9 Independent oversight of police complaints
With evidence of police misconduct increasingly generating public and official concern, the issue was scrutinised by the Royal Commission on the Duties of the Metropolitan Police (1906–1908). But, while over 300 instances of misconduct were presented to the Commission, only 12 were eventually investigated. The Commission’s report, while not a whitewash, ‘did not finally solve problems of police accountability’ (Morris, 2014, p. 300).
Figure 13 : Police Complaints Board archive file [Description: Black and white photograph of a white index card with a typed heading: “Police Complaints (Board)”; Below is a handwritten list of dates under the typed heading “Report.”) Source: LMU https://tuclibrary.maxarchiveservices.co.uk/index_cards/police-complaints-board-authority/
For the first half of the twentieth century, the police complaints system remained internal – complaints were made in writing to the Chief Constable, or by appointment/in writing to senior officers. While an accessible system:
… in practice many of those who sought to raise awareness about poor police behaviour found themselves confronted with stiff opposition from the side of the police authorities, and subject to intense pressure from the police to withdraw their allegations.
Thus, in the latter half of the century, alongside the development of Police Standards Departments in all forces, a system of more independent, external oversight was developed. Successive independent bodies tasked with investigating complaints against the police included:
- 1977 – Police Complaints Board (PCB)
- 1985 – Police Complaints Authority (PCA)
- 2002 – Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
- 2018 – Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
There is some debate as to the benefit of independent complaints bodies. They are undoubtedly costly and research has found little evidence that they are more effective than internal processes at improving policing practice. It is noteworthy that the introduction of each of the independent bodies listed above was due in part to deficiencies with its predecessor. The PCA, for example, was introduced following problems identified with the PCB in the Scarman Report, and the IOPC was introduced following a Home Affairs Committee investigation which concluded that the IPCC was not fit for purpose.
This is significant because:
… evidence from many studies into public trust in the police shows that external complaints procedures are a necessary precondition for public trust.
While contemporary concerns remain about the internal and external bodies which investigate complaints against the police, the systems in place today are significantly more robust than those in operation for most of the period since the inception of policing in its modern form.