IPCC guidance on collecting evidence on police actions
Discussion
So the IPCC (pcc is a better term since its independence has been woefully inadequate) has published guidance on achieving best evidence in death or serious injury matters involving police actions. The first recommendation - key policing witnesses (officers directly involved in the incident):
"Should be separated as soon as operationally safe to do, so as not to confer, or unintentionally influence each other’s accounts"
I particularly dislike the watery phrase "unintentionally influence". I suggest "collude" is a better word.
Nor should they:
" ... view their own body-worn video before offering an initial witness account, so that those accounts recall what officers experienced during the incident – rather than what they saw or heard on the video."
This has been a long time coming but do not hold your breath. This is only "guidance" and police forces are free to ignore it. Even so the fact that the IPCC (who are happy to allow the police to investigate themselves - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pxng0 ) have been forced to address the issue of witness collusion is a positive step.
"Should be separated as soon as operationally safe to do, so as not to confer, or unintentionally influence each other’s accounts"
I particularly dislike the watery phrase "unintentionally influence". I suggest "collude" is a better word.
Nor should they:
" ... view their own body-worn video before offering an initial witness account, so that those accounts recall what officers experienced during the incident – rather than what they saw or heard on the video."
This has been a long time coming but do not hold your breath. This is only "guidance" and police forces are free to ignore it. Even so the fact that the IPCC (who are happy to allow the police to investigate themselves - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pxng0 ) have been forced to address the issue of witness collusion is a positive step.
Surely what matters is the accuracy of the officers recollection, so why not use the footage of a body worn video cam? Its not a memory test!
Put yourself in the position of a violent incident involving 5/6 people that last 10-15 mins resulting in a fatality. The police officer will be required to provide a statement saying who did what, describing individuals not known to him/her, so age, sex, height, build, hair/glasses etc then what each person wore, describing the atmosphere, such as daylight, rain, distance from scene, obstacles to view etc. Also who said what, when and to who.
Now ask yourself the question - you have a complete video of the whole incident - would you use it??
Put yourself in the position of a violent incident involving 5/6 people that last 10-15 mins resulting in a fatality. The police officer will be required to provide a statement saying who did what, describing individuals not known to him/her, so age, sex, height, build, hair/glasses etc then what each person wore, describing the atmosphere, such as daylight, rain, distance from scene, obstacles to view etc. Also who said what, when and to who.
Now ask yourself the question - you have a complete video of the whole incident - would you use it??
davidball said:
So the IPCC (pcc is a better term since its independence has been woefully inadequate) has published guidance on achieving best evidence in death or serious injury matters involving police actions. The first recommendation - key policing witnesses (officers directly involved in the incident):
"Should be separated as soon as operationally safe to do, so as not to confer, or unintentionally influence each other’s accounts"
I particularly dislike the watery phrase "unintentionally influence". I suggest "collude" is a better word.
Nor should they:
" ... view their own body-worn video before offering an initial witness account, so that those accounts recall what officers experienced during the incident – rather than what they saw or heard on the video."
This has been a long time coming but do not hold your breath. This is only "guidance" and police forces are free to ignore it. Even so the fact that the IPCC (who are happy to allow the police to investigate themselves - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pxng0 ) have been forced to address the issue of witness collusion is a positive step.
If there's a serious incident where the officer was under pressure, for instance in a firearms incident, the medical advice is not to separate. "Should be separated as soon as operationally safe to do, so as not to confer, or unintentionally influence each other’s accounts"
I particularly dislike the watery phrase "unintentionally influence". I suggest "collude" is a better word.
Nor should they:
" ... view their own body-worn video before offering an initial witness account, so that those accounts recall what officers experienced during the incident – rather than what they saw or heard on the video."
This has been a long time coming but do not hold your breath. This is only "guidance" and police forces are free to ignore it. Even so the fact that the IPCC (who are happy to allow the police to investigate themselves - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pxng0 ) have been forced to address the issue of witness collusion is a positive step.
If you don't like the IPCC then nominate another country where investigations into police actions are dealt with in a better manner, in your opinion of course.
There's a lot wrong with the IPCC, as many police officers will confirm. What we don't want is biased people with an axe to grind having any say in any modifications to it.
You seem to suggest that the police should not investigate 'themselves'. What do you think would be better: perhaps another force being involved? Would that suit you? Maybe with all actions documented for perusal by the IPCC, Judges, lawyers and their dogs? Or is there some other body that has the necessary investigative skills?
My experience of the IPCC is that they seem more likely to collude, to use your word, with the CPS, that they look for an offence and an offender, that they are open to political pressure. If the police used the same methods in investigating crime then I feel you would be the first on here, well perhaps not the first, second or even third, let's say in the vanguard, to criticise them for ineptitude. And I'll agree with you. I could give you two examples of dreadful IPCC investigations, where officers were charged and went to court, with insufficient evidence in the disclosure, as confirmed by the various judges who looked into it, of a prima facie case. If police officers had submitted such a file, it would have been referred to, rather ironically, the IPCC for suspicion of corruption. But I won't unless you ask me to.
As you seem to be suggesting; there's a lot wrong with the IPCC. Tell me about it.
Walt1387 said:
Surely what matters is the accuracy of the officers recollection, so why not use the footage of a body worn video cam? Its not a memory test!
Put yourself in the position of a violent incident involving 5/6 people that last 10-15 mins resulting in a fatality. The police officer will be required to provide a statement saying who did what, describing individuals not known to him/her, so age, sex, height, build, hair/glasses etc then what each person wore, describing the atmosphere, such as daylight, rain, distance from scene, obstacles to view etc. Also who said what, when and to who.
Now ask yourself the question - you have a complete video of the whole incident - would you use it??
Its hardly recollection if all there doing is describing whats on the video is it? We were always split up and ordered not to consult after serious incidents - thats nothing newPut yourself in the position of a violent incident involving 5/6 people that last 10-15 mins resulting in a fatality. The police officer will be required to provide a statement saying who did what, describing individuals not known to him/her, so age, sex, height, build, hair/glasses etc then what each person wore, describing the atmosphere, such as daylight, rain, distance from scene, obstacles to view etc. Also who said what, when and to who.
Now ask yourself the question - you have a complete video of the whole incident - would you use it??
IPCC-Police Officers are witnesses, but we'll treat them as suspects and deny them the rights afforded to every other person subject to legal scrutiny.
And yes, the IPCC will do everything to make themselves look good. Including illegally withholding evidence that supported the Officers case. (Nothing happened to them, they are untouchable and unaccountable )
And yes, the IPCC will do everything to make themselves look good. Including illegally withholding evidence that supported the Officers case. (Nothing happened to them, they are untouchable and unaccountable )
I was asked to review an ID parade that was subject of a complaint from a serial complainer, but one with connections. I was told to compare it to the current methods that I carried out in a dedicated suite, with specially trained staff and a whole catalogue of volunteers.
I followed directions of course. It was a bit critical of the procedures due to the comparison so I added a bit to say that given the resources available to the ID officer, it was remarkably rapid and the volunteers were up to the legal requirement - just ten offered for the brief but as they were all good enough - that was reasonable, legal and fair.
The complained about chap, a fellow inspector, told me later that he was a bit upset by the tone of my report. I mentioned the bit about it being better than the then norm, but he said it was not in the statement used by the foreign force investigating. Luckily I had a copy of the statement and allowed him a copy of it.
In another case a number of officers were suspended for over two years, their careers in ruins, over a high profile case. I was shown the disclosure. It did not show a prima facie case. I pointed this out to my friend and he said that a judge, one of the blokes with wigs, agreed with me but the case continued until they were put before a judge in Old Bailey for trial. The defence put forward 'no case to answer' and, as hoped, he agreed.
The IPCC is not fit for purpose.
I was asked to review a case, with names removed, by a DI. I had just left a process unit where one of my functions was to review cases to see if there was sufficient evidence. I knew the law, I knew procedure, I knew my job. I was happy to do so and my report was that the case should be discontinued, the 'unknown' suspects released without charge, and that 'we' should prepare a case for a civil unlawful arrest and detention case. I have no idea what happened to my report.
A little later I discovered that the redacted names were those of two police officers. Had they been civilians they would not have been arrested given the evidence supplied, nor would they have been kept on bail. The most significant point was that there was no evidence of a crime. (To those who don't understand, this is quite an important facet of any prosecution.) Even had their been, the explanations offered by the officers at the scene would have covered it.
The problem with criminal cases against the police is that lower evidence thresholds would seem to be required for arrest and charge. And this occurs even when there's no crime.
Yet we get those who suggest that the rules are bent - which they are - but in favour of the officer - which they are definitely not, at least if they are of federated rank.
A good friend of mine was put under enormous pressure. He knew there was insufficient evidence against him but he was charged, he was bailed, and the case went to crown court. So he knew that the whole process was bent but there was nothing he could do. He believed that if the IPCC and CPS could ignore evidence, a judges might well use his authority to sway a jury. It broke him.
It would not have happened if the chap was a civilian.
I followed directions of course. It was a bit critical of the procedures due to the comparison so I added a bit to say that given the resources available to the ID officer, it was remarkably rapid and the volunteers were up to the legal requirement - just ten offered for the brief but as they were all good enough - that was reasonable, legal and fair.
The complained about chap, a fellow inspector, told me later that he was a bit upset by the tone of my report. I mentioned the bit about it being better than the then norm, but he said it was not in the statement used by the foreign force investigating. Luckily I had a copy of the statement and allowed him a copy of it.
In another case a number of officers were suspended for over two years, their careers in ruins, over a high profile case. I was shown the disclosure. It did not show a prima facie case. I pointed this out to my friend and he said that a judge, one of the blokes with wigs, agreed with me but the case continued until they were put before a judge in Old Bailey for trial. The defence put forward 'no case to answer' and, as hoped, he agreed.
The IPCC is not fit for purpose.
I was asked to review a case, with names removed, by a DI. I had just left a process unit where one of my functions was to review cases to see if there was sufficient evidence. I knew the law, I knew procedure, I knew my job. I was happy to do so and my report was that the case should be discontinued, the 'unknown' suspects released without charge, and that 'we' should prepare a case for a civil unlawful arrest and detention case. I have no idea what happened to my report.
A little later I discovered that the redacted names were those of two police officers. Had they been civilians they would not have been arrested given the evidence supplied, nor would they have been kept on bail. The most significant point was that there was no evidence of a crime. (To those who don't understand, this is quite an important facet of any prosecution.) Even had their been, the explanations offered by the officers at the scene would have covered it.
The problem with criminal cases against the police is that lower evidence thresholds would seem to be required for arrest and charge. And this occurs even when there's no crime.
Yet we get those who suggest that the rules are bent - which they are - but in favour of the officer - which they are definitely not, at least if they are of federated rank.
A good friend of mine was put under enormous pressure. He knew there was insufficient evidence against him but he was charged, he was bailed, and the case went to crown court. So he knew that the whole process was bent but there was nothing he could do. He believed that if the IPCC and CPS could ignore evidence, a judges might well use his authority to sway a jury. It broke him.
It would not have happened if the chap was a civilian.
Elroy Blue said:
IPCC-Police Officers are witnesses, but we'll treat them as suspects and deny them the rights afforded to every other person subject to legal scrutiny.
They suggest that police shouldn't be allowed to confer & collude- this is the same as for other witnesses.They colluded over Hillsborough to get their story straight. Look how that turned out.
There's a lack of trust due to past episodes and maybe this needs to be addressed.
With some of the new people on the forum (Skaska, 335, SystemParanoia), David was feeling his title of 'most clueless contributor' was under threat. Have no fear, David, your comical idiocy on any police firearm thread secures your top-spot.
The IPCC aren't treating officers as witnesses, they're going to nearly always be investigating matters within a criminal context (which is fine, but let's not kid ourselves).
The police response should be no account provided (except a simple duty statement) until there's been full disclosure (when interviewed) and legal advice taken.
If one 'side' wants to be red hot on accounts which can be used against the officer, then the other side needs to take the best, defensive legal stance (as anyone on here would if being investigated).
The IPCC aren't treating officers as witnesses, they're going to nearly always be investigating matters within a criminal context (which is fine, but let's not kid ourselves).
The police response should be no account provided (except a simple duty statement) until there's been full disclosure (when interviewed) and legal advice taken.
If one 'side' wants to be red hot on accounts which can be used against the officer, then the other side needs to take the best, defensive legal stance (as anyone on here would if being investigated).
Rovinghawk said:
They suggest that police shouldn't be allowed to confer & collude- this is the same as for other witnesses.
There's nothing whatsoever to stop other witnesses discussing matters between themselves. You forget Lal Liga I am only offended by the opinions of people I respect. Your childish taunts only serve to boost your fragile ego.
I have called for separation of officers many times because the present situation is unhealthy and suspicious. Those like you who resent these criticisms must be feeling very uncomfortable. Do not worry. The IPCC is a toothless animal which is used to deflect meaningful actions being taken against police officers. I wait to see what comes of the IPCC guidance.
Meanwhile I am interested in why it appears to be the taxpayer who has to pay the compensation awarded to victims of police malpractice and not the officers themselves. A request about this under the Freedom of Information Act is in order.
I have called for separation of officers many times because the present situation is unhealthy and suspicious. Those like you who resent these criticisms must be feeling very uncomfortable. Do not worry. The IPCC is a toothless animal which is used to deflect meaningful actions being taken against police officers. I wait to see what comes of the IPCC guidance.
Meanwhile I am interested in why it appears to be the taxpayer who has to pay the compensation awarded to victims of police malpractice and not the officers themselves. A request about this under the Freedom of Information Act is in order.
Derek Smith said:
If there's a serious incident where the officer was under pressure, for instance in a firearms incident, the medical advice is not to separate.
From your previous posts I really respect you. But... What is the medical advice when the person involved in a death isn't a police officer?
If I was involved in an incident that resulted in a death I'd want certain people around me - my partner and my Mother are two important people. If it happened with my friends I'd want them as well. But the chances of the police letting that happen are zero. For good reason.
Derek Smith said:
In another case a number of officers were suspended for over two years, their careers in ruins, over a high profile case. I was shown the disclosure. It did not show a prima facie case. I pointed this out to my friend and he said that a judge, one of the blokes with wigs, agreed with me but the case continued until they were put before a judge in Old Bailey for trial. The defence put forward 'no case to answer' and, as hoped, he agreed.
The IPCC is not fit for purpose.
Respectfully members of the public are held on bail for a number of years, and the "disclosure" can be as simple as "we have reason to believe that the suspect is involved in X offence". It leaves their careers in limbo. Plenty of people don't even get put before the courts after their lives being torn apart - they simply get told no further action after years of terror. Does that mean the police are not fit for purpose? The IPCC is not fit for purpose.
I don't think the IPCC is fit for purpose - I'd like to see their budget expanded exponentially, and for them to be given the power of arrest. I'm not anti police - but greater oversight is a great thing for public opinion.
Edited by photosnob on Wednesday 22 February 02:16
davidball said:
You forget Lal Liga I am only offended by the opinions of people I respect.
Why would you be offended by anyone's opinion, whether you respect them or not? davidball said:
I have called for separation of officers many times because the present situation is unhealthy and suspicious.
As I say, if you blur the lines between witness and suspect to a greater degree then don't be surprised in a bottle-neck of information as legal advice is sought. It's a serious job with serious implications, not sat in an office typing a spreadsheet. davidball said:
Those like you who resent these criticisms must be feeling very uncomfortable.
I am wholly comfortable operating in a high-risk environment and accounting for my decision-making and actions. In any event, it's just guidance, and it's not new. Given you seemingly are offended by opinions, I think what you judge will make people uncomfortable is going to a be a little on the sort side.
davidball said:
Do not worry. The IPCC is a toothless animal which is used to deflect meaningful actions being taken against police officers. I wait to see what comes of the IPCC guidance.
This isn't true and only serves to reinforce about how clueless you are. Name another body with powers as great as the IPCC to investigate an organisation. davidball said:
Meanwhile I am interested in why it appears to be the taxpayer who has to pay the compensation awarded to victims of police malpractice and not the officers themselves. A request about this under the Freedom of Information Act is in order.
Why do you need an FOI request? You could just think about it for two seconds and realise the obvious answer i.e. they're working on behalf of an organisation and the liability for most actions by the 'employees' are covered by the organisation, whether through primary funds or insurance. Pretty much the same with any organisation, whether public or private (which is why it's obvious).Individual liability (of the nature you're discussing) would leave to significant risk-aversion which would benefit no-one. Although I think you'll struggle to figure out the implications of that if you are seriously suggesting an FOI request for the above...
Walt1387 said:
Surely what matters is the accuracy of the officers recollection, so why not use the footage of a body worn video cam? Its not a memory test!
Put yourself in the position of a violent incident involving 5/6 people that last 10-15 mins resulting in a fatality. The police officer will be required to provide a statement saying who did what, describing individuals not known to him/her, so age, sex, height, build, hair/glasses etc then what each person wore, describing the atmosphere, such as daylight, rain, distance from scene, obstacles to view etc. Also who said what, when and to who.
Now ask yourself the question - you have a complete video of the whole incident - would you use it??
The point is that police actions at the time might have been due to a misapprehension as to what was actually going on. How can you determine how accurately they assessed the situation at the time if they see the video before being questioned?Put yourself in the position of a violent incident involving 5/6 people that last 10-15 mins resulting in a fatality. The police officer will be required to provide a statement saying who did what, describing individuals not known to him/her, so age, sex, height, build, hair/glasses etc then what each person wore, describing the atmosphere, such as daylight, rain, distance from scene, obstacles to view etc. Also who said what, when and to who.
Now ask yourself the question - you have a complete video of the whole incident - would you use it??
photosnob said:
Derek Smith said:
If there's a serious incident where the officer was under pressure, for instance in a firearms incident, the medical advice is not to separate.
From your previous posts I really respect you. But... What is the medical advice when the person involved in a death isn't a police officer?
If I was involved in an incident that resulted in a death I'd want certain people around me - my partner and my Mother are two important people. If it happened with my friends I'd want them as well. But the chances of the police letting that happen are zero. For good reason.
Derek Smith said:
In another case a number of officers were suspended for over two years, their careers in ruins, over a high profile case. I was shown the disclosure. It did not show a prima facie case. I pointed this out to my friend and he said that a judge, one of the blokes with wigs, agreed with me but the case continued until they were put before a judge in Old Bailey for trial. The defence put forward 'no case to answer' and, as hoped, he agreed.
The IPCC is not fit for purpose.
Respectfully members of the public are held on bail for a number of years, and the "disclosure" can be as simple as "we have reason to believe that the suspect is involved in X offence". It leaves their careers in limbo. Plenty of people don't even get put before the courts after their lives being torn apart - they simply get told no further action after years of terror. Does that mean the police are not fit for purpose? The IPCC is not fit for purpose.
I don't think the IPCC is fit for purpose - I'd like to see their budget expanded exponentially, and for them to be given the power of arrest. I'm not anti police - but greater oversight is a great thing for public opinion.
Edited by photosnob on Wednesday 22 February 02:16
It is not through lack of funds that the IPCC is unfit for purpose. If only.
Who do you want to be given a power of arrest? What problem would this overcome? How would they then proceed?
Or, to put it another way, What do you think is wrong with the IPCC? How is it failing in its purpose? Someone suggested it was not independent but then came up with no reasons why he felt that way. So what should be done?
Throwing money at it? I'm not sure that's the answer.
photosnob said:
Respectfully members of the public are held on bail for a number of years, and the "disclosure" can be as simple as "we have reason to believe that the suspect is involved in X offence". It leaves their careers in limbo. Plenty of people don't even get put before the courts after their lives being torn apart - they simply get told no further action after years of terror. Does that mean the police are not fit for purpose?
I don't think the IPCC is fit for purpose - I'd like to see their budget expanded exponentially, and for them to be given the power of arrest. I'm not anti police - but greater oversight is a great thing for public opinion.
Bail has changed quite a bit relatively recently with this legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/3/part/4/...I don't think the IPCC is fit for purpose - I'd like to see their budget expanded exponentially, and for them to be given the power of arrest. I'm not anti police - but greater oversight is a great thing for public opinion.
The IPCC don't need a power of arrest. They have a power to compel a police officer to attend a 'voluntary' interview.
The IPCC don't need more funds, they need to just make sure they're dealing with things in a focused way. I've seen them take on things that they should never have touched as they were too minor, for example.
Any, and that is any, group, unit or department that has no oversight will, and in short time, become corrupt. I was partly involved in an investigation of a non-police unit where everyone, even the temp brought in to cover for maternity leave, was on the take. There were three or four professionals in charge, a number of lesser roles and admin/office staff. After each successful corrupt bung they went to a pub and handed out the brown envelopes.
It is not that the profession as a whole is corrupt, just that in this case there was no oversight.
Police officers have certain powers and authority that most others do not. They are put into positions where literally life and death decision have to be made. They are not allowed to sit back and let things develop. There are times when they must act.
They have a degree of trust implicit in the post.
To ensure that corruption is limited, there needs to be extraordinary oversight. Not just an internal discipline procedure but one overseen by an external unit as well. Vital to the external unit is trust from both the public and the police.
I’m not sure the IPCC has either.
There have been a number of attacks on the IPCC in the press, most ill-informed and the suspicion is that some are political attacks. Many police officers who have been involved in IPCC investigations lack any belief that they are fair and open-minded.
The IPCC needs to change, even if only in order to have proper oversight, and with that will go trust from the officers. Nothing will change the attacks from politically biased media and ill-informed ranters on forums and other social media.
At the moment most corrupt/criminal officers have other officers as their accusers. This shows that there is a certain faith in the system. As an example, let’s take a friend of the officer who was prosecuted for one of the most serious common law offences - life imprisonment the maximum sentence - despite there being no evidence. Would he be willing to share suspicion of a colleague? It's a big ask.
The police needs an effective, demonstrably fair and adequately resourced, including powers, IPCC. My belief is that it hasn’t got one. The public deserves one as well. If we get one then it should also attack those media outlets that tell lies.
It is not that the profession as a whole is corrupt, just that in this case there was no oversight.
Police officers have certain powers and authority that most others do not. They are put into positions where literally life and death decision have to be made. They are not allowed to sit back and let things develop. There are times when they must act.
They have a degree of trust implicit in the post.
To ensure that corruption is limited, there needs to be extraordinary oversight. Not just an internal discipline procedure but one overseen by an external unit as well. Vital to the external unit is trust from both the public and the police.
I’m not sure the IPCC has either.
There have been a number of attacks on the IPCC in the press, most ill-informed and the suspicion is that some are political attacks. Many police officers who have been involved in IPCC investigations lack any belief that they are fair and open-minded.
The IPCC needs to change, even if only in order to have proper oversight, and with that will go trust from the officers. Nothing will change the attacks from politically biased media and ill-informed ranters on forums and other social media.
At the moment most corrupt/criminal officers have other officers as their accusers. This shows that there is a certain faith in the system. As an example, let’s take a friend of the officer who was prosecuted for one of the most serious common law offences - life imprisonment the maximum sentence - despite there being no evidence. Would he be willing to share suspicion of a colleague? It's a big ask.
The police needs an effective, demonstrably fair and adequately resourced, including powers, IPCC. My belief is that it hasn’t got one. The public deserves one as well. If we get one then it should also attack those media outlets that tell lies.
Bigends said:
Its hardly recollection if all there doing is describing whats on the video is it? We were always split up and ordered not to consult after serious incidents - thats nothing new
No it's not new, but body worn video cameras are new, and just because 'that's how we used to do it' doesnt make it right or better.If the police are going to purely be treated as witnesses then there's no issue not viewing the CCTV before providing an account.
However, with any death or serious injury they'll likely be treated as a suspect and subject to a criminal interview.
Do the people the police interview as suspects (who have taken legal advice) give an account prior the CCTV being shown?
No, they don't.
However, with any death or serious injury they'll likely be treated as a suspect and subject to a criminal interview.
Do the people the police interview as suspects (who have taken legal advice) give an account prior the CCTV being shown?
No, they don't.
Dr Jekyll said:
The point is that police actions at the time might have been due to a misapprehension as to what was actually going on. How can you determine how accurately they assessed the situation at the time if they see the video before being questioned?
Does this not strike you as grossly unfair on the officer being questioned? We 'know' what happened because we have the evidence from the BWV you wore, but we are asking you to try to remember a potentially high stress situation and have some sort of total recall!La Liga said:
If the police are going to purely be treated as witnesses then there's no issue not viewing the CCTV before providing an account.
However, with any death or serious injury they'll likely be treated as a suspect and subject to a criminal interview.
Do the people the police interview as suspects (who have taken legal advice) give an account prior the CCTV being shown?
No, they don't.
Exactly. However, with any death or serious injury they'll likely be treated as a suspect and subject to a criminal interview.
Do the people the police interview as suspects (who have taken legal advice) give an account prior the CCTV being shown?
No, they don't.
The IPCC want to treat the Officers like suspects without any form of disclosure. Considering their well documented practice of withholding evidence that supports the Officers account and damages their own witch hunts, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff