Situations that often cause problems for officers within the police are allegations of domestic abuse between officers within a force or a partner outside of the force.
Investigating officers can be manipulated and forces may take the easy option of trying to get rid of one of the parties and conduct little or no investigation.
There are numerous concerns highighted in the press where victims of domestic abuse whether serving police officers or members of the public are joining forces and fighting back following on from what is known as a super complaint from the Centre for Women's Justice (CWJ).
The Police Federation jumped on the bandwagon stating "Legislative change recommended by Centre for Women’s Justice would enable police officers and staff to make a complaint of domestic abuse against a member of their force as do members of the public"
They go on to say the CWJ report stated: “Section 29(4)(a) of the Police Reform Act 2002 should be amended to ensure police officers and members of police staff have the same right to make a complaint of domestic abuse against a member of their force as do members of the public."
The PFEW are again trying to pull the wool over the eyes of police domestic abuse victims whether male or female and jumping on a bandwagon.
If the PFEW are not aware that crimes can also be reported by police officers it is no wonder that Federation Representatives ae not giving the appropriate advice in much the same way that they often advise that an officer cannot claim unfair dismissal as they are considered a holder of an office and not an employee.
The CWJ report states "Almost half (45 per cent) of the women who came forward are themselves police officers or staff and frequently report victimisation if they dare to report a fellow officer."
The PFEW response to the report can be found in more detail in the above link however: I have selected some of the comments:
Responding to the report, Ian Saunders, PFEW equality lead, said: “Police officers who commit this behaviour have no place in policing and we condemn them.
“It is deeply distressing to see almost half of the women who came forward to share their harrowing ordeal are themselves police officers or staff and it is disgraceful to hear of how they often suffer significant detriment to their careers when they seek to report their abuse.
“For too long, police officers who are subject to domestic abuse have been failed and radical measures must be put into place if the service is to prevent these failings and regain trust. As the report rightly highlights, victim/survivor trust and confidence is paramount in order to tackle the numerous shortfalls.
“PFEW believes greater independence in investigations is crucial, incorporating strict confidentially and avoiding conflicts of interest, therefore we fully support the view there needs to be a bespoke Independent Domestic Violence Advocate service for police victim/survivors, that is wholly independent of the victim/survivor’s force.
“In addition to this, PFEW backs the proposed legislative change, amending s.29(4) of the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure police officers and members of police staff have the same right to make a formal police complaint as do members of the public.
“As a Federation, we endeavour to support any victims who come forward with any type of allegation. If this is against a partner or another officer, we now have ethical walls built into our reporting processes and are continually training our Federation representatives on new toolkits so they can support our members in the unfortunate event they may need this assistance.
“This entails developing understanding of an ‘ethical wall’ designed to maintain confidentiality between those representing an individual accused of wrongdoing and those representing the individual who has made the accusation or has been the victim of the alleged wrongdoing. This is to ensure all members have confidence in their local branch and its ability to represent everyone fairly and effectively.
"PFEW is fully committed to continuously improving its processes to support members and will play its part driving change to help the 43 forces to standardise vetting and take action on the recommendations the report has identified based on its conclusions.
“We encourage our members to report any behaviour that is cause for concern and to link in with their local Federation branch for support and advice.”
Sue Honeywill, PFEW women’s lead, said: “We are grateful for the honest and candid feedback provided to the CWJ.
“PFEW strives to improve its support services for members, not just through the ethical wall, but a completely different way of approaching these types of cases, more training for reps, better understanding of what legal support is available and, where necessary, supporting our members through legal action against the force.
“We are listening, and we are doing everything in our power to work with forces, to make the changes needed to ensure perpetrators are held to account. Our support to our members and commitment to this is unwavering.
“We fully support the recommendations put forward by CWJ and we remain committed to listening and working with them to help see these brought into tangible outcomes.”
There is very little publicity concerning domestic abuse against male officers however; there has been some publicity concerning domestic abuse and coercive control against male victims who are members of the public.
The video clip below I think is an eye opener for some people however, we have come across similar cases where male police officers have been victims and have been thrown to the wolves due to a lack of investigation and other influences where well known phrase of acting without fear or favour is ignored.
The victim covertly recorded the abuse, had he not done so he may have been struggling to prove the matter to the police. The suspect received a 4 year sentence.
At the time of writing this post there has been a worrying trend of using allegations of domestic abuse including false allegations to get rid of officers. With the recent focus on officers being re-vetted, forces are using allegations from many years ago which have not been investigated or NFAd to get rid of officers.
In the same way that parties in a family court cases seek to score points by creating records of allegations by calling 101 or submitting a report online, anonymous reports can be made to the police which may be taken into consideration.
There is also an incentive to make false allegations in the family court system because if there is an allegation of domestic abuse, legal aid is provided to the "abused" party or "victim".
It is usually only given to one party and solicitors encourage their client to get in first.
A primary perpetrator of abuse may claim to have been assaulted by the other party and have injuries apparently supporting their account. They may in fact have been caused in self-defence by the primary victim. A manipulative perpetrator may be trying to draw an officer into colluding with their coercive control of the victim.
Police officers should avoid playing into the primary perpetrator’s hands and take account of all available evidence when making a decision to arrest.
Identifying the primary perpetrator can mean looking beyond the current incident to the wider context, for example is this a case where a long-term victim’s self-restraint has snapped as a result of protracted abuse?
Are you prosecuting the right Person?
The wrong party may have been prosecuted and aquitted at the Magistrates Court however; the officer will still face a disciplinary hearing and may be dismissed.
An officer may subsequently face a disciplinary hearing as a second bite of the cherry but then still fail vetting and be got rid of as a third bite of the cherry.
If the police are not investigating your case fairly, you need to start a criminal defence investigation as soon as possible, it may be that your workplace representative has advised you to iust wait to see what the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will decide.
We believe in being proactive in these circumstances because it is much easier to prevent a wrongful prosecution than to try and overturn a conviction and miscarriage of justice.
The law regarding domestic abuse has also been amended recently which now means that victims can make allegations of common assault or battery that may have taken place up to 2 years earlier from what had been a 6 month statutory time limit.
We have dealt with a domestic abuse unit recently where an OIC was not aware of the amendment and as a result a suspect was NFAd. If those on a domestic abuse unit are unaware of relevant legislation this is of concern.
Whilst the amendment is welcome and helpful for genuine victims, it can also be misused.
Another issue that crops up regularly is where officers have being unlawfully arrested for common assault when the "necessity" element was not made out and custody sergeants have accepted persons into custody rather than refusing to authorise detention.
In one case, where this was raised, a sergeant gave a reason for the arrest being necessary because they wanted to seize a mobile phone which is not a reason to arrest someone.
Regardless of the outcome, arrest itself can have a significant, negative impact on those subjected to it. As well as potentially affecting your reputation and your job it can be a traumatic experience with consequences for officers mental health.
Is there a necessity to arrest?
Where an offence has been committed in a domestic abuse case, arrest will normally be ‘necessary’ to protect a child or vulnerable person, prevent the suspect causing injury or criminal damage and/or allow for the prompt and effective investigation of the offence.
According to PACE, even in these cases police must consider other practical alternatives to arrest. Only in the absence of such alternatives is arrest justifiable.
We would encourage custody officers to ask questions before authorising detention and also listen to the arrested person, sometimes they have useful information which may help in deciding whether to authorise detention or not.
For officers who believe they may have been unlawfully arrested, start preparing for your criminal defence investigation, if you have a solicitor ask them to note any complaint on the custody record including a request that the custody video is preserved and secureds.
If not requested at at the time ensure a GDPR subject access request (SAR) is submitted within 30 days otherwise you may not be able to get a copy of the video.
If you are under investigation, you will not be able to get a copy however; by making the request the video should be saved and you will get a copy when you are no longer under investigation or via disclosure if charged.
When a detainee leaves police detention or is taken before a court they, their legal representative or appropriate adult shall be given, on request, a copy of the custody record as soon as practicable. This entitlement lasts for 12 months after release.
Make sure you get a copy of the custody record before you leave the police station as you will have difficulty in obtaining a copy once you have left,
Usually a duty solicitor is only given the front page of a custody record however; there has been revised and updated statutaory guidance for PACE.
A detainee’s solicitor and appropriate adult must be permitted to inspect the whole of the detainee’s custody record as soon as practicable after their arrival at the station and at any other time on request, whilst the person is detained.
Make sure your police station representative or solicitor asks to inspect the whole of the custody record, there may be information contained within the document to help you.
Keep on top of your case whether you are a victim or suspect, don't rely on solicitors or fed reps who may not be able to keep on top of their workloads.
If you are subject to a malicious investigation and believe that the OIC is not conducting the investigation fairly or acting corruptly, report the matter or contact us and we will report the matter on your behalf.
Comments