Independent Police Complaints Commission

The IPCC’s job is to make sure that complaints against the police are dealt with effectively. They set standards for the way police handle complaints and, when something has gone wrong, help the police learn lessons to improve the way they work.

Mr Mike Franklin is the Independent Police Complaint Commissioner for London and the southeast and was formally an Assistant Inspector with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), where he served for nearly four years.  During that time he was responsible for dealing with diversity in all 43 police forces in England and Wales. The end of that appointment coincided with the formation of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and he applied to be a Commissioner and was appointed. Initially he was the Commissioner for Merseyside, Cheshire and Lancashire in the northwest, but last year changed regions to become responsible for Hampshire, Sussex, Kent, Thames Valley and Surrey...

Would you expand on what is meant by ‘responsible’ for the five southern counties?

Mike Franklin (MF) IPCC Commissioners have a number of police forces which they are responsible for and we handle all the serious complaints against the police for those areas. In addition, we have national portfolios for particular parts of IPCC business, for example one of my areas of responsibility is the subject of ‘custody’ and another is ‘stop and search’. Basically, the role of a Commissioner is to guarantee the independence of investigations of complaints against the police; this means we set the terms of reference for the investigation, appoint the investigating officer and follow the investigation to its conclusion. In addition, we are the custodians, or guardians, of the IPCC.  In other words, we are responsible for of the wellbeing of the system.  We also identify the lessons to be learned and disseminate them to those organisations that need to know.  In short, we help set the standards whereby the police do their job in England and Wales.

Who is the Commission answerable to?

Mike Franklin The Commission itself is answerable to Parliament; the IPCC is required by law to produce an annual report and submit it to Parliament, but in terms of our decisions in investigations, these are only reversible by judicial review.

What is your core function, when you arrive in the morning and roll-up your sleeves to start work? What are you concentrating on?   

Mike Franklin It’s better to think of our core function as multi-faceted; it is about answering public concerns about things that happen in relation to police, it is about identifying areas where things need changing and saying so, it is about making recommendations and working with the Police Service and other organisations to make sure improvements take place. Also it’s about restoring public confidence in the complaint system, which was one of the reasons why we came into existence; all the above are as important as the investigations themselves. In the early days, we had to get our investigative capacity up and running and that took priority.  Now we have been in existence for a bit longer, we start to appreciate the importance of the guardianship work, how that supports the progress of investigations and how we take it all forward into the future.

Is the Police Service your only concern?

Mike Franklin Originally our role was to investigate the most serious complaints against the police, but during the time we have been in existence we have also taken over the investigation of complaints against the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the UK Border Agency, and HM Revenue and Customs. An example of an investigation we did outside the police was the big investigation into the missing 25 million child benefit records.

Mike Franklin For me the most important part of our work is to restore confidence in the complaints system and that involves going out and talking to people, explaining how the IPCC goes about its business and the values we aspire to. We value openness and transparency, making sure that people get the information they need and that questions get answered. Our method of working is to ensure that the key issue in our investigation is to learn lessons, not to merely apportion blame. The value of this approach has become evident over the last few years as lessons have been fed back into policing and led to a reduction in incidents such as death in custody.

Since the IPCC’s inception, there has been nearly a 60% reduction in this area.  However, every time there is a death in custody, people are going to say, ‘it’s still going on’, but we know, from our investigations and from our research, that some deaths in custody are almost inevitable. Some others may be avoidable, but we keep working at it, refining the procedures so we can reduce deaths in custody as far as possible. This means looking at every case on its merits, making sure we identify exactly what has happened and putting right the things we find to be wrong.

Apart from the recommendations contained in individual investigation reports, how do you disseminate the information gleaned from those investigations to the remainder of your customers?

Mike Franklin  The main way we do this is through the ‘Learning the Lessons Bulletin’.  So far we have published seven bulletins.  The mechanism is that our research team base each bulletin on a theme (say) death in custody.  They will assemble all the reports on those investigations and examine them to see if there are any possible trends and lessons to be learned. The findings are then published and circulated to our customers as you call them. When we first started doing the bulletins, some people in the Police Service were not impressed. They claimed we were telling them things that were obvious, but my response to that was, if it was so obvious, why did it happen and become an item in an investigation report and thus able to appear in the Bulletin? For me it is very simple, if during our investigation we find a systemic weakness that had led to or caused an incident, then it is our duty not only to put it right within the particular force we are investigating, but also to educate the whole police service so as to avoid similar incidents occurring again. 

Should we then equip custody officers with a crystal ball?

Mike Franklin I’m sure we shall discuss risk assessment in detail later, but I’d like to add; if we do an investigation into a death and we find a systemic weakness that caused it or contributed to it, then our duty is to make sure that it is put right. So that’s what we do. The Learning Lessons Bulletins take into account all things we have learned from our investigations. We then send the bulletins to those people who need to know. We also send them to organisations containing groups of interested people who do what they can to examine death in custody, to learn lessons and hopefully, reduce them. Organisations like Inquest provide advice and support for families who have lost somebody by death in custody.  By disseminating the lessons learned, we are equipping custody officers with the knowledge and therefore, hopefully, helping them to pre-empt any tragedies by helping them to recognise the warning signs.  

How is the work of the agencies co-ordinated?

Mike Franklin There are regular meetings which I organise and chair. I’m speaking at a conference in a couple of month’s time to present what the IPCC has learned by working with other organisations and listening to the families. In days gone by, family members of someone who had died in police custody found it very difficult to get information; they were not considered to be part of the investigation and their concerns were not taken on board. One of the things the IPCC has done well is to involve the family, relatives and friends and try to understand the anger and outrage felt when somebody dies in police custody. We understand that to be a normal human reaction and we have to work with it. We had a small demonstration outside our office in London recently and that wasn’t something the IPCC felt we ought to be ashamed of. We welcome people expressing their views, because we can learn from them.

We know that custody sergeants are aware of the danger of ligature points, and that there is CCTV surveillance and 360˚ mirrors and clear-view hatches. All those things are for the protection of detainees. Are the recommendations in your report mandatory?

Mike Franklin Not as such, because there are many operational and support factors to consider when implementing our recommendations. Any investigation where a ligature point has been a factor in a death, or a near miss, is something that would be highlighted in the recommendations. There are always competing reasons why things should be done in quick or slow time; it might be a question of resources, or convenience or the frequency of how often a facility is used.

Although we do not get involved in decisions about operational policing, we can predict that, if there is an increase in gun crime, then a rise in the number of armed police situations will follow and the chances that somebody is going to be shot will increase. Such things are obvious and sometimes all that is needed from our investigations is a prod. It may be that the cells are going to be redesigned in the course of the next financial year and our recommendations will bring that to the attention of the support organisation and could get a higher priority. So, when we write our bulletins, we are aware of all sorts of concerns which may be obvious to police officers working in a custody area where there has been a near miss, but may not be so obvious in a custody suite where nobody has ever died or experienced a near miss and so has value.

Ah, this then is the proper time to ask about risk assessment. A proper risk assessment enables the custody staff to anticipate difficulties - is that correct?

Mike Franklin Ah yes, the crystal ball! Broadly, risk assessments are made so that police officers can spot problems before they arise. ACPO Safer Detention Guidelines provide a checklist for the assessment of detainees and are important for determining the level of risk a detainee may be at.  One question we are starting to ask now to generate debate is: how far back (earlier) should it be taken?  Is it at the point of arrest, booking-in at the custody desk or in a cell? The Police Service will not thank us for making recommendations that are unrealistic, can’t be resourced and/or don’t make any sense.  For example, we are looking at whether the availability of defibrillators in custody areas might arguably save somebody’s life, but that raises questions about training to use them and the availability of equipment and human resources. The situation is fraught with difficulties and not every eventuality can be covered.

Is it now generally accepted that a police cell is not an appropriate place to hold a detainee with mental health problems?

Mike Franklin Yes, a whole range of good practices concerning detainees with mental health problems is accepted.  These range from the need for assistance from health authorities and hospitals, through to the need for mental health assessments to be done quickly, to social workers properly resourced. The incidence of death in a cell, and near misses, concerning detainees with mental health problems compared with the incidence for other reasons makes it quite clear that a police cell is no place for them. The other side of the coin is that people with mental health difficulties often get arrested because the police are unaware of their illness and mistake it for something else, for example being drunk. Therefore, people with mental health difficulties have to be seen quickly by a doctor and a diagnosis made before a tragedy occurs.

But, realistically speaking, are people with mental health problems finding themselves in a police cell because it is a place of safety?

Mike Franklin Somebody in the middle of a town-centre brawl at 10pm on Friday night may be picked-up by the police and find themselves in a cell and the state of their mental health not discovered until later. So a quick diagnosis is essential, because it is commonly accepted that a cell is not suitable for people with mental health problems. So we might conclude that one task for the IPCC is about establishing practices that identify mental health problems as early as possible.

I believe there is an ongoing study into the causes of death in custody. What do you think will be their most important recommendation?

Mike Franklin Yes, we are currently undertaking an in-depth study into deaths in police custody.  Our research team is looking at completed investigation reports from the last ten years approximately, looking at a range of issues including trends in the data, the use of restraint, the ethnicity of the deceased, the circumstances in which they died, the role of alcohol and drugs in deaths, mental health and how detainees were risk assessed.  We hope to build on past work and identify possible changes in practice and trends from the data we examine.

The previous research in this area is now several years old.  By carrying out this research, we will be able to provide an up-to-date picture of the issues, which in turn will help to reduce the number of deaths in police custody.

But isn’t it much broader than that? Isn’t it true that the first 48 hours in a locked cell creates a stressful situation, during which a more balanced person might develop a suicidal tendency?

Mike Franklin That is true, but we believe that the way forward is to establish a staff mindset and at the same time, change the culture of what people expect and experience in police custody. No matter what a detainee has done, or what they might be accused of or the circumstances, they must be handled with dignity and respect. In the past, the whole process of dealing with a death in custody investigation was shrouded in secrecy and people believed, with good reason, that they were not being told the full story. Making such investigations more transparent is important, as is making sure that police officers know that each case will be looked at thoroughly.

The need for an early risk assessment then becomes obvious as will thinking twice before making a decision. Gathering full and accurate information from the arresting officer during booking-in becomes critical for the custody officer to do a proper risk assessment.  Medical practitioners called-out to give an opinion on whether a detainee is fit to be interviewed or to remain in custody needs to be sharpened-up and made more professional. We can avert tragedy by preparedness.   Knowledge, quick thinking, equipment being ready and nearby, training, early risk assessment, early diagnoses; all these things make a huge difference.

Why does it take so long to investigate a situation and publish a report?

Mike Franklin When the IPCC get criticised, as we do, it is usually about the length of time an investigation takes, but this is mostly not our fault because of the various processes that need to happen before we can publish a report’s findings.  For example, we may conclude our investigation and hand a file to the CPS.  The CPS then need to decide whether or not there is a case to answer and this may take some time.  Until the CPS has made a decision, we cannot publish our findings as it may affect any future prosecution.  There is also the issue of Coroners and inquests.  Again, in most cases where there has been a death, we have to wait until an inquest has been held before we can publish our findings. The IPCC make sure the 28 day regular updates to the family takes place so that they know where we are with the investigation.

Do you have to deal with the perception that police officers believe the IPCC is out to trap them for dereliction of duty?

Mike Franklin That would be a natural reaction in any sphere of activity and might have been true in the early days. I should hope that our work so far, has reassured them.

Police officers know that we do not see tragedies simply as a result of police brutality against detainees, and we understand that circumstances can’t be completely foreseen. There will be cases where, had there been an earlier risk assessment, where the person wouldn’t have been in a cell at all, but in a hospital. Sometimes it is about officers failing to recognise conditions, which are masked: a person with a head injury, for example, who was thought to be drunk and disorderly. Then there is the timely intervention of the specialist’s agencies and other organisations that can give help. I am a firm believer of an early risk assessment - the earlier the better.

There is a wide area of issues to be analysed and solved by custody staff and in order to make it more successful, or rather to build-on the success so far, we encourage them to examine what they are doing to find ways of doing it better.

I’ve covered all my points; or rather you have covered them for me. Is there anything you would like to add before we close?

Mike Franklin We have mostly concentrated on the technical problems associated with cases of death in custody, but overall there is the issue of trust and confidence in the system as a whole. The police can pick-up people in the street for whatever reason, often with just cause, take them in handcuffs to a police station and lock them in a cell. There just has to be concern about what happens to them while they are there. True, there are the independent custody visitors who do their best to give assurances that detainees are being treated properly, but is that enough? Then there must be concern for the police in general, and custody staff in particular, involved in looking after somebody with pre-existing and unknown health conditions who die. How does that affect the officer? Were the right questions asked, was the officer qualified to ask the right questions, whose fault was it in any case. The result is the officer’s professional life is put on hold. The system has got to take account of how people feel, that is the detainee, their relatives and friends and the police themselves.

Particularly, we have to understand the suspicions some might have if, for instance, a young black man dies in a police station. The local community are not just going to accept the promises made by the IPCC that there will be a thorough investigation. On the other hand, the concern that police officers might have that an IPCC investigation is a witch-hunt needs to be overturned. So, an important part of the IPCC’s everyday work is to build trust in the system, build confidence in everybody for a proper outcome.

Thank you Mr Franklin for taking time out to speak with the Review.