Skip to main content Skip to accessibility
This website is not compatible with your web browser. You should install a newer browser. If you live in Jersey and need help upgrading call the States of Jersey web team on 440099.
Government of Jerseygov.je

Information and public services for the Island of Jersey

L'înformâtion et les sèrvices publyis pouor I'Île dé Jèrri

Jersey Police Complaints Authority: Annual Report 2011

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

  • demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision

  • providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 8 February 2012:

Decision Reference: MD-HA-2012-0011

Decision Summary Title :

JPCA Annual report

Date of Decision Summary:

7 February 2012

Decision Summary Author:

 

Executive Officer

Home Affairs

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

 

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written

Person Giving

Oral Report:

n/a

Written Report

Title :

JPCA Annual report 2011

Date of Written Report:

26 January 2012

Written Report Author:

Chairman JPCA

Written Report :

Public or Exempt?

 

Public

Subject:

Jersey Police Complaints Authority – Annual Report 2011.

 

Decision(s):

The Minister approved the Annual Report for 2011 of the Jersey Police Complaints Authority, and requested that the Greffier of the States arrange for it to be presented to the States as a Report as soon as practicable.

 

Reason(s) for Decision:

A report on the functions of the Jersey Police Complaints Authority is to be prepared annually, in accordance with Article 29(4) of the Police (Complaints and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999, and submitted to the Minister for presentation to the States.

 

Resource Implications:

There are no resource implications to the Home Affairs Department resulting from this decision.

 

Action required:

The Executive Officer, Home Affairs, to request the Greffier of the States to present the Annual Report to the States as soon as practicable.

 

Signature:

 

 

Position:

Minister for Home Affairs

 

Date Signed:

 

 

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

 

 

Jersey Police Complaints Authority: Annual Report 2011

 

 

 

JERSEY POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY

 

ANNUAL REPORT 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Library Place

St Helier

JE2 3NL

 

 

JERSEY POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY

 

ANNUAL REPORT 2011

 

The Jersey Police Complaints Authority is an independent organisation set up by the States of Jersey under the Police (Complaints and Discipline) (Jersey) Law 1999 (“the Law”). The role of the Authority is to oversee, monitor and supervise the investigation by the States Police, and such other external Police Forces as circumstances require, of certain complaints made by members of the public against States of Jersey police officers, (excluding the Chief Officer),  and Honorary police officers.

 

The Law requires the Authority to approve the appointment of an Investigating Officer and its responsibility is to ensure that the investigations it supervises are carried out in an impartial, thorough and meticulous manner.

 

The members of the Authority are appointed by the States for a period of three years and their services are provided on a voluntary basis. The Authority does not carry out investigations and its members are not trained investigators.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBERS OF THE AUTHORITY

Thomas Slattery – Chairman

Anthony Beaumont

Dr John Birtwistle (appointed 1st January 2012)

Andrew Cornish  

Debbie Prosser (formerly Lang)

Stephen Luce (resigned 15th November 2011)

Jane Martin

Bruce Ridley


JERSEY POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY

ANNUAL REPORT 2011

 

OVERVIEW

 

The Authority is pleased to present its 11th Annual Report for the year ended 31st December 2011.

 

Thirty three new complaints and two other non-public complaint cases were supervised by the Authority in the year which is significantly up on 2010 as shown in Table 1 below, but more in line with the trend of previous years.  In addition to these new cases, a further eight cases were brought forward from 2010 bringing the total cases under supervision during the year to forty three compared to twenty nine in 2010.

 

The disruptions, especially at senior levels, in the States of Jersey Police experienced over the previous two years, have hopefully now been resolved. The return to a more consistent volume of complaints is probably reflective of the restored stability and also the more pro-active policing approach now being followed.

 

In prior years we have recommended that a review of the Law originally enacted in 1999 is merited. During the year a review was undertaken with expert external guidance and with the involvement of senior members of the States of Jersey Police. It is believed that most changes can be done by Ministerial Order without requiring amendments to the Law itself. Work will commence in 2012 to prepare draft new orders which will then be presented to the Minister for Home Affairs for his consideration.

 

It is not our desire to bring the Jersey Law into line with that in England and Wales but simply to identify areas of potential improvement to our existing Law. In particular we believe that consideration should be given to the following -

  • Formalising the process for managing and supervising the investigation of complaints against the Chief Officer and Deputy Chief Officer.
  • Implementation of a more progressive disciplinary process allowing for formal verbal and written warnings. Currently any formal disciplinary action requires a hearing. This process should allow for improved performance management with remedial or disciplinary action being initiated as part of a normal management process not requiring a misconduct complaint.
  • Development of a fast tracking process for extreme cases where the evidence is incontrovertible.
  • Including in the Police code a responsibility on police officers to challenge and report any improper conduct on the part of another officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS 

 

1. Number of Complaints

 

The investigation of thirty three new complaints (2010 – fifteen) against officers of the States of Jersey Police and members of the Honorary Police, as well as two other matters internal to the States of Jersey Police (2010 – one), were supervised by the Authority in the year. While this is a significant increase compared to 2010 it is more in line with earlier years. It is also of note that the number of new cases logged in the second half of the year was nearly double that of the first half.  It is too early to say, however, if this is indicative of a trend or reflecting a more pro-active policing policy.

 

 Table 1 provides a comparison of the current year total with previous years.

 

Table 1 – Nature of Complaints Supervised

Nature of Complaint

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Excessive use of force

17

11

6

14

8

6

5

6

14

Harassment/threatening

behaviour/ abuse of authority

5

12

11

6

9

10

13

2

 8

Use of CS spray

0

1

1

0

4

1

0

0

0

Other

8

13

12

10

15

10

8

7

13

TOTAL

30

37

30

30

36

27

26

15

35

 

 

Table 1 also analyses the complaints supervised according to the nature of the main complaint.

Such statistics, of course, do not always reflect the relative complexity of cases nor situations where the complainant has made a main complaint together with a number of secondary allegations.

 

Complaints regarding use of excessive force showed a significant increase in the year and complaints regarding harassment, threatening behaviour or abuse of authority also increased.

The heading of ‘Other’ in the analysis covers many different descriptions by complainants including for example instances of alleged wrongful arrest, illegal search of premises, incorrect disclosure of information, claimed planting of evidence or breaches of the Police Code of Practice. It also includes the supervised cases not initiated as complaints by members of the public.

 

We have also seen an increase in complaints where at least part of the issue has been alleged loss of cash or damage to property during searches of premises. While none of the missing cash complaints has been substantiated there is now increasing use of video to record the search process.

 

 

 

 

2. Outcome of Cases Supervised

 

Table 2 shows the results of the investigations initiated and completed during 2011 and in earlier years.  Of the cases initiated and completed in 2011 five were found to be substantiated or partly substantiated. Of the substantiated complaints two related to excessive use of force and three to abuse of authority and appropriate disciplinary action was approved by the Authority. For clarification, a case is classified as complete once the Authority has formally confirmed its satisfaction with an investigation, any referral to the Law Officers Department has been satisfactorily resolved and after a formal decision on appropriate disciplinary action has been agreed.

 

As emphasised in previous years however the fact that a complaint may be substantiated does not in itself mean that formal disciplinary hearings are merited. Where complaints do not justify formal disciplinary action, but where an officer’s actions are below the desired standard, focussed training is being used to encourage performance improvement.

 

As noted elsewhere the Authority believes the disciplinary procedures should be revised to allow for a progressive performance management process which allows for a range of disciplinary actions including written warnings.

 

Table 2 – Outcome of Cases Supervised by Year Initiated

Outcome

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Withdrawn/ Incapable of investigation /Informal Resolution

5

10

15

15

15

9

13

7

4

Vexatious

2

0

2

0

3

0

0

0

1

Unsubstantiated

19

20

7

14

16

13

8

5

8

Substantiated/Partly

substantiated

4

7

6

1

2

5

5

2

5

Outstanding 31.12.2011

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

17

TOTAL

30

37

30

30

36

27

26

16

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the end of 2011, seventeen cases initiated in the year were still being investigated and two cases were still outstanding from 2010. Three of these cases were sub judice with investigations delayed pending completion of court hearings and three other investigations, although completed, were awaiting a response from the Law Officers’ Department as to any possible action for a criminal offence. The cases outstanding from 2010 fell into the latter category.

 

TIME TO COMPLETE INVESTIGATIONS

 

As noted in prior years the Authority strongly believes that in the interests of both the complainant and the officers concerned, investigations should be completed as quickly as practicable with no unnecessary delays and conclusions should be reached and advised promptly thereafter.  In practice the Police Standards Department, who are responsible for undertaking most of the investigations, aim to complete their reports within 120 days of the notification of a complaint.  In most cases this is achieved but delays can occur due to the need to await the completion of court hearings or inability to contact complainants. The time taken to obtain a decision from the Law Officers’ Department as to whether individual complaints merit the initiation of criminal proceedings also continues to be a factor as evidenced by the two cases still outstanding from 2010. 

 

CONTACT WITH COMPLAINANTS

 

The Authority continues to receive a small number of objections or criticisms from complainants not satisfied with the outcome of investigations. As has been highlighted previously the Law does not provide for a formal appeal process by complainants against the decisions or actions of the Authority, the only recourse is a judicial review.

 

Additionally an increasing number of complainants are addressing their complaints, regarding members of the States of Jersey Police, directly to the Authority claiming that their complaint would not otherwise be properly considered. The Authority is obliged to emphasise that the legally prescribed procedure to register a complaint is either in writing to the Chief Officer or by attendance at Rouge Bouillon. The Authority does however advise the Deputy Chief Officer on receipt of such complaints with the aim of ensuring that matters are properly followed up and it is satisfied that appropriate action has been taken in all such cases

 

From the start of 2012 the Authority has commenced writing to complainants at the conclusion of an investigation and once any corrective or disciplinary action has been agreed. The letter states not only the Authority’s satisfaction with the investigation but also with the conclusions noted in the detailed closure letter which has been sent separately by the Deputy Chief Officer.

 

BUDGET

 

The budget allocated to the Authority for 2011 was £16,600. This has been unchanged since 2001. The actual costs incurred in 2011 amounted to £17,259, attributable to the installation of a replacement alarm system and additional staff costs during the hand-over period to a new secretary. All investigation costs are borne by States of Jersey Police, including the reimbursement of expenditure incurred by external Police Forces where they are utilised.

 

MEMBERSHIP OF THE AUTHORITY

 

Steve Luce resigned from the Authority on his election as Deputy for St Martin and the Authority would wish to record its appreciation for his support and positive commitment during his period as a member.

Dr John Birtwistle was appointed to fill the vacancy with effect from 1st January 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

Jersey Police Complaints Authority                                                   

26th January 2012

Back to top
rating button