THE PRESS MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1987. Complaints against police

Press, 9 March 1987, Page 20

THE PRESS MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1987. Complaints against police

The Police Association, the organisation that represents police below the rank of commissioned officer, has set its face against the Police Complaints Authority Bill, which will establish an independent authority to hear complaints against the police. A meeting of 200 policemen and policewomen in Christchurch last week resolved without dissent that they had no confidence in the Minister of Police, Mrs Hercus, largely because of the bill. A spokesman said that the Christchurch members "totally rejected” the bill in its present form. In this attitude the members of the Police Association have opposed themselves not only to Mrs Hercus, but also to senior police officers, who support it.

Before the bill was introduced to Parliament, the Police Association’s Christchurch branch described it as “totally unwarranted, unnecessary, and a vicious mark on the integrity of every serving police officer.” They. complain now that “certain sections of the legislation erode our civil rights.” The association is prepared to accept the idea of an independent examiner to look at police practices and procedures, but it objects to an independent authority to hear complaints and recommend action on them. Complaints against the police are a sensitive matter, for the public as well as the police. Research in England (and there is no reason to believe the situation is different here) shows that most complaints are made by people who are under arrest, or intoxicated at the time of the incident, or who have criminal records. That is to say, they have a reason for trying to discredit the police, or they harbour a grudge. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that most complaints fail. The problem is that, at the moment, internal investigations by the police are open to the suggestion that the police may be protecting their own.

There is no reason to believe that this is so. No police officer wants thuggish, or dishonest, or even discourteous people on his or her staff. It is not widespread dissatisfaction with the police performance in investigating complaints against themselves, merely the temper of the times, that demands an authority that is seen to be detached from the system.

The bill would establish as the authority a qualified barrister or solicitor with “suitable legal experience for the task” to serve for between two and five years. The authority would have a deputy and such staff as the

Minister of Justice thinks is necessary for him to carry out his work. The authority’s job would be to deal with complaints about police misconduct or. neglect of duty, and complaints about police practice, policy, or procedure. It could also decide, where it was satisfied there were reasonable grounds in the public interest, to investigate any incident involving death or serious injury. (At present this last clause is already covered in practice, in the case of incidents involving death, by the appointment of ad' hoc independent examiners.) On receiving a complaint, the authority would be able to investigate, whether the police were already investigating it or not. Or the authority could wait for the findings of a police investigation, oversee a police investigation, or take no action. After investigation, the authority would report its findings, with any recommendation on criminal charges or disciplinary action, to the Commissioner of Police. The commissioner must then, as soon as reasonably practicable, tell the authority whether he has followed its recommendations and, if he has departed from them, to say why. If the authority believes the police action to be inadequate, it may send its opinion and recommendations to the Attorney-General and the Minister of Police, and, “when it considers it appropriate,” give the Attorney-General a report to be tabled in the House of Representatives. The Police Association’s misgivings about the alleged eroding of their rights under the bill do not seem to have much foundation. The bill states that witnesses before the authority have all the privileges of a witness in any court, including, as Mrs Hercus has pointed out, the right not to incriminate themselves. The authority’s proceedings will be conducted in private and statements given before it, or evidence about its proceedings, cannot be used in any other court or hearing. The Police Association’s fears on this ground are misplaced. The bill clearly gives the authority sufficient powers to carry out its job quickly and fairly, although a lot will depend on the calibre of the people appointed to the post. It will remove the opportunity for the cheap and easy jibe that a member of the police acquitted of a complaint has escaped only because his colleagues protected him. The police have nothing to fear from it and the Police Association should reconsider its objections.