In order to lodge a complaint, the complainant needs to submit it in writing to the police force in question. The chief constable then decides how the complaint should be dealt. This could either be by means of an informal resolution or a formal resolution. An informal resolution is merely an apology and an explanation; as long as this is satisfactory then this is acceptable. If the complainant is still unhappy, or it involves a serious matter, there will be a full investigation and depending on the seriousness the IPPC can either: take no further action, take management action such as word of advice or additional training, for the officer(s) involved. Disciplinary action against the officer(s) involved. Misconduct or gross misconduct proceedings against the officer(s) involved. It may be referred to the crown court prosecution service for consideration of whether an officer should be charged with a criminal offence or finally, indentify any lessons that can be learnt for the force, including any organisational changes.
In the case of Tom, formal resolution is required due to the seriousness of the complaint. It could be suggested that he used a civil action, where the police can be sued for compensation in the High Court. These can be used if the complaint involved assault; malicious prosecution, false imprisonment; wrongful arrest and trespass to property or goods, and these cases are usually heard by jury. This is because Tom’s wife was deceived by the police officers in order to gain entrance to the house which disobeys code B and section 17, 18 and 19 on the protection of privacy. Also, under section 78, it is illegal to admit the Rolex as evidence as it was collected whilst the officers were trespassing. It was also a malicious prosecution as he was not allowed to phone his wife and he was not allowed to go until he confessed.
The role of the IPPC is to ensure people’s complaints against the police are properly investigated, using their new legal powers to intervene. It is also to restore confidence in the complainants’ by demonstrating independence and securing integrity and accountability of all complaints.
There is a ceiling placed on the Court of Appeal on damages against the police. This is because there needs to be a balance between need of how much damages needs to be paid to the complainant by the defendant, and that this compensation comes from public funds. This has affected many people, including the case of Kenneth Hsu. Here, the court dropped his award to £35,000 from £220,000 after a police officer forged a confession and faked another to put four men behind bars for the murder of Carl Bridgewater. During the arrest, excessive forced was used and injured him, after an appeal, the jury gave him maximum compensation of £50,000.
It is very likely that Tom will succeed in any action. He was undeniably treated badly by the police to the extent that it is probable that Tom will receive the full amount of damages possible (£50,000). This was due to the misconduct of deceiving the wife, trespassing on property, illegally obtaining evidence that would make to trial unfair, oppressive and brute force was used and none of Tom’s rights were upheld.
