How to police the police
Regulators have wrestled for years to balance need for independence with relevant experience
The police watchdog has undergone a series of rebrandings down the years but has always struggled to escape accusations that it has been too close to the officers it is investigating.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was launched in 2003, taking over from the Police Complaints Authority.
It was hoped the new body, not under direct Home Office control, would reinforce the independence of inquiries. To achieve this, the IPCC moved away from former detectives and, instead, drew its staff from a wider range of backgrounds and experiences.
But this led to police saying they were being investigated by people with little understanding of the demands and difficulties of their role.
A series of high-profile deaths, including that of Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor caught up in the 2009 G20 protests, and Mark Duggan, a suspected gangster, helped ignite calls for further reform. Critics again claimed the IPCC was hand in glove with the police and rarely found in favour of complainants.
Theresa May, as home secretary, said the IPCC would be replaced by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). One of the major complaints had been that the IPCC could only initiate inquiries if a police force made a referral. There was concern that too many complaints were being ignored as police forces were reluctant to launch inquiries into their own.
Mrs May declared that the new body would help “ensure greater accountability” by being able to initiate its own investigations, separate from those being carried out by police forces.
The IOPC was also given the power to bring disciplinary cases against officers even if their home force disagreed with its findings.
Michael Lockwood, a former accountant and the chief executive of Harrow council, was appointed to head the new body. His role, however, raised eyebrows, because of his lack of a policing background, but his distance from the service was seen as vital to ensure credible independence.
In its first real test – the inquiry into the Operation Midland scandal – the IOPC will have done little to instil confidence among a sceptical public.
Harvey Proctor, one of the victims of the Carl Beech hoax, has already declared the IOPC “blind, deaf and toothless”.
The new body does not have the whole backing of the police either.
There remain deep concerns among many rank-and-file police officers over the lack of experience among IOPC investigators and also the time it takes to reach its findings.
Phil Matthews, who is the Police Federation lead on matters concerning complaints, said: “The IOPC has been remodelled on a number of occasions. This often results in a change in name and little else.
“The police are generally very good at getting rid of the bad apples themselves but, of course, there is a role for an independent body to ensure accountability.”