged failure in duty has occurred while the complainant has been subject to detention, for example, failure to inform detained persons of their rights and entitlements or failure to maintain accurate custody records. Failure in record management Failure to keep accurate police records4 - failure to keep accurate, complete or up to date police records e.g. in respect of police notebooks or for criminal record details, payment of fines, bail attendance at police stations, production of driving documents, name/address details, etc. Failure to provide information / accurate information4 - where a complainant has alleged that police have failed to provide non-documentary information, or failed to provide accurate non-documentary information, relating to them or third parties. Failure to provide / refer appropriate documentation4 - where it is alleged that police have failed to provide documentation requested by the complainant or their representatives or where police have failed to refer appropriate documentation to external bodies or the documentation referred is perceived to be inaccurate, incomplete or misleading.

___________________________ 4 5

New failure in duty categories used from April 2013. Failure in duty categories used 2009/10 to 2012/13.

44

Failure to refer complaint / section 55(2) matter to the Police Ombudsman4 failure to take complaint details when made (e.g. in police custody / at a police station) and thereafter to forward these details on to OPONI. This also includes other matters coming to the attention of police, not necessarily the subject of a public complaint, where the matter concerned would fall under section 55(2) or otherwise require referral. e.g. discharge of taser. Failure in duty of care Failure in duty of care4 - failure to take appropriate action to ensure the safety or well-being of the complainant or third party for whom they have responsibility e.g. juvenile or vulnerable adult. Failure to act impartially Failure to act impartially / objectively4 - failure to adopt an independent approach and/or failure to act in an impartial manner. Other failure in duty Other failure in duty - a failure in duty not otherwise covered in the existing failure in duty subtypes. Identification procedures5 – where the complainant alleges that police have failed to adhere to guidelines in relation to identification procedures, for example not obtaining necessary consent to the taking of fingerprints, photographs or body samples. Procedural irregularity5 - where the complainant alleges any other procedural irregularity in relation to police adherence to established procedures. Tape recording5 - where the complainant alleges failure to tape record (without good reason) failure to handle tapes in an appropriate manner or not making a proper record of objections, complaints, breaks etc.

___________________ 4 5

New failure in duty categories used from April 2013. Failure in duty categories used 2009/10 to 2012/13.

45

Oppressive Behaviour This allegation type includes situations where the complainant alleged that the officer has behaved in an oppressive manner. Oppressive Behaviour allegations are categorised into a number of subtypes as follows: Oppressive conduct - where the complainant is alleging misconduct by a police officer in relation to oppressive conduct not involving assault. Harassment - where the complainant is alleging that he or she was harassed, for example, where he or she was repeatedly stopped by police and searched for no legitimate reason. Sexual assault - where the complainant is alleging an assault by a police officer which is of a sexual nature. Serious non sexual assault - where the complainant is alleging that the conduct of a police officer resulted in serious injury, for example, an allegation that the complainant sustained a broken bone as a result of the actions of police. Other assault - where the complainant is alleging unjustified, excessive force or violent conduct on the part of a police officer, for example, an allegation that the complainant was being pushed or otherwise physically abused without justification. Incivility This term covers allegations such as the police officer being rude, showing a lack of respect, being abrupt or displaying a general lack of sensitivity.

46

Search This allegation type covers situations where the complainant alleged that the officer has behaved in an irregular manner during a search. Search allegations are categorised into: Irregularity re Search of premises - where the complainant alleges an irregularity specific to a police search of premises. Irregularity re Stop/Search of person - where the complainant alleges an irregularity specific to a police stop and search of a person. Seizure of property - where a complainant alleges police misconduct specific to a police seizure of property occurring as a result of a police search. Damage to property - where the complainant alleges damage to property specific to a police search of premises, person or vehicle. Irregularity re Stop/Search of vehicle - where the complainant alleges an irregularity specific to a police stop and search of a vehicle. Unlawful / Unnecessary Arrest / Detention This allegation type relates to situations where unlawful / unnecessary arrest / detention is alleged. Malpractice This allegation type relates to situations where the complainant alleged that the officer has been involved in malpractice. This category is subdivided into the following subtypes: Irregularity re evidence / perjury - includes any allegation in relation to perjury, other allegations of falsehood, any allegation that evidence was obtained in an irregular manner or under duress and allegations of concealment or tampering with evidence. Corrupt practice - any criminal allegation of corruption made by a complainant. Mishandling of property This allegation category includes any allegation involving theft or loss of property (including money), unreasonable retention of property, damage to property, failure to account for money or property and improper disposal of property. Discriminatory behaviour This allegation type includes situations where the complainant alleged that the officer has displayed some form of discriminatory behaviour. Discriminatory behaviour allegations are categorised into a number of subtypes as follows:

47

Sectarian discriminatory behaviour - where the complainant perceives that he or she has been discriminated against on the basis of his or her religious or political identification within the Northern Ireland context. Other religious discriminatory behaviour - where the complainant perceives that he or she has been discriminated against on the basis of his or her religion, where the religion is not one traditionally associated with the sectarian context within Northern Ireland. Racially discriminatory behaviour - where the complainant perceives that he or she has been discriminated against on the basis of his or her race. Disability discriminatory behaviour - where the complainant perceives that he or she has been discriminated against on the basis of a disability. Homophobic discriminatory behaviour - where the complainant perceives that he or she has been discriminated against on the basis of his or her sexuality. Gender discriminatory behaviour - where the complainant perceives that he or she has been discriminated against on the basis of his or her gender. Trans-phobic discriminatory behaviour - where the complainant perceives that he or she has been discriminated against on the basis of his or her decision to identify with the opposite gender from that of his or her birth. Other discriminatory behaviour - where the complainant perceives that he or she has been discriminated against on the basis of a factor not covered in the other subtypes. Traffic This allegation type includes situations where the complainant alleges that the officer has been involved in a traffic irregularity and is sub divided as follows: Driving of police vehicles - where an allegation of misconduct is made specific to the driving of a vehicle on police business. Other traffic irregularity - where an allegation of a traffic infringement by a police officer has been made e.g. use of mobile phone while driving, parking on double yellow lines. Section 55 Referral Section 55 referrals (see explanation above) are recorded under the following: Section 55 (Chief Constable Referral) - where the matter being investigated arises from a Chief Constable Referral. Section 55 (HET Referral) - where the matter being investigated arises from a Chief Constable Referral in relation to the Historical Enquiries Team. 48

Section 55 (OPONI Call In) - where the matter being investigated arises from a Police Ombudsman call in. Section 55 (Policing Board Referral) - where the matter being investigated results from a referral by the Policing Board. Section 55 (PPS Referral) - where the matter being investigated results from a referral by the Director of Public Prosecution. Section 55 (Department of Justice Referral) - where the matter being investigated results from a referral by the Department of Justice. Other The remaining allegations are recorded under the following subtypes: Other allegation - any other allegation made by a complainant, where the nature of the allegation is clear but it does not fit appropriately into any other allegation subtype. Other (Insufficient detail) - where the complainant has not provided sufficient information to allow accurate categorisation of his or her complaint. OPONI Call In/Out NFA - where the Investigating Officer (IO) has determined at an early stage that there is no requirement for any further investigation at an incident to which he or she was called out. For example where an IO was contacted in relation to the police shooting of a dangerous dog. During preliminary enquiries the IO determines that there is no suggestion of any police misconduct and determines there is no requirement for any investigation by the Office.

Location The Office also records the location of the incident which led to the allegation. It should be noted that for some failure in duty allegations, for example, failure to update or failure to investigate, the incident is recorded as occurring in a police station. The Office also records the location of the police station closest to the incident. This information is used to determine the policing district and area of the allegation.

Regulation 9 Notice (OMB3) A regulation 9 notice informs the officer that an allegation has been made against him/her and that the matter is to be investigated.

49

Reporting of outcomes When the CHS was introduced in December 2008 the Office began to report on outcomes at recommendation level, rather than at case level. The CHS enables accurate and complete information to be captured in respect of the officers and allegations within a complaint, and for these multiple outcomes to be reflected at closure. The system also encourages the capturing of recommendations throughout the lifetime of the case, rather than just at closure, allowing the Office to report on a contemporaneous basis. Finally, the CHS allows for accurate recording and reporting of, not only the recommendations made by this Office, but also the final outcome after submission of a file to the PPS or PSNI (as appropriate). It also allows the Office’s reporting to reflect the complexity of casework and recommendations made throughout the investigation process. Currently the Office provides information on the closure of complaints in terms of recommendations arising from allegations closed. The Office is considering presenting the outcomes at complaint level in addition to recommendation level. The Office is also considering presenting outcomes as a proportion of complaints that have been fully investigated. Recommendations arising from allegations closed When the investigation of an allegation is complete a recommendation for allegation closure is made. It should be noted that one allegation may have more than one associated recommendation, for example, when there is a number of police officers linked to an allegation a recommendation is made for allegation closure for each one of the officers. Recommendation types are recorded under the following subtypes: Not substantiated – where the Investigating Officer has completed an investigation and is satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. Non co-operation by complainant – where the failure by the complainant to cooperate or provide reasonable assistance for the purpose of a Police Ombudsman investigation makes a meaningful enquiry impracticable. To PPS no Criminal Charges recommended – where a recommendation and a file is to be submitted to the Public Prosecution Service, recommending no criminal prosecution. Outside remit – where the allegation falls outside the Office’s legislative remit, for example if the alleged incident occurred outside of the 12 month period prior to the allegation being made. Informally/Locally Resolved – where a complaint of a less serious nature has been subject to an Informal or Local Resolution process following the consent of the complainant. This closure type requires that a record of the outcome has 50

been obtained from police confirming that the matter has been resolved. The Local Resolution process currently operates in District D only. Withdrawn by complainant – where the Office receives written confirmation from the complainant, his or her solicitor or other authorised agent acting on his or her behalf to the effect that he or she wishes to withdraw the complaint or does not wish any further steps to be taken in consequence of it. Recommended action – where criminal or misconduct action is recommended in respect of officers concerned. The following action can be recommended by the Office:  Advice and Guidance: where the Office recommends an informal discipline sanction of Advice and Guidance for the officer concerned.  Management Discussion/Training: this also involves the Office recommending that a discussion take place between the officer concerned and a more senior officer regarding the allegation. This category also includes a small number of recommendations that the officer concerned receives additional training or operational supervision based on the nature of the allegation.  Superintendent’s Written Warning: this involves the officer receiving a formal written warning from their Superintendent.  Disciplinary / Misconduct Charges: where a recommendation is submitted to PSNI recommending formal disciplinary proceedings.  Criminal Charges: where a recommendation and a file is submitted to the PPS recommending criminal charge(s) in respect of an officer associated with a particular allegation(s). Ill founded – where it becomes clear during preliminary enquiries that an allegation is without basis or foundation. Substantiated (no action recommended) – where the investigation process has substantiated the allegation but no further action is appropriate or can be taken by the Police Ombudsman. There may be a number of reasons why no action can be taken including that it has not been possible to identify the officer concerned. Other – encompasses a range of other recommendations which are generally used less frequently than those described above. These could include cases where further enquiries or investigation is not possible due to the complainant’s failure to provide personal details; where the effort and resources involved in pursuing an allegation further is disproportionate to any likely outcome; or where the complaint is repetitive. Informal Resolution This is a process offered to complainants who have made less serious allegations, e.g. rudeness or incivility. It involves a senior police officer speaking to both the officer(s) involved and the complainant with a view to reaching a satisfactory resolution of the complaint. 51

APPENDIX 4: DATA AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY Statistical information on complaints and allegations is derived from the CHS, an integrated and comprehensive ICT system that covers all key aspects of receiving and processing a complaint from receipt to closure, including the investigation process and final recommendations. The system captures data about the complainant, the complained against parties, the incident and allegations made. Data can be downloaded and exported to a number of commonly used software packages for analysis (Excel, Access, SPSS 4). In addition the Office uses the DI Diver reporting tool and the CHS has a number of management reports run directly from a menu on the system.

Data Quality CHS data quality is considered to be high. The system has been designed to limit the incidence of inaccurate data through the use of measures such as logical validation checks, drop down menus for data input and a minimum of free text input. The Police Ombudsman has a dedicated team who assure the quality of CHS content. All data input is completely auditable and allows for an effective quality control procedure to review and, where necessary, amend key data for the purposes of accurate reporting. When considered necessary, focused data cleansing exercises of key fields are also conducted. Additionally, complete audits of fields with small numbers associated are conducted. A comprehensive statement on data quality is due to be published in Autumn 2015. As stated above, substantial validation and quality control procedures are in place to ensure that the data derived from CHS are of high quality. However, there is still the possibility of a small number of errors arising from data input, missing data, failure to update data and errors in communication. The Police Ombudsman estimates that the level of this error is so small that it has no impact on the quality of statistical reporting. However, where errors are identified, corrections are made to reports as soon as practicable. Further details are set out in the Police Ombudsman statement of revision and errors strategy . Revisions The statistics included in this bulletin are taken from a live system, and may be subject to future revisions. This means that total number of complaints and allegations may change slightly between those published in previous bulletins. Revisions can be made for a number of reasons but are mainly due to more information coming to light during the natural course of the Office’s work, and the system being updated accordingly. This includes the identification of residual matters; allegations identified by the Investigator that were not previously complained about by the member of the public, such as, the failure of a police 4

SPSS is a statistical software package developed for use by social scientists.

52

officer to complete their notebook, anomalies in custody records or failure to supervise adequately. They typically account for fewer than 2% of all allegations (approximately between 60 to 100 residual allegations annually). The table below shows the scale of revisions made between statistics in this bulletin and those in the bulletin previously published in November 2013 (SixMonthly Update bulletin). It demonstrates that the revisions have little impact on the overall trends presented in this bulletin. Table 28: Revisions made to the number of complaints and allegations received between this publication and the previous publication in November 2013. Previously Current Scale of Scale of Published Published Revision Revision Figure Figure (number) (%) (November 13) (June 14) Total number of complaints 2010/11 3,335 2011/12 3,343 2012/13 3,272

3,335 3,344 3,272

0 +1 0

0.00% 0.03% 0.00%

Total number of allegations 2010/11 6,330 2011/12 6,002 2012/13 5,258

6,330 6,005 5,284

0 +3 +26

0.00% 0.05% 0.49%

The number of section 55s received in 2012/13 was also revised. Upon completion of the investigation phase of incidents which had been subject of an immediate notification from the PSNI it was concluded that these matters could properly be treated as a referral from the Chief Constable (as opposed to a callin) and the statutory reporting obligations of the Police Ombudsman should be fulfilled. The Office’s full strategy for revisions and errors can be found within the publications section of the Office’s website.

Data Limitations Because of the nature of some of the highly sensitive material handled by the Police Ombudsman in the investigation of cases, a small proportion of cases will have only limited information available on the CHS. On balance, the Police Ombudsman considers that the assurance of the privacy of the information and individuals associated with this small number of sensitive cases outweighs the need for full access to the data. In practice, the number of cases is so small that the restriction has no impact on the quality of statistical reporting.

53

Additional copies of this and other publications are available from:

Information Directorate Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland New Cathedral Buildings 11 Church Street Belfast BT1 1PG Telephone: 028 9082 8669 Fax: 028 9082 8605 Textphone: 028 9082 8756 Witness Appeal Line: 0800 0327 880 Email: [email protected] This publication and other information about the work of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland are also available on the Internet at:

Website: www.policeombudsman.org

54