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

2. 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

3. 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IPCC draft guidance March 2014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

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

5. 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 – 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…

6. 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

7. 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

8. BODY WORN VIDEO
NPCC – 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

9. 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

10. Thank you