Guest Post: The IPCA are awesome part 2
A guest post by Lucy Rogers:
The reaction to my last Kiwiblog post on the IPCA seems to have been generally positive, which is nice. There were a couple of recurring themes in the comments, however, which need clarification.
The IPCA investigate a low proportion of complaints and this foments distrust
I am well aware that the low numbers of complaints which are in fact investigated by the IPCA cause distrust amongst members of the public as the IPCA are perceived to be sweeping stuff under the rug and selectively ignoring meritorious complaints. In fact, in the comments section of my previous post on the IPCA someone whose complaint was not investigated said more or less precisely this.
The reason that the IPCA investigates a low proportion of complaints is that it is understaffed
In fact, the IPCA is underfunded and understaffed. 98% of complaints are not investigated by the IPCA, although about 30% are referred back to the Police for investigation. This is despite the fact that, as Warren Young mentioned to me once, workloads of IPCA investigators are very high. In other words, politicians have over-described the IPCA’s role while under-providing funding, even grossly so. The IPCA then takes the blame for this and is accused of whakapōhēhē (dishonesty). But the problem is with politicians, not the IPCA. Blame David Lange.
This is a common story
I add in passing that as a (junior!) criminal defence lawyer myself I can relate to this. I know of a case (albeit not one I personally worked on) where the media reported that the Judge appeared to impose a shockingly low sentence where the real story was not judicial softness but the fact that the Crown had inadequate funding to obtain a certain report. But people didn’t suspect a deeper explanation because of a preconceived narrative.
How my case came to be investigated
How my case out of goodness knows how many complaints that year came to be investigated by the IPCA I do not know. But I suspect that four factors may have been involved:
- The Free Speech Union laid a complaint on my behalf.
- My case received media attention.
- The IPCA identified legal issues raised by my case which were connected with other protest-related cases like the Albert Park case and wanted to explore this.
- I had very strong evidence to support my case. As the police have discovered, it is difficult to argue with video footage (although having said that, video footage doesn’t seem to have been an obstruction to writing falsehoods about me in the press release).
The IPCA only investigates the rare case
Without these factors I suspect my case might not have been chosen from the pool (although I do not know). In other words, I suspect it is only the exceptional case with particularly egregious police misconduct or which poses legal policy issues (or some combination thereof) which the IPCA is likely to investigate. That is emphatically not their fault. It does not mean that they go drinking every Friday night with their mate Officer Q. It’s a question of government funding.
This is speculation
Of course, this is speculation on my part. I’m neither a police officer nor an IPCA staff member: I’m a self-described pleb with opinions and a pen. I do not want to deter people from seeking recourse with the IPCA if a police officer misbehaves. It could be that given the sheer volume of complaints that the IPCA receives that the 2% of complaints that it investigates amount to more than just cases fitting the criteria above. But I am making educated guesses.
There is more yet to say (in particular about the recent report, which has been interpreted as whitewashing police actions and/or an attempt to curtail freedom of expression) but I think it more suited to a further blog post than attempting to do the subject justice at the tail end of this one.