PIP - a legal perspective Project title PIP - a legal perspective Scott Ingram 26 October 2016 Date Month 2014

INTRODUCTION PIP – APP what is the purpose? Process designed to achieve dual objectives of facilitating investigation AND ensuring welfare of officers Officer is a witness BUT… Can become a suspect very quickly Article 2 ECHR “…capable of leading to determination of whether the force used was justified and to the identification and punishment of those responsible…” Hybrid status Officers uniquely vulnerable Balance

CONFERRING APP – conferring permitted but in limited circumstances IPCC draft guidance March 2014 Integrity provision – introduced Sept 2014 DUGGAN Court of Appeal ruling Dec 2014

SEPARATION APP presumption against separation IPCC March 2014 - from the moment it is operationally safe to do so they should be kept separate DUGGAN ruling Dec 2014 - the regime of supervision in the pip suite provides a reasonable safeguard against collusion without any general need for separation NPCC updates 2.10.15 and 11.11.15 Notwithstanding IPCC still want separation – to prevent conferring of any kind Officers are witnesses not suspects and should be treated accordingly

INITIAL ACCOUNT/DETAILED STATEMENT APP - staged process - stage 3 initial – stage 4 detailed IPCC March 2014 – a detailed individual factual account before going off duty DUGGAN Dec 2014 – whether to retain initial account followed by detailed statement or aim for a single DIFA a matter of considerable controversy NPCC amendment 02.10.15 – more prescriptive re contents of initial account Rationale? - effects of trauma on memory IPCC “concession” …an appropriate health professional certifies key policing witness as medically unfit to provide an account…

IPCC – March 2013 power to compel attendance at interview INTERVIEWS v STATEMENTS APP - the manner in which statements are obtained or provided will be decided by individual witnesses IPCC – March 2013 power to compel attendance at interview IPCC rationale? – achieve best evidence? Research? Advice to officers

Case law – actual threat or operational reasons ANONYMITY APP - PIM should ensure action taken to maintain anonymity until deemed to be unnecessary IPCC – Protecting Identities Policy – permits ‘shooter’ only – beyond that at discretion of IPCC commissioner Case law – actual threat or operational reasons

BODY WORN VIDEO NPCC 02.10.15 – key police witnesses may view to inform their detailed accounts IPCC position statement Jan 2016 …investigating officer should…determine at what point it is appropriate for the officers to view the footage… IPCC default position is to refuse access to BWV IPCC – consistent with recent policy of refusing use of any reference material to aid writing statements No current case law Witness NOT suspect

CONCLUSIONS PIP - APP achieves dual objectives IPCC approach is NOT balanced System must be seen to be operated lawfully and fairly By police officers as much as by the families of the deceased

Thank you