Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) 'significant volume of work' - claims of delays of between 12 and 17 weeks or more. Martin McGartland request.

Martin McGartland made this Freedom of Information request to Independent Office for Police Conduct This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was partially successful.

Martin McGartland

Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,

I appealed to the IPCC on 28 February 2012 concerning the way in which Northumbria Police dealt with (or failed to deal with) complaints I made against their officers.
On 29 February 2012 the IPCC wrote to me and stated;

“We are currently experiencing a significant volume of work and therefore it may take up to 12 weeks for your appeal to be allocated to a casework manager. The IPCC would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.”

I wrote to the IPCC on 8 May 2012 to ask them for an update on my appeal. The IPCC replied on 9 May 2012 and stated;
“We are currently experiencing a significant volume of work and therefore it may take up to a further 6 weeks for your appeal to be allocated to a casework manager.”

I am requesting the following information under the Freedom of Information Act. Please supply me with all recorded information you hold concerning following;

1. Please supply a full explanation as to why it is taking the IPCC up to 17 weeks just to allocate appeal/s to a caseworker?

2. How many other appeals, since beginning of 2012, have been delayed by 12 weeks or more before being allocated to a caseworker?

3. How many other appeals, since beginning of 2012, have been delayed for up to or over 17 weeks before being allocated to a caseworker?

4. Please supply me with copies of IPCC’s policy documents relating to on time limit/s for dealing with appeals.

5. By law, are the IPCC not required to deal with appeals within a certain time limit? If so, please supply full details as well as copies of any documents that deal with IPCC time limits when dealing with appeals etc.

6. What have IPCC management done, to date, concerning the 'significant volume of work' and the 12 to 17 week (or more) delays in dealing with such appeals?

7. Regards 6 above, please supply details of all meetings held by IPCC management (during past 6 months), and up until the date this request is answered, that relate to delays in dealing with appeals etc.

8. regards 6 and 7 above, please also supply minutes of all meetings and also internal memos, emails and correspondence between management and other senior officers concerning the above matters and the delays.

Please ensure that this request is dealt with within 20 working days.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

David Knight,

Dear Mr McGartland

Re: Your Request for Information

Thank you for your email of 9 May, regarding your request for information. Our responses to your questions are set out below:

1. Please supply a full explanation as to why it is taking the IPCC
up to 17 weeks just to allocate appeal/s to a caseworker?

Please see pages 28 and 29 of our Corporate Plan,
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/corp_rep....

2. How many other appeals, since beginning of 2012, have been
delayed by 12 weeks or more before being allocated to a caseworker?

Of the 2,195 appeals completed between 1 January 2012 and 31 May 2012, 669 had been open for more than 12 weeks before a casework manager began work on them.

3. How many other appeals, since beginning of 2012, have been
delayed for up to or over 17 weeks before being allocated to a
caseworker?

Of the 2,195 appeals completed between 1 January 2012 and 31 May 2012, 200 had been open for more than 17 weeks before a casework manager began work on them.

4. Please supply me with copies of IPCC's policy documents relating
to on time limit/s for dealing with appeals.

Our targets are stated, and reported upon, in our corporate plan (see above).

5. By law, are the IPCC not required to deal with appeals within a
certain time limit? If so, please supply full details as well as
copies of any documents that deal with IPCC time limits when
dealing with appeals etc.

The law does not stipulate time limits for the IPCC in dealing with appeals.

6. What have IPCC management done, to date, concerning the
'significant volume of work' and the 12 to 17 week (or more) delays
in dealing with such appeals?

7. Regards 6 above, please supply details of all meetings held by
IPCC management (during past 6 months), and up until the date this
request is answered, that relate to delays in dealing with appeals
etc.

8. regards 6 and 7 above, please also supply minutes of all
meetings and also internal memos, emails and correspondence between
management and other senior officers concerning the above matters
and the delays.

In response to points 6, 7 and 8: The Chief Executive reports on performance and resourcing matters to the Commission at each meeting. Commission meeting minutes and the documents considered by the Commission are published on our website. The most recent ones are here: http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/commissi...

Items 8 and 9 are particularly relevant to your enquiry.

If you are not satisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review by our FOI appeals officer, who has had no involvement in dealing with your request. If you wish to complain about any aspect of this decision, please contact:

Amanda Kelly
Director of Business Services
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH

All emails requesting a review should be sent directly to: [email address]

Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner; however, I should point out that under section 50(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act, you are normally obliged to exhaust the IPCC's own internal complaint mechanism before complaining to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely

David Knight
Director Casework and Customer Services
Independent Police Complaints Commission

show quoted sections

Martin McGartland (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Note to Readers:

IOPC is on life support...... the Corrupt IOPC/IPCC is in the News AGAIN:

Wrexham MP Ian Lucas accuses IOPC/IPCC of being involved in a 'systematic cover up' concerning the case of Nicholas Churton who was murdered at his home in 2017 by Jordan Davidson, who had previous convictions and was out on licence. Mr Lucas said; "There's been a systematic cover up involving North Wales Police, the probation service, the Community Rehabilitation Company, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office of Police Conduct." REad the news reports in full, here (by clicking on page links below):

Police misled me over Nicholas Churton murder, says MP; https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politi...

MP claims ‘systematic cover-up’ involving North Wales Police, probation service, CRC, IPCC and IOPC over Nicolas Churton murder : http://www.wrexham.com/news/mp-claims-sy...

IN Full - News Reports:

MP claims ‘systematic cover-up’ involving North Wales Police, probation service, CRC, IPCC and IOPC over Nicolas Churton murder

Published: Friday, Apr 12th, 2019

Wrexham’s MP has spoken in Parliament about ‘grave errors’ made before the brutal murder of a Wrexham resident – while heavily criticising subsequent attempts by the authorities to establish what went wrong.

Ian Lucas led an adjournment debate in the main Commons chamber yesterday on ‘police complaints, accountability and the case of Nicholas Churton’.

Mr Churton was murdered in his Wrexham home in March 2017 by a dangerous offender, Jordan Davidson, who was on licence from prison at the time. Davidson had been arrested and taken into custody four days before the murder for possession of a knife, only to be released rather than being sent back to prison. Mr Lucas read out an account of a second threat to life in Wrexham town centre when Davidson pulled a machete on a man trying to intervene on a robbery in the period after he had murdered Mr Churton.

Mr Lucas has spent two years trying to find out why Davidson was freed to murder Mr Churton, and commit a series of other serious offences, but says several key questions remain unanswered.

In yesterday’s speech he praised the ‘commendable bravery’ of the officers who arrested Davidson. However, he was heavily critical of North Wales Police, the probation service and the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) over their failure to give him answers in relation to the case.

Speaking in the Chamber, Mr Lucas said: “Davidson is responsible for this horrific crime and for other attacks for which he is now serving a 30-year prison sentence. However, the events leading to those crimes revealed grave errors by the police and by the probation services in Wrexham and North Wales.”

Mr Lucas added: “I have secured knowledge of the detail of those errors only with the assistance of Jez Hemming of the Daily Post newspaper in north Wales. For the bulk of this case, I have secured no co-operation whatever from North Wales police.

“Indeed, I now believe that I, along with the public, was misled deliberately about the facts of the case to conceal those errors, and that there has been a systematic cover-up involving North Wales police, the probation service, the community rehabilitation company, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office for Police Conduct.”

Davidson was known to Mr Churton and had approached him in the days before the murder.

An IOPC investigation into Mr Churton’s contact with the police was launched in the days following his death – yet Mr Lucas was not informed of this important development. It is IOPC protocol for local MPs to be told.

Mr Lucas contacted North Wales Police later that year after learning of Davidson’s arrest and release for possession of an offensive weapon, days before the murder. But the then Chief Constable, Mark Polin, said he could not comment because the IOPC was investigating ‘all contact’ the police had with Davidson prior to Mr Churton’s death. Mr Lucas says this was, in fact, not true as the IOPC was only investigating police contact with Mr Churton, not the contact with Davidson.

Following pressure from Mr Lucas, a second IOPC investigation was opened – this time focusing on police contact with Davidson – but it only began in April 2018, more than a year on from the crime. The first IOPC investigation has finished, resulting in misconduct cases for two officers, but the second inquiry is ongoing.

Mr Lucas this week wrote to North Wales Police & Crime Commissioner Arfon Jones to ask him to look into the statements made to him by Mr Polin, who has since left the force.

Mr Lucas posed several questions in the House of Commons yesterday to the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd):
– Why did North Wales police and the IPCC fail to tell me of a police conduct inquiry involving a murder and additional serious assaults in the middle of my constituency?
– Secondly, who decided to exclude the police decision to release Davidson on bail after his arrest for possession of an offensive weapon from the terms of reference of the IPCC inquiry, and why was that done?
– Thirdly, why did the then chief constable of North Wales, Mark Polin, tell me that there was an inquiry into Davidson’s release when there was not?
– Fourthly, was the North Wales police and crime commissioner notified of the inquiry by the IPCC in 2017, and of its terms of reference? Is there an obligation to notify PCCs of such inquiries? If a notification was made in this case, when was it made?
-Fifthly, was the family of Nicholas Churton notified of the inquiry, and the fact of the release of Davidson four days before his murder?
– Sixthly, why did the probation service and the CRC fail to highlight the fact that the release of Davidson was not included in the IPCC inquiry? Should they have done so?

Mr Lucas added: “It is now over two years since Nicholas Churton was brutally murdered. We need an independent investigation into how this happened. I have no confidence in the various bodies and organisations that I have referred to because none of them and none of the systems worked to reveal the errors in this case, which had catastrophic consequences. What we need above all is some transparency ​and honesty from the organisations involved. The family of Nicholas Churton, with whom I have been working, deserve that honesty.”

The Minister replied, “I know the hon. Gentleman to be a man of common sense and experience in this place. When I hear him articulate his feeling that he has been personally misled and talk about a systematic cover-up, I know that he will not be using that language lightly. I take that seriously and congratulate him on his persistence and his campaign on this.”

“I heard clearly the hon. Gentleman’s frustration about his engagement with the police and the system and the degree to which he feels misled—a powerful word in this context. I understand that he has been in correspondence with and met senior members of North Wales police to discuss its organisational learning, its response to date and intended actions. If he feels that contact has not been substantive or that there are issues that continue to need to be addressed, he and I should discuss that. I can certainly help him to make that point directly to North Wales police’s leadership.”

Mr Lucas noted “It is fair to say that North Wales police now has a new chief constable and that this case relates to the previous regime, so to speak” with the Minister replying “…under new leadership, the engagement with the ​hon. Gentleman is more forthcoming, and I welcome that.”

After a lengthy reply (here) from the Minister Mr Lucas said, “My key concern is that Davidson’s release from custody was not made subject to IPCC investigation by North Wales police or by the IPCC, and no one outside the force knew of that fact. It was only when I highlighted it that the investigation commenced. My concern is that the systems are still not in place to make sure it cannot happen again.”

The Minister said: “I understand that message very clearly, and it will be heard by the IOPC. I undertake to make sure that the IOPC has absorbed the message. My understanding is that the first investigation looked at the police’s dealings and contact with Nicholas Churton and the second is looking specifically at their contact and dealings with Jordan Davidson, but the hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. Through the mechanism of this debate and the follow-up, I undertake to make sure that the message is clearly understood by the IOPC as it finalises its work for publication, hopefully this summer.”

Speaking outside the chamber, Mr Lucas said: “This case raises serious concerns about the criminal justice system and the safety of my constituents. It is why I have been so determined to find out what went wrong, yet I have been met with a great many obstacles which have been a cause of huge concern to me. The family of Mr Churton also deserve answers but, sadly, we are still waiting more than two years on from this terrible crime.”

Top picture: Ian Lucas MP speaking yesterday during the adjournment debate.

Police misled me over Nicholas Churton murder, says MP

11 April 2019

Wrexham MP Ian Lucas has said he was "misled deliberately" by police over a murder case.

Nicholas Churton was killed with a machete and hammer at his home in 2017 by Jordan Davidson, who had previous convictions and was out on licence.

Mr Lucas said he asked police why he was released from police custody four days before the murder and was wrongly told this was subject to an inquiry.

A minister told MPs there was "clear evidence of failure" over the case.

Davidson, from Wrexham, is serving a life sentence with a minimum of 30 years.

Killer 'should have been in prison'
Police 'made errors' before man's murder
Frustration over murder investigations
Despite his long list of previous convictions he was bailed after being arrested for possession of a knife days before killing 67-year-old disabled man Mr Churton in his Wrexham flat.

Mr Lucas told the Commons on Thursday "events leading to those crimes, revealed grave errors by the police and by the probation services in Wrexham and north Wales".

"There was no inquiry into the circumstances of Davidson's release from custody," he said.

"In fact, the IOPC [Independent Office for Police Conduct], following my questioning and my enquiries, commenced an inquiry into this release in April 2018, an inquiry which still has yet to conclude."

He said: "There's been a systematic cover up involving North Wales Police, the probation service, the Community Rehabilitation Company, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office of Police Conduct."

In response, Home Office Minister Nick Hurd said there was "clear evidence of failure" over the handling of the case.

Martin McGartland (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

IOPC / IPCC Covering up for (and protecting) the police in the Martin McGartland case....

Private Eye(Issue no 1500)12 July – 25 July 2019

Police Conduct

Summary injustice

So much for openness and transparency at the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). It has been accused of a cover-up after seeking to impose an extraordinary non-disclosure agreement before a complainant could read even a summary of the investigation report into allegations he had made of police wrongdoing.

Martin McGartland has also been told he cannot keep a copy of the report, can only view it under supervision, and must hand over his mobile or any recording device before seeing it. Further, if he wants to get legal advice, his lawyers will have to sign a separate
secrecy order with the IOPC.

McGartland, as regular Eye readers will recall, is no ordinary complainant. The former undercover agent was shot at close range by the IRA in 1999 in Tyneside, where he was living under a false identity, after his cover was blown by Northumbria Police. Adding insult to life-changing injury, the force’s initial press briefing wrongly suggested the shooting was linked to the criminal underworld. McGartland has been involved in some kind of litigation or complaint process ever since – against both police and, subsequently, his former MI5 and Special branch handlers when they stopped funding his medical and psychiatric treatment. (eyes passim)

Having safely moved to another area, McGartland and his partner were terrified that they were facing another IRA revenge attack when they let their dog out late one night
only to be seized by balaclava-wearing men in black.

His partner’s screams drew neighbours into the street; and the “raiders” turned out to be police officers arresting the couple on suspicion of drug dealing and money laundering. Their house was turned upside down and their computers, phones and documents confiscated for forensic examination. Held for nearly 24hours, they were finally released on bail. It was several months before the couple had their possessions returned and were told there would be no further action.

It transpired that a family who had rented a house McGartland had bought with his criminal injuries compensation money as a holiday and rental property
- which he says both Special Branch and MI5 knew about - had indeed been involved in drug dealing. But, as McGartland says, it would have been easy for the police to see from correspondence and the couple’s bank records that their only recent contact with the family had been to chase up unpaid rent.

The couple launched a series of complaints against the police. These included unlawful arrest; failing to immediately identify themselves as police officers; using excessive force(McGartland’s partner suffered trauma and severe bruising to her arms and wrist); using balaclavas when dealing with a known traumatised IRA victim; obtaining a search warrant without telling the magistrate who the couple really were and that they were involved in ongoing litigation against MI5 and the Home office; and confiscating legally privileged information.

Initially the force cleared itself of blame. The couple’s appeal to the then Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was upheld, and was then taken over by the IOPC. It has apparently produced a detailed 300-page report, but is only prepared to offer McGartland and his partner a summary to view. All McGartland has been told is that just three of his complaints have been upheld: excessive force used against his partner; failure to properly handle an “exhibit” taken from their home; and wearing balaclavas.

The couple have no idea why the bulk of their complaints have been dismissed, and are even more mystified why, in the interest of open justice and their rights to a full and fair investigation, McGartland cannot know the full reasons. So the Eye asked the IOPC. It said it would be “inappropriate” to comment on the specific case. However, a statement said that while its general position is to provide complainants with as much information as possible, “for reasons, including concerns about the welfare and safety of individuals, it’s not always possible to share all of the evidence gathered in an investigation”.

It went on: “In these circumstances we may make arrangements with a view to mitigating risks to enable the disclosure of as much information as possible. Such arrangements might include the redaction of material, the preparation of a summary, inspection and in certain circumstances, confidentiality agreements”.

A recent appeal Court ruling in an unrelated case said that “the presumption of openness applies in favour of disclosure… and any non-disclosure must be necessary because there is a real risk of the disclosure causing a significant adverse effect”.

As a leading QC told the Eye: “If the IOPC believe they have a sound legal justification for this decision they should explain it publicly and defend it rather than seek to impose what are frankly unenforceable obligations of secrecy on the complainant”.

It looks like Martin McGartland is heading back to the courts once again.

This Private Eye story can be found at the following page link: https://www.scribd.com/document/41645328...