RIPA

Wrongdoing can only be avoided if those who are not wronged feel the same indignation at it as those who are.

― Greek Wit (F. Paley)

These blogs usually focus closely on matters concerning police injury pensions. Today though we will be taking a look at a case involving the British Transport police and covert surveillance of a retired police officer on a train journey.

A story of a train journey terminating in the arrest of an innocent man may be some way from the injustice suffered by disabled former officers at the hands of their former employers, but the case illustrates an issue which IODPA believes is at the very core of all the maladministration of police injury pensions.

Let’s outline what happened on that train first, though. A retired Chief Superintendent, Mr Davies, who is a man of unblemished character, was travelling on a train and was subjected to covert surveillance by a BT Police officer, DC Day. The officer took pictures of Mr Davies and observed him throughout the journey.

The officer had been given only scant information about alleged sexual offences which might have occurred on previous occasions on this train. He did not know Mr Davies’ identity. Moreover, no proper statement had been taken from the complainant and the officer had only the sketchiest idea of the details of the alleged assault. No other enquiries of any kind had been made or even considered, there was uncertainty about the dates of the incidents, and doubts had been expressed concerning the credibility of the complainant.

When Mr Davies arrived at his destination he was arrested, taken to a police station and interviewed. He was charged and bailed, and later attended the Crown Court, where details of the surveillance became known.

It emerged the surveillance had been undertaken without authorisation. Mr Davies was acquitted, and made a 14 point complaint to BT Police.

The internal enquiry which resulted agreed that DC Day should have first obtained authorisation for the surveillance, and that,

DC Day’s performance through this investigation was such a serious display of inability to perform to the required standards that the only outcome available to me is that of Gross Incompetence.

The enquiry revealed other shortcomings: a number of other BTP officers of various ranks were involved in this matter and not one of them had an adequate knowledge of the relevant requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

However, the force argued that authorisation would have been forthcoming and DC Day’s failure to do so was attributable to lack of knowledge that an authorisation was necessary and not through any bad faith.

Mr Davies then submitted a complaint to be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. It is a court which investigates and determines complaints which allege that public authorities or law enforcement agencies have unlawfully used covert techniques and infringed the right to privacy.

The Tribunal was astonished to hear that a Superintendent Sedgemore of BR Police would have been prepared to grant an authorisation for surveillance. The Tribunal commented that the legal requirements for an authorisation did not come close to being met. The Tribunal also was disturbed to learn that the senior officer entrusted with decision-making in this area had a most imperfect grasp of the relevant law.

We need not recount the entire detail of the Tribunal, for a copy of the official account of the hearing can be read here:

 

 

We do, however, want to draw the attention of all concerned in the administration of police injury award scheme to one rather important paragraph of the case report.

21. As for any want of malice or bad faith on DC Day’s part, we observe that, while malice or bad faith would have measurably aggravated the breach, a failure based on ignorance offers no mitigation. A detective of any standing, let alone one with several years’ experience, should have knowledge of the legal requirements relating to the investigation of crime, including RIPA, and ignorance is neither excuse nor mitigation.

This is where the story of an unfortunate train journey leads us to our destination – to where we comment on how certain forces  appear determined to engage in continual maladministration of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, either through malice, bad faith, or through ignorance.

How much longer are vulnerable disabled former officers, injured on duty through no fault of their own, going to have to endure the threats and the intrusions, the lies and the misdirections, the intransigence and the unwillingness to admit fault, the bluster and the bullying, and the wholesale breaches of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations and of data protection law, and other law, which emanate from certain forces?

Forces such as Staffordshire, where Chief Constable Morgan apparently, wrongly, thinks it is lawful to issue a veiled threat that he is allowed to make a decision which might be to reduce the pension payments to disabled former officers who stand by their right not to hand over personal medical and financial information?

Forces such as Essex, where a senior employee, on behalf of the Chief Constable, issued a similar veiled threat to reduce pensions if disabled former officers did not complete an intrusive questionnaire, also asking for medical and financial information, which the force is not entitled to have? A veiled threat which was accompanied by an inventive, completely false, addition to a part of the Regulations.

Forces such as Avon and Somerset, where any Freedom of Information requests concerning injury pension matters are routinely effectively blocked by means of an automatic request for proof of identity? This must be a strong deterrent to former officers, for they have good reason not to want to give their names and addresses for fear of being targeted.

Then there are those SMPs who are known to twist the purpose and intent of the Regulations so as to justify a decision to lower the rate of injury pension paid.

All of the people involved in the administration of the police injury benefit scheme, no matter what their role, or their status, whether high or low, whether under direction or command, or on their own discretion, should know better than to commit maladministration, or allow  it to be committed. Even if they act not through malice, but through ignorance of the law, then there is no excuse.

And that ignorance will come at a cost to those forces who continue to abuse the Regulations and other law. Former Chief Superintendent Davies was awarded of £25,000 to reflect the gravity of the breach and the damage he suffered and a further award of £21,694 in respect of this defence costs, making a total of £46,694.

There is of course another cost: to the disabled former officers, in the considerable distress and inconvenience they have to suffer at the hands of those who abuse their rights.

Maladministration of police injury pensions is a train heading inevitably for an almighty crash. IODPA’s advice to all who are passengers on this train is to alight at the first available opportunity.