police complaints – Legal Babble

April 14, 2022April 14, 2022

An Easter Miracle!

Only around one in ten complaints made to the police of poor conduct, breach of the College of Policing Code of Ethics etc. are found in favour of the person who’s complained.

This is because poor, ineffectual and incompetent investigations into complaints are par for the course from police forces. The more misconduct that’s happening in a force the greater the urgency to suppress public admittance of this by mishandling complaints.

The mantra is “We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong”. Every police force does this.

As a police force West Yorkshire Police has more to hide than most. They’ve an international reputation for corruption and incompetence but also an obsession with maintaining a public image. Consequently obtaining agreement from them about their low standards of policing requires more of an effort than with most other forces.

In this instance however they were banged to rights.

A transcript of a online live chat with an officer left them with no wriggle room. This is proof of why all your interactions with the police should always be recorded… because the first instinct of most police officers when caught out is to lie.

The report made concerned a crime committed in the breach of s.92 of The Care Act 2014 (as amended). Wakefield Council had knowingly as a care provider created false information on a person receiving care in their area. This is a criminal offence under the Act.

I’ll write more on this in a blog entry one day soon.

Note also the length of the replies given. When police are trying to hide something in a complaint response they avoid discussing the subject, fail to speak to relevant people and avoid issues they’d find uncomfortable to discuss. Here, as I said, a transcript of the chat means they can’t avoid making a finding against themselves.

It should be noted that police have still failed to investigate this offence reported. So despite an unusual degree of honesty seen below it’s still a case of “bad cop – no donut for you”.

I present the Professional Standards Department response in full with a few small redactions.

From: Allen, Gemma <gemma.allen@westyorkshire.police.uk>
Sent: 14 April 2022 07:32
To: XXXXXX@XXXXXX <XXXXXXXXXX>
Subject: Your complaint to West Yorkshire Police [OFFICIAL]

Classification: OFFICIAL

Dear Mr. XXXXX,

I refer to the complaint that you made to West Yorkshire Police. I am sorry that you have felt dissatisfied with the service offered by West Yorkshire Police on this occasion and, where we can, seek to learn from feedback offered by members of the public.

I can confirm that this matter has been recorded in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002 under Complaint reference CO-2675-21. Please quote this reference number in any future correspondence regarding your complaint arising from the same matter.

It has been established that your complaint raised the following concerns / allegations. In response, I have made reasonable and proportionate enquiries into this matter and can offer you the following explanation of the enquiries conducted, what facts have been established, the outcome and any proposed action to be taken:

Complaint 1: Delivery of duties and services

Employee concerned: Staff member 730037 Maroof

Details of allegation:

You state that the call taker has incorrectly referred you to the council to make a complaint whom you state have committed a criminal offence under The Care Act.

The operator has asked you to provide evidence that the council’s acts were purposeful and fraudulent however you believe that this should be the role of the police and is not your responsibility.

Enquiries conducted:

The details of the Police chat transcript have been reviewed.

The call taker, staff member 730037 Maroof has been requested to provide a response.

The Department of Health guidance for providers regarding The False or Misleading Information Offence has been reviewed.

I have consulted with The Police National Legal Database (PNLD).

A request for review has been made to The Force Crime Registrar.

Facts established:

The Police chat transcript shows that you have made an allegation to West Yorkshire Police that Wakefield Council have produced a social care document which includes the purported current health situation of a family member which is out of date. You state that your family members health has deteriorated over the past year and yet old records have been used to produce the report. You report that you believe this was an intentional act by a social worker as it was likely to avoid the provision of social care for the patient who would otherwise be identified as having clear social care needs. The chat transcript shows that the call taker, 730037 Maroof sought advice and directed you to make a formal complaint against the council in the first instance. You state to the call taker that the “Article 16 right to restrict the processing of the data has been applied.”

The call taker, 730037 Maroof has responded to your complaint to state that he felt that referring you to the Councils complaints process was an appropriate response at the time. The call taker has expressed his apologies if his assessment of the information was incorrect.

It has been confirmed that The Care Act 2014 has put in place a new criminal offence applicable to care providers who supply, publish or otherwise make available certain types of information that is false or misleading, where that information is required to comply with a statutory or other legal obligation. The offence is contained at Section 92 of the Care Act 2014. FOMI is a criminal offence and the investigating body for that offence will be the police, conducted in line with the “The Director’s Guidance On Charging”. The police can pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry. FOMI is a strict liability offence that applies to providers of care services as corporate bodies or partnerships. This means that a prosecutor has to prove that the information was, as a matter of fact, false or misleading, but does not have to prove that there was intent to provide false or misleading information on the part of the corporate body or partnership.

The Police National Legal Database (PNLD) outlines that Section 92 of the Care Act 2004 creates an offence so that providers of health services and adult social care in England, which supply, publish or otherwise make available information that is false or misleading, could be subject to criminal sanctions. The offence applies to a care provider as a corporate body.

92(1) A care provider of a specified description commits an offence if –

(a) it supplies, publishes or otherwise makes available information of a specified description,
(b) the supply, publication or making available by other means of information of that description is required under an enactment or other legal obligation, and
(c) the information is false or misleading in a material respect.

However, it is stated in law that it is a defence for a care provider to show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to prevent the provision of false or misleading information as mentioned in subsection 1. This means that if the Council have already taken reasonable steps to rectify the matter then the offence has not been committed. By taking steps to restrict the data by invoking Article 18 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which provides an individual’s right to restrict the processing of the data, they have fulfilled this responsibility. Article 16 of GDPR then covers the rectification of the data.

Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Fraser from the Force Crime Registrar has reviewed the matter and confirmed that your report is a state based crime therefore the Police only have to record the offence when the relevant “points to prove” are made out. Unlike victim based crimes the Police do not have to record these offences at the point they are reported.

Finding: The service level was not acceptable under the circumstances

Rationale:

The information you have provided on the chat record shows that the matter has been reported to the council and that they have already taken reasonable steps and exercised due diligence in restricting the data. The matter does not require recording or further investigation at this time.

My enquiries show that Call taker Maroof has attempted to ask reasonable questions during your chat report when he has asked you if you have evidence to prove that it was done purposely and fraudulently. The call taker appears unfamiliar with Police Procedures around reporting of potential state based offences however he is not a Police Officer and could not reasonably be expected to know that the offence of FOMI does not require criminal intent on the part of the perpetrator. The call taker has attempted to seek advice whilst you remained on the chat facility and it appears he has been given information which has led him to make a recommendation that you should firstly report the matter to the council. His assessment would have been reasonable and proportionate under the circumstances if you had not already provided information to suggest that you had already reported the matter to the council. It appears that the matter was not fully understood and that you required further clarification before the chat was ended. It would have been more helpful to your understanding for the call taker to refer you for an appointment with a Police Officer so that the outcome could be fully understood and explained in more detail.

In conclusion, it is considered that learning has been identified in respect of this complaint.

Outcome/Action: Learning from Reflection

Details: An opportunity for learning has been identified which has been provided to the call taker through his direct supervisor.

Complaint 2: Individual behaviours

Employee concerned: Staff member 730037 Maroof

Details of allegation: You state that the call taker terminated the chat abruptly with no explanation

Enquiries conducted:

Call taker Maroof has been requested to provide a response.

The chat transcript has been reviewed.

Facts established:

Call taker Maroof has responded to state that due to time passed he cannot fully remember his reasons for ending the chat at the time. After review of the transcript he states that he may have felt that he had advised you what to do and so believed the chat could be closed. It may have been that you had gone offline after receiving his response so he assumed it was completed. He added that he can’t say for sure given the time that has passed but either way he does not think that he gave “no explanation” as he clearly provided advice on what you should do.

The chat transcript shows that the chat was ended 20 seconds after the call takers last response to you.

Finding: The service level was not acceptable under the circumstances

Rationale:

The outcome of this complaint should be read in conjunction with the information provided in Complaint 1. Although the call taker has remained respectful throughout the chat, it does appear that you had not been provided with a sufficient explanation of the outcome or the opportunity to understand the advice provided. This is believed to be because the call taker did not fully understand the police procedures around state based crime reporting.

In conclusion, it is considered that learning has been identified in respect of this complaint.

Outcome/Action: Learning from Reflection

Details: An opportunity for learning has been identified which has been provided to the call taker through his direct supervisor

It is considered that reasonable and proportionate enquiries have been made into this matter. The issues you raise in your complaint do not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against any officer concerned and therefore the matter has not been considered by the Crown Prosecution Service.

You have the right to a review of the above decision. Should you wish to request this, please contact the below review body by the 13^th May 2022. Please quote the relevant complaint reference number (above) if you request a review.

Due to the wording of your initial complaint, the review body is:

West Yorkshire Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Should you wish to request a review, please contact:https://www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/policing-and-crime/complaints-and-conduct.

Please accept my apology on behalf of West Yorkshire Police for any confusion, inconvenience or distress that this incident has caused, and I thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. I hope the above action taken re-assures you that your complaint has been taken seriously and demonstrates West Yorkshire Police’s commitment to continuous improvement.

I hope that any future contact you may have with West Yorkshire Police will not be adversely affected by this experience.

Yours sincerely,

PC 1449 Allen

Service Review Team

22566

Professional Standards Directorate

* Email: Gemma.allen@westyorkshire.police.uk

+ Address: West Yorkshire Police, Professional Standards Directorate, Headquarters, WF1 3QP

November 20, 2020November 23, 2020

“Cuffing” or “Shonking” at South Yorkshire Police.

In modern police parlance “cuffing off” a job means to look for a way to avoid dealing with a complaint about a crime made by a member of the public. Shonking means the same thing. South Yorkshire Police is very much focused on internal award ceremonies for its staff and members of the public calling to report criminal offences gets in the way of this. Most inconvenient.

So here’s the story. I had an offence to report on the basis of information that came my way. Having researched the offence and charging guidelines for the same as well as collated sufficient documents to show who was responsible and how I completed the South Yorkshire Police online form. This is their preferred way of contacting you. And so I waited for contact back. And waited. And waited.

Eventually a series of phone calls were made on one afternoon to South Yorkshire Police via 101. The poor handling of the initial report from the webform data and subsequent poor handling of all subsequent contacts are described below.

Basically the webform was ignored. Phone calls to check on the progress of the report of a crime were also consistently mishandled.

From the 1980’s to the present day SYP is mired in scandal.

The basic issues are as follows:

1. A complaint of a crime was made. This was done via the online form for such. That the response from the online form took longer than the 72 hours the website states for any action to be taken in respect of the referral of a crime.

2. That the online form had still not been processed some 7 days later.

This amount to the first effort to “shonk” the job.

3. That from comments made by Professional Standards Dept. at SYP in a later email to me it would appear that this online referral has been “lost”.

4. Following the lack of response to the webform a series of phone calls were made by me on the Tuesday and Wednesday to SYP to establish what was happening in relation to the online referral.

5. That these calls were either cut off when transferred to the appropriate department or else rang out for an exceptionally long period. The time it took to get through to someone was the time of my journey that day from West Yorkshire to Bridlington on the East Yorkshire coast. Some one hour and fifteen minutes.

6. That on eventually speaking to an officer he stated that he had no copy of the online form in front of him but proceeded to dismiss the referral of a crime being committed on the basis that this incident was not a crime and therefore not something that police would deal with.

This is incorrect. I quoted CPS guidance and sentencing guidelines that clearly show the activity reported was a criminal offence.

Most police officers have a very poor working knowledge of the law and are often the worst people to decide if an offence falls into their jurisdiction or not. Or if an offence has been committed in law. Without sight of evidence etc. the officer was additionally on very shaky ground.

7. That the same officer rang me back several minutes later. He had performed a search on my name after our initial conversation and my refuting his comments that the matter complained of was not an offence in law.

8. That his call back to me amounted to harassment and intimidation. His manner during this second call was offensive, uncivil and harassing. Having tried to “cuff / shonk the job off” only to be confronted by a member of the public who knew the law put his fragile and delicate nose out of joint.

Most police officers have exceptionally fragile egos and cannot bear not to have the last word on something. As sites such as the exceptional. ://crimebodge.com show (especially I would recommend their YouTube channel) this can often lead to violence and assault from the officer if a member of the public stands their ground.

9. That the officer concerned did this solely for the purpose of causing harassment, vexation and distress. On the second call he refused to give his name or service number when asked which is usually indicative of an officer misconducting himself. South Yorkshire Police have plenty of form for this. Ask the miners who were at The Battle of Orgreave: SYP removed their epaulets displaying service numbers so they couldn’t be subject of individual complaints.

South Yorkshire Police are internationally famous for violence and criminal negligence.

That overall the standard of conduct in relation to this matter was sufficient to cause loss of professional reputation, such as it is, for the force. Overall the behaviour described above gave the impression of South Yorkshire Police as being inept, incompetent and evasive.

Later that day is I rang again. This time to make a formal complaint. The College of Policing Code of Ethics has a series of guidelines which had each been breached in the police’s handling of this matter. Not least of these are those related to courtesy and respect. https://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/Ethics/Documents/Code_of_Ethics.pdf

I was told I would be called back in a few days. However again there was no response.

This matter relates to the following issues in the College of Policing Code of Ethics:

1. Authority, respect and courtesy.

2. Duties and responsibilities.

3. Conduct.

I emailed Professional Standards Department at South Yorkshire Police a few weeks later. The response was initially in terms of my complaint call of a few weeks earlier and stated:

Unfortunately, we are unsure as to who the officer was who spoke with you…

This suggests that the admin systems at South Yorkshire Police are not robust enough or else that they’ve already tried to evade examination of the complaint in the same way as they avoided examination of the original report of a crime. The comment is also vague: do they mean the misconducting officer I spoke to at around around lunchtime or the one spoken to to enter the complaint at 18:30 on the same day?

But it gets worse:

In relation to the online complaint form this does not a appear to have been received by us.

So an additional copy was attached to the response. Neither the original web form reporting a criminal offence nor the complaint form sent by email were received by the force. How many others have been similarly missed by them?

By this point some three weeks had elapsed since this complaint form was sent in to Professional Standards Department and their sobriquet was looking further and further misapplied. The South Yorkshire Police webform auto-generates a copy of the complaint for the public so it is unlikely that a copy was not sent to PSD. The comments they made about not receiving a copy are likely bunkum.

They stated:

If you would like to reply to this email with your initial complaint, we will pass it for assessment and ask our assessors to look into it asap.

So this created a further issue to the complaint: that failure to record the initial complaint call made around 18.30hrs in the evening to SYP via 101 amounts to a further breach of duty. A copy of this call will have been recorded on the Airwave system, which records all incoming and outgoing calls from police stations.

The failure to properly action the issues raised by phone in the evening call amounts to an effort to evade dealing with the complaint from an early stage. The “loss” of the follow up complaint form to PSD is a further effort in this direction.

Matters have now been before Professional Standards Department at South Yorkshire Police for two months without visible progress.

The whole fiasco makes SYP look doubly incompetent in their behaviour in failing to action the original webform, then “cuffing off” the job on the phone.

Then they fail to record and action the complaint made from 18:30hrs on the same day and further claim a follow up communication on the complaint was “lost”.

Heaven help people who actually live in South Yorkshire when it comes to reporting crime or making a complaint to SYP. Because the force’s systems are clearly set up to avoid having to deal with either.