Firstly, I apologise of this isn't in the right section.

 

Recent experience with the IPCC found me in receipt of correspondence that showed their investigation to be utterly incompetent, containing obvious errors and misleading statements, and completely biased in support of the police. I should point out that the police actions, or lack of them, would be considered fairly incompetent by any standards, although they were ably assisted and encouraged in that incompetence by the CPS. Their insistence that this investigation was satisfactory, in spite of obvious factual inaccuracies, leaves the aggrieved with the option of a judicial review, which at £10,000 or so a go, he is not able, or inclined, to take up.

 

I thought that this was a one of, but then I had contact from a couple of other individuals who say they have had similar experiences.

 

I'm starting to think that the ethos of the IPCC is to cover up police errors, and only taking positive action where the publicity situation makes it inevitable, much like most professional standards departments appear to act.

 

I would be interested in the experiences and opinions of board members.

I deal with the IPCC regularly with regards to police officers and their families who have made complaints.

 

My experience is that some caseworkers are incompetent and there is definately a bias in favour of police forces.

 

Police officers are unable to make a 'complaint' however the IPCC since 2004 have been the designated authority for police officers to report wrongdoing and have a dedicated phoneline but you have to look pretty hard to find the number.

 

The allegations are passed back to the force complained of and if the force decide to victimise the individual or refuse to record or investigate the matter; the officer does not have a right of appeal back to the IPCC where a member of the public would.

 

I have witnessed the IPCC condoning miscarriages of justice by failing to deal with serious allegations and agreeing to a force's request for a dispensation.

 

As previously stated, the only way to reverse a decision is for a judicial review and the police federation will not fund such an action.

 

There is a total lack of independence. Commissioners are not supposed to have been serving police officers but I am aware of one in London who spent several years working for the HMIC.

 

If the IPCC are going to ignore a police officer reporting serious wrongdoing, a member of the public is on a hiding to nothing.

Interesting topic,

if they are so incompetent, why do they spend money on brochures promoting their work.

Do you think it is a case that they have so many complaints they just can't cope?

My experience of dealing with them albeit it was a while ago,was very positive.

I wonder though if those 90% are being passed back to theforces concerned simply because the complaints are of such a nature that they SHOULD have been investigated by the force anyway.