Siren call

The recent wave of demonstrations has renewed focus on the importance of the Independent Police Complaints Commission's role. The current structure for recording these complaints requires that all are recorded so that grievances can be identified and lessons learned. But will that be the case in the future once the police reform and social responsibility bill is brought into force on 3 May 2012?

The bill, which at present is making its way through parliament, will bring with it the most radical change to the police complaints procedure that we have seen since its reformation following the death of Stephen Lawrence.

The Police Reform Act 2002, which created the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in the wake of the highly criticised Police Complaints Authority, has been the gatekeeper to all claims against the police for several years. It is the only appeal body following local and supervised investigations by the police's professional standards departments.

But under the new bill that will no longer be the case. The safeguards that had been put in place by the publication of the IPCC's statutory guidance in April 2010 will be removed and an unregulated system of police complaints will emerge.

Open to abuse

Schedule 14 of the bill at paragraph 8(5) will give police forces an unfettered discretion in determining which complaints they wish to record and, although there will be an appeal process to the IPCC as exists today for non-recording, there is a sense that the police will put up a fight when their authority is challenged. As far as I can tell from the bill, these concerns have not been identified and will become a common theme of an unregulated police complaints procedure which is already open to abuse by the police.

It is highly unlikely that investigations into complaints made by protestors such as Jody McIntyre, who was seen pulled out of his wheelchair and dragged across the road by a Metropolitan Police officer during a student protest in December, would even be recorded in the future. But the most shocking aspect of the bill will be the loss of the independent appeal to the IPCC following a local or supervised investigation. This important aspect of the complaints procedure does not uphold all appeals, but does ensure that a fresh review of the complaint is carried out and where the appeal is upheld a re-investigation directed.

A new and unequivocal power will be meted out to the chief officer as provided by paragraph 22 of schedule 14 which is neither welcomed nor sought by the public. If enacted, the bill will end the only real opportunity for a transparent adjudication into complaints against the police other than civil claims brought at court.

These reforms are in stark contrast to the proposals that had been set down by the home secretary Theresa May to make the police service more accountable to local people. Without an external body to regulate the complaints, where is the accountability?

Not far enough

The lazy provisions of the bill at paragraph 7 of the schedule state that the local policing body, being the Police and Crime Commissioners or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, may direct the chief officers to take such steps as the local policing body thinks appropriate in order for chief officers to comply with their obligations. However, I believe these provisions will not go far enough to address this issue, especially as the local policing body will not have the power of an ombudsman.

Without the presence of a dedicated regulatory body for the police it is clear that a vacuum of power will emerge and many abuses will go unchallenged. The only viable option available against the chief officers would be to bring judicial review proceedings to challenge their decision. But, with legal aid cuts on the way, will that avenue be open? We may see a return to a pre-Macpherson style landscape in policing, where the rights of the public and the protestor are not recognised and police accountability is nowhere to be seen.