THE PRESS TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1983. Inquiring into police action

Press, 2 August 1983, Page 18

THE PRESS TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1983. Inquiring into police action

The report of the Chief Ombudsman, Mr G. R. Laking, on his investigation of complaints against the police arising from the 1981 Springbok rugby tour, has now been made public. The two-year interval between the events that inspired the complaints and their final resolution is just one of the failings in the present system of handling complaints against the police that the report highlights. Because of statutory procedures, Mr Laking was able to come to grips with the complaints only after the police had made their own inquiries and only after several months had elapsed. ' The complaints into which he inquired were those referred to him only because the complainants were dissatisfied with the outcome of the police investigations. This delay inevitably made Mr taking’s task more difficult. Nevertheless, in 75 instances he was able to determine that the police investigation of complaints against members of the force fell short of the ideal in one way or another. Another 43 complaints were fully investigated and were not sustained. Mr Laking says that the conclusions he reached do not provide an adequate basis for a general assessment of police investigations of complaints made against them. Contrary to what the figures might suggest, Mr Laking reports that the police investigations were, in general, thorough and conscientious. About one person in five who complained to the police pursued the matter further with the Ombudsman’s office. This does not necessarily mean that all the rest were completely satisfied with the outcome of police inquiries, but this would seem a reasonable assumption since an approach to the Ombudsman entails no expense and no further direct association with the police. Mr Laking’s yardstick for the adequacy of police investigations covered everything done by the police from receipt of the complaint to informing the complainant of the outcome. In many instances, Mr Laking found that the police had conducted a thorough inquiry but had failed to give the complainant an adequate account of it. Mr Laking believes that many of the complaints would not have been referred to him had the complainants received a comprehensive account of the police investigation. He upheld several complaints solely because the complainants had not been informed adequately of the outcome of the police inquiry.

Nevertheless, the number of complaints that Mr Laking found were warranted, and the fact that one person in five considered the police investigation of complaints had been unsatisfactory, means that, at the very least, the procedures used by the police to deal with

complaints against members of the force are unsatisfactory. The wider issue raised by Mr Laking — not for the first time — is whether the police themselves are the most suitable investigators when one of their number is under suspicion of using excessive or improper force on a member of the public. Any closed inquiry held entirely within a department, even if outside people are drawn into the deliberations, can leave a residue of public distrust and unease. The public disquiet is all the greater when the issue is seen as one of excessive force used by an official or officials who have been authorised by law to use reasonable force when necessary. Six years ago, Mr Laking reported to Parliament on the merits of having an independent authority to inquire into complaints against the police, particularly complaints of excessive use of force. Then, as now, Mr Laking was satisfied that the police generally dealt with such complaints with integrity and thoroughness, but he was concerned that it was difficult to convince the public of this.

For many people, the impartiality of an internal inquiry will always be suspect. If the police are to be the first investigators of errors or alleged wrongdoings of any of their members, they have a special responsibility not only to be objective and independent in the conduct of their investigations, but to be seen to be so by the public. Mr Laking believes that the emotional atmosphere surrounding the Springbok tour, and the scope of civil disorder that took place, made it very difficult to fulfill either responsibility. Mr Laking also notes that senior officers of the police publicly commented on or gave reasons for police actions at various incidents during the tour. To many people, including some of those who complained to the Ombudsman’s office, those comments were evidence that the police had prejudged the merits of complaints later made to them.

The Springbok tour, because of the intensity of feeling it generated and the considerable number of complaints against the police that resulted, has helped to highlight the failings of internal inquiries in such a sensitive area. The tour, and the handling of the inquiries by the police, reveals nothing new or sinister, but confirms only that the time is long overdue for an independent authority to investigate complaints against the police. However well intended and well-performed an internal police investigation may be, some people will always suspect its integrity. Since those people are likely to include the aggrieved parties, internal inquiries are not only a source of doubt, but of hostility and antagonism towards the police.