Police Act requires complaints against police to be recorded and investigated, and establishes a chief officer’s vicarious liability in civil proceedings for the actions of constables in the performance or purported performance of police functions.

The Royal Commission on the Police that led to the Act had considered but did not pursue setting up an independent body to conduct complaint investigations. In addition to requiring that all complaints be recorded, the Act provided for referrals to the DPP in cases where criminal allegations had been made. Following its enactment, there was a massive increase in the number of complaints against police recorded. In response various forces began to develop dedicated teams to investigate allegations of police misconduct against their officers.

A number of high profile corruption cases and other cases where serious misconduct was alleged (particularly in relation to the Metropolitan Police) led to renewed calls for an independent arbiter of complaints against police.

This body – comprised of part time lay people whose task was simply to review reports produced by the police upon their investigation of complaints – proved to be toothless, bureaucratic and ineffective.

Lord Scarman had been asked to review police powers and practices in the wake of serious disturbances in urban areas where it had been felt that police practice had alienated and provoked sections of the community. He called for some form of independent oversight of the investigation of complaints against police.

This Act responded to the Scarman report and the Royal Commission that followed. The Act clarified and codified police powers such as those concerned with stop and search and the treatment of detainees in police stations. It is underlined by Codes of Practice, breach of which can amount to commission of a disciplinary offence. The Act established the role of Custody Officer, the requirement to complete a Custody Record and a new Police Complaints Authority.

The PCA was purportedly intended to introduce an element of independent oversight to the investigation of police complaints. The PCA had powers to supervise investigations into serious complaints against police, to decline to certify satisfaction with such an investigation, and to direct disciplinary proceedings where appropriate. In reality, the PCA failed to achieve independence from the police investigators and rarely exercised their statutory powers to require adequate investigations and/or disciplinary proceedings.

In the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1987] 1 All ER 1173 the mother of one of the victims of the Yorkshire Ripper sought damages in respect of the police failure to apprehend Peter Sutcliffe before he killed her daughter. The House of Lords found that where no special relationship existed between the police and a victim of crime, no duty of care arose. They concluded that public policy demanded that police should not be liable in negligence in such cases.

In Rupert Taylor v Met Police Com’r, over £100,000 was awarded by a High Court jury following a trial on a claim for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution arising out of the notorious ‘Black Watch’ scandal of corruption amongst officers at Notting Hill.

Statements in open court, a device borrowed from libel claims, are utilised to achieve public vindication of those whose claims against police for false imprisonment and/or malicious prosecution came to be satisfied without trial.

In Janardanan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (90/23924), where £40,000 was recovered in settlement of a claim for damages for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, the jurisdiction of the County Court to allow such statements in open court was recognised for the first time.

In Burnett v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1990-B-1259), where £40,000 was recovered in settlement of a claim for damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, the jurisdiction of High Court was recognised to extend to statements in open court upon settlement of assault claims.

In Critchlow and others v Sth Yorks Police (QBI-1418/90(E)), a total of £425,000 was recovered in settlement of a claim for damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution on behalf of 39 miners arising out of police operation at Orgreave during miners’ strike.

In Treadaway v West Midlands Police (The Times, 25 October 1994), £50,000 was awarded by McKinnon J in respect of a claim for damages for assault arising out of the torture of a prisoner to extract a confession – the reasoned judgment in this case was instrumental in the subsequent successful challenge to a decision by the DPP not to prosecute any of the officers involved in the torture (see below).

First ever settlement to breach a perceived ‘glass ceiling’ of £50,000 in litigation against police - instrumental in uncovering the ‘Operation Jackpot’ scandal of corruption amongst police officers at Stoke Newington.

In King v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1993-K-409), £70,000 was recovered in settlement in a claim for damages for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution - first ever settlement of its kind to breach a perceived ‘glass ceiling’ of £50,000 in such cases.

Series of unlawful killing verdicts and challenges to the DPP’s decision making lead to increased public disquiet.

A number of high profile cases emerged concerning controversial restraint related deaths in police custody – mostly of black men. Public concern at the apparent lack of sanction for police officers involved in these deaths reached new levels after unlawful killing verdicts were returned by inquest juries in the cases of Richard O’Brien, Shiji Lapite and Ibrahima Sey. Further details are available on the investigating deaths in custody timeline.

See also the Statistics on the INQUEST site.

Very high jury awards in civil actions against police reflect depth of public concern abuot the misuse of police powers.

At Central London County Court in the space of a number of months, some 9 victims of police misconduct received ground breaking levels of compensation. The first and second of those victims, Claudette Thompson and Kenneth Hsu, faced a test case before the Court of Appeal to defend their awards. Other claimants, such as Trevor Gerald (who received £125,000 damages of which £100,000 was exemplary damages), Janet Scafe (who received £110,000 of which £90,000 was exemplary damages) and Terry Brownbill (who received £150,000 damages of which £100,000 was made up of exemplary damages) had followed advice from Bhatt Murphy lawyers not to co-operate with the discredited police complaint system but to pursue their grievance through the civil courts. While their awards were reduced by compromise or on appeal, they achieved significant public acknowledgement of the serious wrongdoing they had suffered and vindication before the juries.

The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Thompson and Hsu [1997] EWCA Civ 1042
The Court of Appeal responded to the Commissioner’s appeals against the high levels of compensation awarded in certain police cases by issuing guidelines for assessment. The guidelines brought to an end the extremely high level of awards in some cases but increased the threshold in others. The Court of Appeal rejected the Commissioner’s arguments that non-cooperation with the discredited police complaint system should reduce awards and that the upper limit of awards should be fixed by compensation in personal injury cases.

First instance of a successful challenge to the exercise of the DPP’s prosecutorial discretion.

In R v DPP ex parte Treadaway [1997] EWHC Admin 741, (heard with similar successful challenges brought in respect of the unlawful killing of Richard O’Brien and Shiji Lapite in police custody), the Divisional Court upheld a challenge to the refusal of the DPP to prosecute the police officers involved in the torture of Derek Treadaway (see above) in terms which led to the Attorney General’s decision to set up an inquiry into the handling of such cases within the CPS (the ‘Butler Inquiry’).

In Williamson v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1997] EWCA Civ 2177, the Court of Appeal ruled that the public vindication sought by a claimant upon the settlement of a claim for malicious prosecution against police did not require a detailed statement of the relevant facts to be read out in open court – all that was required was a recitation of the fact of the acquittal in the prosecution. In effect, this meant that there was no longer any purpose to be served in seeking a statement in open court at all.

This recommendation, in response to the growing lack of public confidence in the police complaints system, led to a Home Office consultation, and ultimately, to the Police Reform Act 2002 and the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

See the Select Committee on Home Affairs Second Special Report: Police Disciplinary and Complaints Procedures

'Serious questions' about procedures for addressing police misconduct raised by European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT).

The CPT decided to visit the UK in late 1997 to examine, among other things, procedures in place to deal with police misconduct. The visit was prompted by the unlawful killing verdicts achieved in the cases of Richard O’Brien, Shiji Lapite and Ibrahima Sey and the officers’ apparent immunity from criminal and/or disciplinary sanction. Bhatt Murphy lawyers drew the CPT’s attention to the outcomes achieved in civil claims for damages and the lack of corresponding criminal and/or disciplinary sanction in these non-lethal cases. The CPT was very concerned by what they learned, stating that the CPS seemed to be setting an 'unduly high threshold' in deciding whether to prosecute, and that the PCA seemed to be 'ill-equipped' to carry out its ‘watchdog’ function'. They endorsed many of the Home Office Select Committee recommendations and suggested these be implemented. The government objected to publication of the report over a period of many months.

In Osman v United Kingdom [1998] 29 EHRR 245 the ECtHR found that the domestic court rulings to the effect that the Osman family could not recover damages in negligence amounted to a breach of their right to a fair hearing (Article 6).

A radical overhaul of the civil procedure regime extends to victims of police misconduct an entitlement to consider documents relevant to their potential claim before proceedings are commenced. However, efforts to agree a protocol for good practice between police lawyers and victims’ representatives flounder.

This ground-breaking report considered the wider implications of the botched police investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence on 22 April 1993. The report called for systemic changes in police practice, policy and procedure, such as the extension of the Race Relations Act to cover the investigative function of the police and the overhaul of the police complaints system to allow independent investigation of serious complaints.

This report investigated decision-making processes within the CPS and in particular concentrated on the deaths in custody of Richard O’Brien and Shiji Lapite, and the torture inflicted in custody on Derek Treadaway. The report criticised the CPS decision making process and lead to substantial change including the requirement to consult independent counsel in serious police cases.

In a ground breaking judgement anticipating the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998, it was held in R v DPP ex parte Manning and Melbourne [CO/2054/99] (a successful challenge to refusal of the DPP to prosecute prison officers involved in unlawful killing of Alton Manning in custody) that the CPS was required to give reasons for decisions not to prosecute, especially in cases where officers of the state are accused of violations of Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR.

The Act extends the nature and extent of remedies for police misconduct.

The Act establishes the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It is supported by a raft of statutory instruments revising the complaints and discipline system for police.

Akenzua and another v SSHD and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2002] EWCA Civ 1470.

Public interest in officers facing discipline should be considered before permitting officers to resign.

R (Coghlan and others) v Greater Manchester Police [2004] EWHC 2801 (Admin)
Judicial Review of the failure to prevent the retirement of a senior police officer notwithstanding judicial conclusion that he had lied on oath. The Court recognised the public interest in permitting the complaints process to proceed. An important test case with regard to the ambit of Chief Officer’s discretion in this area.

Court of Appeal rules that jury should be allowed to consider motives of police in bringing a prosecution, by means of inference.

In Paul v Chief Constable of Humberside [2004] EWCA Civ 308 the Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge was wrong to prevent the jury from considering whether there was evidence of bad faith on the part of the police officers who had charged Jason Paul, where there was evidence to support his claim that his arrest was intended to deflect publicity from the shocking death of Christopher Alder in police custody on 1 April 1998. A re-trial was ordered and Mr Paul achieved damages from the jury in 2006.

This body assumes conduct of the complaints system from the now defunct PCA. It has powers to independently investigate all deaths in custody and other very serious complaints, and to supervise or manage investigations into other complaints where appropriate. Most complaints continue to be investigated by police, with rights of appeal to the IPCC for complainants dissatisfied with the outcome of police investigations of their complaints. Greater openness and transparency is said to be the corner stone of the new system, including disclosure of the investigating officer’s report in most cases. Bhatt Murphy and others are continuing to work with the Commission in the hope that the aspirations of those who campaigned for its creation will be realised.

In the case of Duwayne Brooks v the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005] UKHL 24, the Claimant alleged, among other things, that the police had been negligent in failing to recognise him as a victim – he was Stephen Lawrence’s best friend and with him the night he died – and in the way they carried out their subsequent investigation. Although his claim in negligence failed in light of the principles established in the Hill case above, the House of Lords indicated that there would be 'exceptional' or 'outrageous' cases where these principles may not defeat a claim in negligence.

The proposed new code incorporates ethics and conduct. The revised procedures for police disciplinary arrangements should, in essence, be based on Acas principles.