Perhaps the most important question in relation to WMP’s complaints investigations is whether the fact that no proceedings ensued was due to any failure on WMP’s part. The evidence does not suggest there were fundamental failures, either intentional or accidental, to follow the required procedures. Instead, it appears that WMP largely fulfilled its basic legal responsibility to identify complaints and investigate them.
The evidence also does not support the suggestion that WMP attempted to minimise the number of complaints under investigation. It was within the scope of WMP’s role to review adverse comments and to reach a decision on whether to take them forward as complaint investigations. The IOPC’s examination found that in the majority of cases, appropriate reasons were recorded for not taking complaints forward. In some cases, there was no specific incident described that could form the basis of a complaint; in others, there was insufficient detail to identify which officer(s) may have been involved.
While there appear to have been some instances where potential complaints were not adequately addressed, and some witnesses who felt that WMP did not give them the opportunity to complain, this was not systematic. However, inadequacies in the criminal investigation also affected the quality of complaint investigations in relevant cases.
