Today’s blog post argues that the police complaints system, intended to uphold professional standards and protect the public, is frequently undermined by Professional Standards Departments (PSD) that act to shield officers rather than hold them accountable. Using the case of Rocco Kirkpatrick as a stark example, it highlights serious investigative failures, apparent bias, and the troubling reappointment of the same investigator despite a quashed report by the IOPC. The piece contends that such practices reflect a wider systemic issue in which complaints processes serve to protect police reputations instead of delivering impartial justice, and calls for genuine reform to restore public confidence and accountability.
Content Authenticity Statement
100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.
The Purpose of the Police Complaints System
What is the purpose of the Police Complaints System?
It is to uphold the Standards of Professional Behaviour, as defined by Schedule 2 of the Police Conduct Regulations 2020, in order –
• to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the Police service
• to uphold high standards in Policing and deter misconduct
• to protect the public.
How Professional Standards Departments Fail the Public
Yet so very often, those “Professional Standards Departments” (PSD) who are tasked with internal Police investigations and the handling of complaints behave not as watchdogs guarding the Public interest, but as the shield and protectors of corrupt, dishonest and violent cops, as if their motto was “My Officer Right or Wrong” – and perhaps it is.
A Culture of Scepticism Towards Police Complaints
We can only be thankful that the Police as a whole do not treat complaints of crime generally with the same scepticism, obfuscation and even outright antagonism which PSD units serially display towards complaints about Officers.
Ongoing Issues With Police Misconduct Investigations
This is a problem which I have been called upon to address time and time again, as regular readers of this blog will be well aware.
The Rocco Kirkpatrick Case: A Disturbing Example
A particularly egregious example of pro-Police bias in the handling of a complaint was the case of my client Rocco Kirkpatrick, which I addressed in a lengthy, and disturbing, blog post in January; please be aware that post contains distressing images.
Rocco, a 15-year-old boy who was being unlawfully detained by Officers of Suffolk Police, had his head impaled on a metal railing as the Officers were attempting to handcuff him, and suffered a horrific injury as a result. Understandably, there has been a lot of public interest in this story, and both I and Rocco’s mum, Jade, were subsequently interviewed by the BBC’s “Look East” news programme.
Challenging the Initial PSD Investigation Outcome
In my January post I dissected the “whitewash” complaint report which had been prepared by Suffolk PSD investigator, Detective Constable Teresa England, and which had purported to exonerate all of the Officers involved; I wrote how I was going to lodge an appeal on behalf of my client with the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) – and how I was confident that I would persuade the IOPC to overturn the outcome.
IOPC Intervention and Ongoing Concerns
I am pleased to report that I was correct, but I must also, sadly, report that the battle is far from over; because apparently when Suffolk PSD are told that one of their officers has so badly mishandled an investigation that a re-investigation is required – they think the logical response is to return the case to the same officer, to do it again.
Reappointment of the Same Investigator: A Questionable Decision
I find the re- appointment of DC England in this matter to be frankly astonishing, given the serious failings for which she was responsible in the first investigation, and which led to the outcome of that investigation being quashed by the IOPC on the grounds that the report was sub-standard, that its conclusions lacked “an evidence- based rationale” and that the outcome contradicted the available evidence.
Key Failures in the Original Police Complaint Investigation
Major flaws which I identified in that first complaint report included the following –
- failure to complete a Severity Assessment
- failure to obtain Rocco’s own account of events
- failure to interview any of the Police Officers under caution
- failure to locate and review all Police body camera/ dashcam footage of the incident
- failure to consider Use of Force forms
- failure to note the discrepancy between one Officer’s statement that he was ‘looking the other way’ when Rocco was impaled on the railing, and the fact that the video footage shows that not only was the Officer not looking the other way, he was actively using force upon Rocco at the key moment.
Also, the report purported to reach the following conclusions, which were entirely unreasonable on the available evidence-
- that the injury was caused by Rocco impaling himself on the railing (as opposed to his falling onto the railing because of the force being used upon him by Officers)
- that Rocco’s “sudden downward movement” was somehow independent from the aggressive force being used upon him by Officers at that exact moment
- that Rocco lifted himself back up off the railing – when the CCTV footage explicitly shows Officers pulling Rocco up and off the post
- that Rocco was being lawfully detained/ restrained in the first place (no proper attempt is made to address the legality of this child’s detention, or the legality of the use of handcuffs upon him).
Lastly, the report included numerous non- relevant incidents (in an apparent attempt to justify what happened to Rocco by the alleged misbehaviour of other members of the public).
Evidence of Systemic Bias in PSD Investigations
You will note that all of DC England’s failings in this investigation flow in one direction i.e they are to the detriment of the complainant’s case, and to the advantage of the Police Officers concerned.
The Misguided Justification for Investigator Reappointment
What was Suffolk PSD’s basis for re- appointing DC England? They argue that she is the right person for the job because she is a “passionate” investigator. I have already responded to point out to them how misconceived this is; ‘passion’, indeed any emotion, is a vice, not a virtue, in an investigator. The evidence must be dispassionately assessed, without fear or favour, or any pre- conceived agenda.
The Need for an Independent and Impartial Investigation
Not only my client and his family, but the public as a whole, deserve an entirely fresh investigation carried out by a person who is not tainted by the errors of judgement, procedure and apparent bias which resulted in that original, unacceptable report.
Awaiting Proper Reallocation of the Investigation
I now await confirmation from Suffolk Police that this matter has been properly re- allocated and that a full, fresh and rigorous investigation, implementing all necessary procedures, will be commenced forthwith; unless they are not interested in maintaining even the semblance of impartiality, fairness and adherence to their duties in this matter?
PSD’s True Role vs Reality
PSD’s role is to protect the public, not the Police, yet time and time again, that’s exactly what they do. “Passion” for the home- team drives their investigators to exculpate when they should interrogate, lecture when they should listen, and obstruct when they should enable. They treat the public as the ‘opposition.’
The Core Problem With Police Misconduct Accountability
That is the core of the problem we have with endemic Police misbehaviour and misconduct; the complaints system has one purpose in theory – but the opposite in practice. The unacknowledged mission statement of Police Professional Standards units, though it is also “written between the lines” of almost every report they produce, is as follows –
- whitewash the reputation of the Police
- protect Police Officers
- patronise the public
- excuse misconduct.
Holding Police Accountable: A Call for Reform
I am proud to stand amongst those who are dedicated to changing that, through the cases we fight, and the blog posts we write.
How you can help
This blog has grown through the trust of readers and clients rather than through aggressive marketing or paid promotion. If you feel this article offers genuine insight or practical value, please consider leaving a 5-star review. Your feedback plays a meaningful role in helping others identify experienced, specialist advice when it counts. Thank you.
Contact the Expert Police Misconduct Solicitor
Iain Gould is a solicitor specialising in complaints, claims and civil actions against the Police. With over 30 years of experience and a national reputation, he has successfully sued all 43 police forces in England and Wales challenging abuse of power and securing rightful compensation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.