The Independent Police Conduct Authority - Prep Answer PDF

Preview

Summary

Download The Independent Police Conduct Authority - Prep Answer PDF

Description

Independent Police Conduct Authority – Prep Answer

The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) is governed by the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 (“The Act”) and has the core function of holding the New Zealand Police to account. The Police operate on a “policing by consent” model. This model is based on the assumption that the legitimacy of policing is derived from a general consensus of support from the public. This support follows on from the transparency of the powers of the police and their integrity when implementing them and the accountability for that implementation. Without the public support, the police would be acting without legitimacy amounting to an occupying force. It is important to note that the Police have the ability to use coercive force, therefore, must be subject to significant checks and balances from an independent body such as the ICPA. The IPCA overseas how the police use their coercive powers, ensuring they maintain the use of integrity and remain within the bounds of the law.

1. Functions

The statutory functions of the IPCA are set out under section 12 of the Act, and enable the IPCA to effectively hold the NZ Police to account. Section 12 of the Act dictate the functions of the IPCA shall be to receive complaints (s 12(1)(a); relating to misconduct or neglect of duty by any police employee (s 12(1)(a)(i); or concerning any practice, policy or procedure of the Police affecting the person or body of person making the complaint in a personal capacity (s 12(1)(a)(ii)). The IPCA may conduct their own investigation relating to any incident involving death or serious bodily harm, where it is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to carry out an investigation in the public interest (as per s12(1)(b). The IPCA is also awarded wider powers of investigation to investigate misconduct, neglect of duty, policy, procedure or practice which appears to relate to the complaint, notwithstanding that the complaint itself does not refer to that particular misconduct, neglect, practice, policy or procedure (as per s12(2)). The ICPA receives section 13 referrals relating to the death or serious bodily harm to any person, caused by a police employee in the execution of his or her duty. These referrals come from the Commissioner of Police, who has a duty to notify the Authority of these particular incidents. Finally, the IPCA has a Memorandum of

understanding with the Police which allows for all cases with high public interest or reputational significance, be referred to the IPCA by the Commissioner of Police.

2. The Process

The use of a systematic triage process enables the IPCA to categorise complaints into four categories depending on the severity and substance of the complaint, which corresponds with a various action. The IPCA has an effective decision making process which consists of communicating with the complainant and the police employee involved, accessing any available information and discussing possible resolutions with the Police Professional Conduct manager. Category A complaints require an independent investigation; Category B requires a Police Investigation, overseen by the IPCA; Category C requires a facilitated case resolution; and finally, Category D requires no further action by the IPCA, generally where the complaint does not have substance.

3. Strengths

The strengths of the IPCA lay within section 24 of the act, which sets out the powers of the Authority in relation to investigations. The IPCA has the power to require any person to furnish information or produce documents etc. relating to the investigation. Additionally, the IPCA has the power to summon and examine any person who they believe is able to provide information relating to the investigation.

The IPCA has the power of conducting thematic reviews, and investigations into policies, procedures and practices not directly complained about. Systemic policy issues, particularly relating to custodial situations, tend to be present coinciding with individual failures and practices. Therefore, the IPCA has the advantage of identifying such issues, providing recommendations and having the influence over the Police to correct those issues.

Additional strengths of the IPCA assist in the resolution of issues, such as the timely effective process increasing public trust; focus on ensuring procedural justice by assessing incidents and police’s action “beyond the law” and to the whether the police had acted reasonably

and fairly; having a prevention as opposed to blame approach, which assists in identifying the issues and preventing similar incidents; and finally, an open dialogue and cooperative attitude between the IPCA and the Police. 4. Limitations

The core limitations of the IPCA are the relatively few investigative powers. They have no search or surveillance powers; no power to prosecute or direct employment proceedings or sanctions; and no power to require the Police to act on the recommendations. The only coercive power is set out under section 24, but due to the acceptance by the Police that they must comply, this section is rarely exercised. As a result of non-binding recommendations, the IPCA has been accused of being “toothless”. However, the impact of these non-binding recommendations and the policy changes that they do influence does create the effective check and balance required of them, while maintaining a cooperative relationship with the Police. An adversarial relationship between the Police and the ICPA, one in which the IPCA would be able to prosecute or conduct proceedings would create conflict that would impede upon the positive influence the IPCA currently has on Police policy, practices and procedures. Prosecutorial power would provide the police with a right to silence, therefore the IPCA would not receive the open communication currently required under section 24. Giving an oversight body coercive powers depends on whether you see it more important to hold people to account after the event; or to use events as opportunities to change things for the future.

5. Improvement They current model has influenced significant change, one may not see if we were to operate through an adversarial oversight model. However, the public perception of the IPCA does seem to be that they are part of the Police. Therefore, more clarity as to the separation between the IPCA and the Police may provide more positive public opinion of the integrity and independence of the IPCA....