This week’s blog post provides a short update on the case of my client Scott Barrett, and another example of why the Police complaints system just isn’t working and fails the public time and time again.
Content Authenticity Statement
100% of this week’s blog post was generated by me, the human.
Police Brutality Against an Innocent Good Samaritan
Scott Barrett was a “good Samaritan” trying to help the Police when PC Kirkwood of Lincolnshire Police mistook him for a criminal suspect and then administered his own “old school” vigilante justice on this innocent man, by forcing him to the ground at taser point and then breaking Scott’s nose with a deliberate kick to his face.
How the IOPC Overturned Lincolnshire Police’s Initial Decision
After the Professional Standards Department of Lincolnshire Police determined that PC Kirkwood’s actions were “reasonable” and declined to sanction him in any way, I launched an appeal to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) on behalf of Scott, and got them to direct that PC Kirkwood should in fact face a Gross Misconduct hearing. I had previously had to intervene in a similar fashion in the equally egregious case of my client Shane Price (which also involved Lincolnshire Police).
Gross Misconduct Found – But No Meaningful Consequences
Notwithstanding this, however, both Scott and I were left disappointed, as I reported in my previous post, by the fact that the Misconduct Panel refused to hear evidence from Scott himself at the hearing and, despite finding that the officer had committed gross misconduct, penalised the officer with only a “final written warning”. As it happened, by the time the Misconduct hearing finally took place, PC Kirkwood had chosen to retire from the Police – but had he remained in service, this sanction would have meant he was not dismissed and could have continued to patrol our streets and exercise Police power over civilians.
Indeed, should the officer decide to re- apply to the Police service in the future, he would not be barred from doing so.
Why I Asked the IOPC to Consider Judicial Review
As stated in my previous post, I wrote to the IOPC in the aftermath of the hearing and urged them to consider appealing the outcome by means of a Judicial Review. The response I have received is instructive as to the structural problems with the current Police complaints and misconduct system and so I will repeat it here in full –
“We have considered your suggestion and thank you for your patience in this matter. After consideration, the IOPC Director of Oversight & Casework, David Ford, has decided it is not appropriate for the IOPC to seek permission to judicially review for a number of reasons. A summary of his rationale is set out below:
In this case, the IOPC directed the hearing, but it was not a party to the proceedings which were presented by the Appropriate Authority, and it was the role of Assistant Chief Constable Mayo supported by panel members and a Legally Qualified Advisor to decide the sanction. Having reviewed the material, my view is that the hearing was wrong, having found that the former officer would not have been dismissed had they still been serving. However, in any judicial review proceedings my disagreement with the sanction is irrelevant, and the court would only quash the decision if no reasonable decision-maker could make the same decision or it was procedurally or legally flawed. Although I am concerned the former officer is not on the barred list and there is a possibility they could seek employment back in policing or in a similar area, I feel that given the former officer’s age, this is highly unlikely, and additionally the information about the finding of gross misconduct should be available to police vetting procedures (see below).
Whilst I do not for one second seek to minimise the severity of this case and the impact the former officer’s actions are likely to have had on the complainant, for the reasons given above, I have decided this is not a case where it is appropriate for the IOPC to seek to have the decision quashed. I do not however feel it would be appropriate to simply close this matter without further action. I therefore plan to ensure the IOPC writes to the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Constabulary, setting out the concerns about this case. We will seek confirmation that information about the case will be available in any vetting procedures should the former officer re-apply for a policing role. We will also inform the Chief Constable that I considered whether the IOPC should seek permission for Judicial Review, and that our oversight function monitor the outcomes of future IOPC directed misconduct proceedings.”
The IOPC Agreed the Outcome Was Wrong – But Could Not Change It
In summary: the IOPC agree with me – and are “concerned” by this outcome – but lack the real, direct powers needed to do anything about it. Judicial review is so often an inadequate tool to address problems in the complaint process as it is an indirect mechanism of last resort and sets that very high bar of asking whether “any reasonable decision maker” could have come to this conclusion before it can be overturned.
The Fundamental Problem with the Police Complaints System
As I have written about time and time again, the inherent problem with the Police complaints system is the fact that in even the most serious cases, the Police themselves are not only “judge, jury and (probably not) executioner” but also the investigators. The self-interest, self- conceit and tribalism of the Police will bias them towards favouring officers who are complained about over the public who are complaining and even when the IOPC acts in a truly independent manner and overturns key decisions such as the initial PSD outcome in this case (by which they attempted to completely exonerate PC Kirkwood), the matter then returns to the Police for the final decision.
Why the IOPC Needs Greater Powers Over Police Misconduct Cases
Here, the IOPC was able to force them to produce the right finding of gross misconduct against Kirkwood, but not to force them to follow through with the correct verdict of placing him on the Police Barred List.
Or in other words, the IOPC has the power to lead the Police horse to water, but not to make it drink.
Reforming the Police Complaints Process: An Independent System Is Needed
Ultimately, I can sympathise with the IOPC decision not to pursue a judicial review, which would have uncertain prospects of success because it is a general legal mechanism of last recourse and not an efficient or dedicated solution for fixing the Police complaints system. The solution, as I have previously suggested, is to take the complaints investigation and prosecution process out of the hands of the Police and empower a truly independent and necessarily greatly expanded IOPC to deal with it themselves. Rather than the IOPC having to convince a judge that the Police decision maker acted entirely unreasonably, the decision should be being made by the IOPC in the first place. All too often at the moment, the IOPC lacks the way to do this, even when it doesn’t lack the will.
When the Police Complaints System Fails, Civil Claims Can Still Deliver Justice
Until change comes, however, victims of Police misconduct such as Scott can still rely on expert Police claims solicitors such as myself to secure justice for them through the civil claims process; because time and time again, when the complaint process fails – I succeed.
How you can help
Every post on this blog is grounded in real cases, real experience, and a commitment to holding abuses of power to account. If you’ve taken something useful from this article, or if you wish to support that broader aim, I would be grateful if you could leave a 5-star review. Each review strengthens this work and helps others in need of straightforward, specialist expertise find their way here. 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.