You are on page 1of 4

IPCC Assessment of Investigation Appeal DETAILS OF APPEAL IPCC Reference: Name of complainant: Name of solicitor / agent (if any): Name

of force: Date of complaint: Date of force decision: Date force decision sent to complainant: Date appeal received: Date of IPCC decision: Casework Manager: 2012/015192 Mr Kashif Ahmed n/a West Yorkshire Police 20 August 2012 19 April 2013 19 April 2013 19 April 2013 5 February 2014 Sarah Turner

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL 1. The complaint: Mr Ahmed made a complaint that Deputy Chief Constable John Parkinson lied in an interview to a BBC reporter and specifically: A number of serving police officers have provided statements which confirm racist behaviour towards Mr Ahmed so it was inaccurate of Mr Parkinson to say that he found no evidence to support his allegations. DCC Parkinson stated that he or the force has asked Mr Ahmed continually to provide evidence and that Mr Ahmed had repeatedly refused. This is completely false.

2. The appeal (grounds given for the appeal): a) Mr Ahmed states in his appeal that it took some 8 months to investigate this complaint. During that process no officer contacted him to speak to him or to take a witness statement. Mr Ahmed asks how can any investigation be conducted fairly, transparently or at all when the investigator does not contact the complainant or victim to ascertain details of the complaint and to seek any form of clarification. b) It is well known that the PCC is friends with ACC John Parkinson and 1

therefore not an impartial individual. Mr Ahmed has no confidence in him.

APPEAL ASSESSMENT 1. Are the findings of the appropriate authority appropriate/ proportionate to the complaint? investigation

It has not been demonstrated by the PCC that all appropriate lines of enquiry have been followed. At the minimum I would have expected to see a written account from Deputy Chief Constable Parkinson in response to Mr Ahmed’s allegations. Therefore the investigation is not proportionate and further investigation is directed. Mr Ahmed’s complaints are in respect of answers made by DCC Parkinson in response to questions during a BBC4 radio interview. As part of this assessment I have read a transcript of the radio programme. Following the complaint Chief Constable Sim was asked to provide an advisory report and provided various options available to the PCC. It is clear from the Decision letter of the PCC that they chose not to substantiate the complaints, but I am not satisfied that the PCC followed up the advice of CC Sim by questioning the DCC on the points raised within the report. There is therefore no rationale or reasoning for the decisions demonstrated within the decision letter. I have contacted the Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner to ascertain if an account was provided by DCC Parkinson in response to the allegation and in an email the office have confirmed he has not. Mr Ahmed’s complaint was discussed at a meeting between DCC Parkinson and the Police and Crime Commissioner on 18 April 2013 and it has been confirmed there is no formal note on file, however, the Chief Executive Fraser Sampson was present at the meeting and made a handwritten note. The office of the PCC have offered to formally type this note, though I do not consider that a note (handwritten or typed) taken at a meeting is sufficient, particularly in the circumstances. Given the complaint concerns the discussion of Mr Ahmed’s case on a national Radio programme, it would be appropriate for DCC Parkinson to provide a formal written response to these complaints in order that it can be investigated in a meaningful way. I uphold this appeal and direct that the PCC should re-investigate this complaint and ensure that a written response to the complaint is provided by DCC Parkinson. A further right of appeal should be provided to Mr Ahmed at the conclusion of this investigation. In his appeal (a) Mr Ahmed states that he was not contacted as part of the investigation. I consider that Mr Ahmed made a full and detailed complaint on 20 August 2013 and I consider it to be a clear account and therefore not necessary or proportionate for him to be contacted to clarify his complaint


further. In his appeal b) Mr Ahmed alleges that the PCC is friends with DCC Parkinson. Mr Ahmed has provided no evidence of the assertion that the PCC and DCC Parkinson are friends and whilst it is acknowledge that they will know each other in a professional capacity, I do not give any weight to Mr Ahmed’s appeal point. APPEAL UPHELD For the reasons given above, I consider that the findings of the police complaint investigation are not appropriate and the complaints should be reinvestigated. This aspect of the appeal is upheld. 2. Is the decision that the appropriate authority has made about whether an officer has a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct, or if any person’s performance is unsatisfactory, appropriate? Yes; given that the PCC did not substantiate the complaint, the decision that DCC Parkinson does not have a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct is appropriate. The PCC shall reconsider this in their reinvestigation. The appeal is not upheld in relation to this point at this stage. 3. Are the appropriate authority’s proposed actions following the investigation adequate? Given that the complaints were not substantiated, it is correct that no further action was recommended by the PCC. This point will be further addressed once the re-investigation has taken place. The appeal is not upheld in relation to this point. 4. Has the investigation been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)? If not, is this decision appropriate? The report has not been referred to the CPS. I consider this decision to be appropriate as the report and the underlying evidence does not indicate that a criminal offence may have been committed. 5. Has adequate information been provided to the complainant following the investigation of their complaint? No; I do not consider that the PCC has provided information for Mr Ahmed to understand the reasoning for the decision made. Following the re-


investigation, Mr Ahmed should be given a full rationale for the decisions made to enable him to understand how the conclusion has been arrived at. This aspect of the appeal is upheld. 6. Did the complainant raise any points in their appeal which were outside the remit of the IPCC? No. After considering all the information available I have now made a decision about your appeal. I have upheld your appeal in respect of suitable findings and adequate information.

On the basis of this assessment I have decided to uphold the appeal.

ACTIONS REQUIRED OF THE CHIEF OFFICER / LOCAL POLICING BODY FOR INSUFFICIENT INVESTIGATION The Investigating Officer is required to do the following: DCC Parkinson shall be required to provide a written response to the complaint of Mr Ahmed namely that “A number of serving police officers have provided statements which confirm racist behaviour towards me, so it was inaccurate of Mr Parkinson to say that he found no evidence to support my allegations.” A re-investigation of said complaint shall be conducted taking into account the information already assessed as part of the original investigation and additionally the written account of DCC Parkinson. Thereafter Mr Ahmed shall be given an outcome and a further right of appeal.