The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has accepted the findings of an independent review of its investigation into the death of Sean Rigg and will take action on all its recommendations.
The Chair of the IPCC, Dame Anne Owers, commissioned the review in November 2012 following the inquest. Mr Rigg died in police custody on 21 August 2008 after being arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police Service earlier that day.
The independent review, conducted by Dr Silvia Casale with the support of James Lewis QC and Martin Corfe, was carried out between November 2012 and April 2013.
One of the review’s recommendations, which the IPCC accepts, is that there should be a re-examination of whether there is potential misconduct in respect of the actions of the police officers involved in Sean Rigg’s arrest and detention. The IPCC is reviewing the evidence heard at inquest, in the light of the review’s findings, in order to determine whether further action can and should be taken.
In reviewing the IPCC’s investigation into Mr Rigg’s death, Dr Casale’s team also made a number of recommendations about procedures in general in cases involving a death. Some are matters for the IPCC alone; others will require action or agreement by others. Matters for the IPCC include:
• Independently investigating all deaths in custody at the outset;
• Interviewing officers and staff involved as early as possible with transcripts produced of interviews in which officers’ accounts are probed;
• Ensuring IPCC Commissioners take a proactive role during investigations;
• Taking a multi-disciplinary approach both internally and externally;
• Exploring the use of non-police experts in areas such as mental health, restraint and CCTV;
• Taking a more analytical approach in investigation reports;
• Taking a broader approach in deaths investigations rather than focusing just on criminality or misconduct;
• Providing better support to bereaved families.
Dame Anne Owers said:
"The Rigg family has demonstrated determination and dignity over a long period of time. Above all they have been committed to getting answers about the circumstances of Sean’s tragic death. I am conscious that the shortcomings identified in this review, and the length of time it has taken to get to this stage, have added to the distress and grief of the Rigg family and I have apologised to them for this. I hope it will be of some comfort that they have helped shape our work in future and our approach to bereaved families like theirs.
"I would like to thank Dr Casale and her team for the valuable work they have done. Their review has produced telling and important findings which the IPCC has accepted. We are already taking a critical look at the way we investigate deaths in general, and this specific review, and the lessons to be learnt from it, will play an important part in the way that we develop and change our approach.
"I will be working with Commissioners and staff to ensure that those lessons are put into practice. I am encouraged by the fact that many of the concerns expressed by Dr Casale, her team and the Rigg family have also been voiced in discussions among our own staff and Commissioners, as well as by other external stakeholders.
"Some things have already changed since 2008. As Dr Casale recognises, we now have critical incident management processes in place and we have clarified and strengthened the role that Commissioners play in overseeing investigations.
"We are using both existing and new powers to ensure officers are interviewed expeditiously, and are examining our use of experts, including on mental health and restraint. But there is more to be done and we will use this review to build on progress so far. We will also be looking at how we can feed the recent findings of Lord Adebowale’s independent Commission on mental health into our work.
"The Commission will formally consider the review at its next meeting, in June, after which a detailed action plan, responding to each of the recommendations, will be published.”
Dr Silvia Casale said:
"We found that the IPCC investigation and report concerning the tragic death in custody of Sean Rigg in 2008 should have been more robust, in particular as regards its pursuit of lines of inquiry and critical analysis of the evidence. Our recommendations focus on what can be learnt from that case for future investigations into deaths in custody.
"We welcome in particular the significant changes underway and the developments in the pipeline, in terms of the IPCC's management of cases and methods of investigating and reporting. These improvements will help the IPCC to fulfil its important and complex mandate: to ensure that the UK meets its obligations to protect the right to life and to prevent deaths in custody.”
Marcia Rigg, oldest sister of Sean Rigg, speaking on behalf of the Rigg family said:
"My family sincerely welcomes this unprecedented thorough Review of the IPCC’s original investigation into the death of our beloved Sean, and the true and honest findings and recommendations of the Review.
"We also welcome the IPCC's acceptance of the failures in its investigation, its wholehearted apologies to us for those failures and its promise to take action on the recommendations, including to re-examine any potential police misconduct.
"It is the family's strong opinion that possible criminal offences should also be considered afresh and we will be discussing that soon with the Commissioner now overseeing this case, Mary Cunneen.
"It has been a pleasant surprise for us to see that the IPCC accepts the need to put its house in order for the betterment of all future investigations into deaths in police custody. The Rigg family respectfully insist that all such investigations must be robust, fearless, transparent and properly effective. If the Review's recommendations are fully implemented, this can only improve public confidence in the IPCC, which society does need to fulfil its purpose. But the police and the police federation need to sit up and take notice of this Report – they need to put their houses in order rather than obstructing the IPCC in its statutory role.
"Almost five years after Sean's unnecessary death, my family's pursuit of justice and our dignified determination to arrive at a truly clear picture of what happened to Sean on 21 August 2008, has hopefully contributed to real and positive change into the way the IPCC and all key agencies should fulfil their obligations, by law, into a death in custody so that no other family should ever have to endure the pain, grief and anger we and other families have endured.
"We look forward to seeing the IPCC’s action plan in the coming months and working with Mary Cunneen and Catherine Hall on their review of Sean’s death in the coming weeks and months.
"Finally, my family wish to personally and warmly thank Dr Silvia Casale, James Lewis QC, and Martin Corfe (the Independent Review team) and Dame Anne Owers for listening to our genuine concerns and acting upon the majority of them.”
An act of parliament that provides the core framework of police powers to combat crime and provide codes of practice for the exercise of these powers.
Leads and manages the development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The body that represents the interests of all police constables, sergeants, and inspectors.
Deals with someone’s inability or failure to perform to a satisfactory level, but without breaching the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Focuses on putting an issue right and preventing it from happening again by encouraging those involved to reflect on their actions and learn. It is not a disciplinary process or a disciplinary outcome.
Department within a police force that deals with complaints and conduct matters.
Refers to lower-level misconduct or performance-related issues, which are dealt with in a proportionate and constructive manner.
This means doing what is appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the facts and the context in which the complaint has been raised, within the framework of legislation and guidance.
The average is calculated using the individual results of the forces in that most similar force group.
An investigation carried out by IOPC staff.
Carried out by the police under their own direction and control. The IOPC sets the terms of reference and receives the investigation report when it is complete. Complainants have a right of appeal following a supervised investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
This act sets out how the police complaints system operates.
How a police force is run, for example policing standards or policing policy.
An investigation carried out by the police under the direction and control of the IOPC.
The organisation that is responsible for assessing how to deal with a complaint. For example – whether it can be handled locally or reaches the criteria for referral to the IOPC. The appropriate authority may be the chief officer of the police force or the PCC for the force. If a complaint investigation finds that someone has a case to answer for misconduct, the appropriate authority is responsible for arranging any misconduct proceedings. If you make a complaint, the appropriate authority for your case will contact you.
An intelligence-led agency with law enforcement powers, it is also responsible for reducing the harm that is caused to people and communities by serious organised crime.
Policing bodies include police and crime commissioners, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
Investigations carried out entirely by the police. Complainants have a right of appeal following a local investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
IOPC guidance to the police service and police authorities on the handling of complaints.
A complaint or recordable conduct matter that doesn’t need to be referred to the IOPC, but where the seriousness or circumstances justifies referral.
Parameters within which an investigation is conducted.
A person is adversely affected if he or she suffers any form of loss or damage, distress or inconvenience, if he or she is put in danger or is otherwise unduly put at risk of being adversely affected.
This is where a manager deals with the way someone has behaved. It can include: showing the police officer or member of staff how their behaviour fell short of expectations set out in the Standards of Professional Behaviour; identifying expectations for future conduct; or addressing any underlying causes of misconduct.
This could be the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A breach of standards of professional behaviour by police officers or staff so serious it could justify their dismissal.
A matter where no complaint has been received, but where there is an indication that a person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
Quarter 1 covers 1 April - 30 June
Quarter 2 covers 1 April - 30 September
Quarter 3 covers 1 April - 31 December
Quarter 4 covers the full financial year (1 April - 31 March).
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
Used to house anyone who has been detained.
Complainants have the right to appeal to the IOPC if a police force did not record their complaint or notify the correct police force if it was made originally to the wrong force.
The purpose of an investigation is to establish the facts behind a complaint, conduct matter, or DSI matter and reach conclusions. An investigator looks into matters and produces a report that sets out and analyses the evidence. There are three types of investigations: local, directed and independent.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
A person who makes a complaint about the conduct of someone serving with the police.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
List of officers and staff who have been dismissed from policing, or would have been if they had not retired or resigned.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
An independent judicial officer, the coroner enquires into deaths reported to him/her.
A breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that would justify at least a written warning.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
A record is made of a complaint, giving it formal status as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002.
This is a format where information is written in plain English and short sentences.
The IOPC must be notified about specific types of complaint or incidents to be able to decide how they should be dealt with.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
Casework involves assessing appeals. Casework staff also have a role in overseeing the police complaints system to help ensure police forces handle complaints in the best possible way.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
Conduct includes acts, omissions, statements and decisions (whether actual, alleged or inferred). For example: language used and the manner or tone of communications.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.