NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Operations manual
Referrals V1.0
Completing the Mode of Investigation Minute
Known factors
The known factors section of the form is intended to capture the important
characteristics that a case exhibits at the point it is referred. Some factors
automatically require a particular treatment in terms of MOI. Even where any of
these automatic factors apply, any additional factors identified from the ‘point
factors’ section of the form should still be checked in order to better describe the
characteristics of the case.
Items in the ‘point factors’ list are each given a points weighting, one to three.
The total point score should be compared with the indicative MOI table in order to
determine which level of MOI is suggested by the noted characteristics of the
case. Both the automatic factors and point factors sections of the form are
reproduced below, along with the indicative MOI table.
Casework Manager
Part 1: Determining the MOI – Known Factors
AUTOMATIC FACTORS
Fatal Shooting
Independent Investigation
Article 2 engaged
Independent/External Force Investigation
POINTS
POINT FACTORS
SCORE
3 Points
Torture
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
Corruption
Death in Custody
Firearm Discharged – Conventional
Allegations against ACPO rank officers
Perjury
Terrorism related
Total
2 Points
Assault Using Assigned Equipment or Other (e.g. dog bites)
Cause of Serious Injury Indicates Police Fault/Negligence
Serious Injury from RTI or Assault
Discrimination
Linked With Other Criminal Investigations
Mental Health (e.g. Mental Health Act s135/6)
Allegations against Superintending/Inspector rank officer
Previous Similar Allegations Against Force or Officer
Sexual Assault
Significant disagreement between force and IPCC
Vulnerable complainant
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
01.04.2010
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Operations manual
Referrals V1.0
Total
1 Point
Death Following Police Contact
Distress/Minor Injury From RTA or Assault
Domestic Violence
Excessive Force
Failures in Duty
Involvement of Alcohol or Drugs
Missing Person
Multiple Officers/Multiple Complainants
Stop and Search
Supervising Officer
Total
TOTAL POINT SCORE :
POINTS KEY
INDICATIVE MOI
<6
Local/Supervised
6 to 12
Supervised/Managed
>12
Managed/Independent
It is important to bear in mind that the indicative MOI worked out from a case’s
total points score here is exactly that – indicative. Which MOI is suggested by
the risk assessment will be further refined in the later ‘core risks’ section.
In the end, not all cases that score highly on the known factors section of the
MOI form will attract a higher graded MOI decision. An example might be a
complaint of an incident which happened some 6-12 months ago but sent to us
pursuant to a civil action. Whilst the incident described might attract a high score
a Casework Manager may recommend local investigation given the time that has
passed.
Conversely an incident attracting a low score may have a higher graded MOI
because of previous similar incidents, policy decisions about collecting
information on trends, as part of learning lessons. The score does not determine
the MOI but the Casework Manager should recommend the MOI by explaining
and relating the factors.
The Casework Manager when considering the factors must avoid duplicating
factors and thereby inflating the score. For example if you indicate
discrimination, Mental Health Act or Sexual Assault you don’t need to also
indicate Vulnerable Person, unless there is something significant which highlights
them as particularly vulnerable, perhaps that the alleged victim is under 16 years
old or has learning difficulties. In such cases you should indicate the higher
scoring factor and ignore the lower unless there is something pronounced and
extraordinary which requires highlighting.
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
01.04.2010
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Operations manual
Referrals V1.0
For definitions of what each of the known factors should be taken to mean, refer
to
Definitions of MOI factors
.
The role of evidence
The ‘independent evidence available’ box, reproduced below, should be used to
indicate whether there is any evidence available at the point of referral in order to
independently corroborate the allegations that have been made and referred to
the IPCC. Where independent evidence is available to support the allegations
that have been made, indicate what sort of evidence that is. This should be
completed after, if necessary, the force has been queried as to whether such
evidence is available.
Independent
CCTV
Medical
Other
The case for IPCC involvement in a referred case may be stronger if at that time
independent evidence of some sort is available to corroborate what is alleged.
Core risks
Examining the known factors at the time a case is referred to the IPCC provides
an indicative MOI, two options which lie next to each other in the spectrum of
possible MOI decisions. The core risks section of the MOI form is an analysis of
what could happen in the future with the case that has been referred. The impact
and likelihood of something significant arising in the future will provide an
indication of whether the final result of the risk assessment should be the more or
the less interventionist of those two options.
A core risk is a risk in the environment in which an MOI recommendation is
made. On their own core risks do not determine the MOI, but are taken into
account together with the case’s known factors to inform the decision on the
most appropriate MOI for that case. Its purpose is to identify and assess the
probable impact on an MOI decision of other potential risks and how they may
affect how the case is run, other than factors already known as fact.
The IPCC has a risk assessment framework in place, but risk assessment is not
a precise science - it is based on knowledge and judgement of the case and the
environment at the time. It is therefore important to recognise that it is normal for
a risk assessment to change over time. It may go up (i.e. have a greater impact)
or reduce (have a lesser impact). This will be caused by a number of factors
including new information about the case being received, or merely the passage
of time. For example, we may think initially that the local media will focus on a
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
01.04.2010
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Operations manual
Referrals V1.0
particular case, which does not then actually happen. This may be due to other
news stories which eclipse the current case, or that it just did not feature on the
media radar.
The risk assessment should be carried out using the risk assessment grid on the
MOI form. This is reproduced below.
Part 2 – Determining the MOI
Risk Consideration Grid - Core Risks
CORE RISKS
Impact
Probability
RISK
Red(R)
Particular
Score
Score
SCORE
Amber(A)
Case
(a)
(b)
(a)x(b)
Green(G)
Issues
Media interest
Public
and
community
interest
and concern
MP Interest
Confidence
issues
with the IPCC
Confidence
issues
with the Police
Confidence
issues
with the complaints
system
Force Profile Factor
The first step is to identify the risks the Casework Manager feels are relevant to
the case. The risk assessment grid has already been populated with the most
common risks likely to impact on our MOI decision. There may however be
others and the list on the standard MOI form should be added to as appropriate
to any particular case.
The second step is to make an assessment of each of the risks, including any
risks that have been identified additional to the standard items. For each of the
risks included in the risk consideration grid, the Casework Manager must
determine both the impact and likelihood of each occurring. Impact and
likelihood ratings used by the IPCC are outlined in the tables below. Both use a
sliding scale of 1 to 5, where 1 has the least impact/likelihood of occurring and 5
the greatest. These should be used as a guide to completing the risk
assessment. There are no right or wrong answers – results here are the
Casework Manager’s assessment at the time.
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
01.04.2010
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Operations manual
Referrals V1.0
Impact
Score
Definition
Extreme
5
Critical impact on how case is run. Could
seriously affect national IPCC reputation and
confidence in complaints system
Major
4
Major impact on how case is run. Could result in
local confidence issues and seriously affect
local/regional office reputation
Moderate
3
Significant impact on how case is run
Minor
2
Minor impact on how case is run
Insignificant
1
Minimal or no impact on case
Likelihood
Score
Criteria
Almost Certain
5
>80%
Almost certain to occur
Likely
4
51-80% More likely to occur than not
As Likely As Not
3
21-50% Fairly likely to occur
Unlikely
2
6-20%
Unlikely, but not impossible to occur
Rare
1
0-5%
Extremely unlikely to occur
Once the relevant impact and likelihood ratings have been decided, multiply
these together to arrive at a risk score:
RISK SCORE = Impact score x Likelihood score
These risk scores should then be compared to the IPCC’s risk matrix, in the table
below, to give each risk a RAG (red/amber/green) rating. The ‘Particular case
issues’ column should be used to give a brief rationale for how the risk relates to
the case being risk assessed.
Extreme
5
5
10
15
20
25
s
s
t
c
Major
4
4
8
12
16
20
e
a
i
n
p
Moderate
3
3
6
9
12
15
s
u
I
m
Minor
2
2
4
6
8
10
B
Insignificant
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
A score of 1 to 4 is a
l
y
l
y
t
t
green risk, a score of
e
s
i
n
r
e
e
o
l
y
o
5 to 10 is an amber
a
e
l
i
k
n
r
t
a
R
n
l
i
k
i
k
s
s
L
l
m
e
risk, a score of 12 to
U
a
A
A
c
25 is a red risk.
Likelihood
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
01.04.2010
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Operations manual
Referrals V1.0
Finally, the RAG ratings of the assessed risks should be used to inform whether
the greater or lesser of the two MOI options indicated earlier (based on known
risks) should be recommended. For example, the known factors of a case
result in a point score of 5. This gives an indicative MOI of Local/Supervised.
Risk assessment puts all of the Core risks at green, hence the final MOI
recommendation is likely to be Local - there are no other factors expected at this
point which support a higher MOI decision.
Conversely, the assessment of core risks may have brought up three amber risks
for media interest, community interest and confidence issues with the police
force. The final MOI recommendation is likely to be higher - supervised. At the
extreme this relatively low score on the basis of known factors might be followed
by a series of red rated risks. In this case not only is supervision likely to be the
suitable mode, management of the case might also be considered.
Part 3: Intelligence
This section of the form is intended to act as a reminder to Casework Manager’s
to input known details of the police officer/staff subject of complaint. It is
important that this data is captured as completely as possible. If details of the
incident location are provided it is the responsibility of the Casework Manager to
ensure they are captured within the CTMS record.
Part 4: Casework Manager’s assessment and recommendation
In addition to completing the known risks and core risk sections, the Casework
Manager should provide a narrative in this section of the MOI form. An effective
narrative requires three elements – background details, a risk assessment, and
finally an MOI recommendation.
• Background
The Casework Manager should précis the known facts of the incident such that
someone previously unfamiliar with the circumstances could understand the
nature and significance of what has been referred.
• Assessment
The Casework Manager should describe, and as necessary expand upon, the
factors that they have taken into consideration in order to make their risk
assessment of the referral. This section should also include the Casework
Manager’s assessment of any possible engagement of Article 2 or Article 3 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.
• i) Article 2 engagement
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
01.04.2010
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Operations manual
Referrals V1.0
The Casework Manager should explain if, from the evidence available at the time
of assessment, there is a potential that police may bear responsibility for the
death of, or life threatening injuries to, an individual.
If Casework Managers are unsure, they should seek advice from a member of
the Legal Team.
• ii) Article 3 engagement
The Casework Manager should answer if the referral includes any credible
allegation that an individual has suffered torture or inhuman or degrading
treatment as a result of the actions or inaction of police.
If it is considered that there is a credible allegation that Article 3 may have been
breached, the Casework Manager should provide an assessment of i) the
seriousness of the allegation, and ii) any evidence of justification for the action
alleged to have breached the individuals Article 3 rights.
The Casework Manager should also indicate, by way of the Yes and No tick
boxes provided, if it appears criminal proceedings would be available.
If Casework Managers are unsure, they should seek advice from a member of
the Legal Team.
• Recommendation
The Casework Manager should make a clear recommendation as to the mode of
investigation that is required. The distinction between referral back to force and
local investigation should be kept in mind, and whether for a supervised or
managed investigation it is appropriate to engage an external force to conduct
the enquiry. If the final MOI recommendation is at variance with the MOI
suggested by the analysis undertaken of known factors and core risks, this
should be explained in full.
The MOI recommendation will then be passed to either:
Head of Casework: if the recommendation is to refer back to appropriate
authority, local or supervised.
Local Senior Investigator: if there is a request for a Scene Assessment, or
the recommendation is for a managed or independent investigation.
Part 5: Scene Assessment
The IPCC Investigator conducting the Scene Assessment is required to provide a
summary of their findings and their MOI recommendation in this section. The
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
01.04.2010
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Operations manual
Referrals V1.0
recommendation should then be sent to the Director of Investigations and copied
to the Casework Manager allocated to the referral.
Part 6: Director of Investigations recommendation
There are three principal considerations for the Director of Investigations or his
deputy when considering the case and completing the MOI form:
whether resources are available or can be made available to meet the
recommended MOI
a continuation of the risk assessment process begun by the Casework
Manager, and;
consideration of whether Article 2 or Article 3 of the European Convention
on Human Rights applies to the circumstances that have been referred.
• Resources
If the IPCC is to take on direct involvement in the investigation of a complaint,
conduct or DSI matter there is a need to find resources internally in order to take
on that work. This needs to be factored in to the final decision as to which MOI is
adopted.
• Risk assessment
The Director of Investigations should consider the risk assessment that has been
applied by the Casework Manager and, if appropriate, endorse it. If the Director
of Investigations takes a different view on any point of the assessment, in
particular the recommended MOI, this should be made clear and the reasons for
it explained. Particular attention should be paid to the core risks section, given
that the Director of Investigations may have a different perspective on the issues
regularly touched upon there.
• Article 2
Any case where Article 2 may be engaged should be referred to the Directorate
of Legal Services for advice by the Director of Investigations. Reference may
have already been made to Article 2 implications in the Casework Manager’s
assessment. The Director of Investigations should directly consider this question
and refer to Legal for advice as necessary. A decision at this stage not to refer to
Legal for advice should be justified here.
• Article 3
When the IPCC receives a referral which contains a credible allegation that there
has been a breach of an individual’s Article 3 rights, it will determine the mode of
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
01.04.2010
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Operations manual
Referrals V1.0
investigation by reference to the severity of the allegation and evidence of
justification for the action alleged to have breached the individual’s Article 3
rights. In making its determination it will additionally take into account whether
any alternative remedies may be available to the person subject to the alleged
conduct. In cases containing a credible allegation that there has been a breach
of Article 3, an independent scene assessment may assist and inform the MOI
decision.
Reference should have already been made to Article 3 implications in the
Casework Manager’s assessment. The Director of Investigations should directly
consider this question. The Director of Investigations must also consider whether
legal advice would assist in determining Article 3 engagement and record any
reason for not seeking legal advice.
• Recommendation
It is important to record one of the four distinct modes of investigation or that the
case should be referred back to the force. If an external force investigation is to
be pursued this should also be stated here.
Recording a rationale for the decision is at least as important as recording the
decision itself. The Director of Investigations when completing their section of
the MOI form should record the reasons for their decision. The prior
recommendations of Casework Manager should be endorsed if relevant, or if the
Director of Investigations decision is different to the preceding recommendations
that discrepancy should be explained. In cases where legal advice has been
sought as a part of the process leading to the MOI decision, a decision not to
follow that advice in whole or in part should be made clear and the reasoning
explained.
Part 7: Legal Team advice on DSI matters
If legal advice is required in order to make the MOI decision, the MOI form
including comments from both the Casework Manager and appropriate decision
maker should be forwarded to the DLS. Legal advice should be given on the
MOI form. If legal advice is provided in a different format it should be transferred
to the MOI form as soon as possible.
Part 8: Head of Casework grid for Local and Supervised cases
The Head of Casework is required to complete this section in order to indicate if
Commissioner consultation is required on the referral.
Part 8 HOC Risk Grid for Local and Supervised cases
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
01.04.2010
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Operations manual
Referrals V1.0
CORE RISKS
Present(Y/N)
If ‘yes’ consult
Comments
with
commissioner
Especially
Vulnerable
complainant
Voluntary
referrals
Significant media
interest
Specific
community
concerns
DSI after contact
where Art 2 is
not engaged
Issues on which
the Commission,
or the particular
Commissioner,
had identified a
concern
and
asked
to
be
engaged
Part 9: Head of Casework Decision
Please refer to Part 6. The Head of Casework is obliged to make the same
considerations as the Director of Investigations in the relevant section of the MOI
form.
Part 10: Mode of investigation decision
This section should be completed by the relevant decision maker, they should
provide their decision on the mode of investigation, and provide a clear rationale
for that conclusion.
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
01.04.2010
