(PCO0072)

Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (PCO072)

 

IOPC response to the Evidence of Fiona Laskaris (PCO0017)

 

  1. The IOPC is grateful for the opportunity to respond to the criticisms raised by Mrs Laskaris of our handling of her case.  We offer our sincere condolences to Mrs Laskaris on the loss of her son. We recognise the challenges Mrs Laskaris has faced in obtaining all of the answers she seeks to her questions about the circumstances surrounding her son’s death.
  2. The circumstances of Christopher’s death, the nature of his contact with police, responsibilities which sit with different agencies, limitations on what can investigated under the Police Reform Act 2002 and on what information can be shared with complainants have made this a complicated matter for all involved. We have sought to provide Mrs Laskaris with as many answers to her questions as possible, within the limits on our role.

 

  1. The police complaints process in relation to these matters is concluded, and both the IOPC and West Yorkshire Police are bound by the determinations that have been made. Notwithstanding this, we have offered to facilitate restorative practice between Mrs Laskaris, West Yorkshire Police and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to ensure her views are heard and try to provide her with some closure. We have also offered to engage with Mrs Laskaris regarding the treatment of people with autism by the police.

 

  1. Mrs Laskaris has made a number of comments regarding her experience of the police complaints system which I will try to address below.

Should this have been a Death or Serious Injury referral?

  1. Mrs Laskaris has raised concerns to the Committee that the murder of her son, Christopher, on 4 November 2016, should have been referred to the IPCC as a death or serious injury matter by West Yorkshire Police because of the police contact with him on the 8 October, in which police damaged his door in order to force entry into his property.

 

  1. When a DSI referral should be made to the IPCC/IOPC is set out in the Police Reform Act 2002.[1] The test is applied by the force and in this case West Yorkshire Police (WYP) considered the incident did not meet the criteria.

 

  1. In addition to the complaints made by Mrs Laskaris in October 2017, which are discussed below, Mrs Laskaris made complaints between July 2018 and January 2019 about further concerns relating to the actions of West Yorkshire Police. One of the complaints was regarding the failure to refer Christopher’s death to the IPCC as a death or serious injury matter. This was considered on appeal by the IOPC. Following consideration of the circumstances, the Casework Manager came to the view that the decision not to refer Christopher’s death as a death or serious injury matter was the correct one. As a consequence, Mrs Laskaris complaint on this issue was not upheld.

 

  1. During the course of the inquest into the death of Christopher Laskaris, Area Coroner Jonathan David Leach determined that he was not satisfied that Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged owing to any action or inaction on behalf of West Yorkshire Police. It was his view, following representations made by interested parties, that WYP had discharged their duty in leaving the property secure on 8 October.

 

Complaint referral and decision:

  1. Complaints were received from Mrs Laskaris on 31 October 2017. These complaints were referred to the IPCC on 1 November 2017. As is required by the legislation, the IPCC had to determine whether it was necessary to investigate Mrs Laskaris’s complaints and, if so, who should investigate them. On 3 November 2017, the IPCC determined the complaints should be investigated by WYP.

 

  1. The IPCC view was that there was not, at that time, an indication that police action or inaction had contributed to Christopher’s death, so as to require an independent investigation.  All referrals to the IOPC require consideration of the circumstances of the case. Referrals which involve an arguable breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are likely to require independent investigation. In the context of Christopher’s tragic death, that would have required that police knew or ought to have known at the time of their contact with Christopher of the existence of a real and immediate risk to Christopher’s life, and then failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which might have been expected to avoid that risk.

 

  1. The IOPC receives around 4000 referrals from police every year, and difficult decisions have to be made around what we can and cannot independently investigate. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the IPCC to have required this be investigated by West Yorkshire Police.

 

Investigation and Appeal:

  1. An investigation by the police force does not mean that the issues have not been thoroughly examined. The WYP complaint investigation considered:

 

  1. The IOPC casework manager considering Mrs Laskaris’s appeal made a thorough, independent assessment of the appeal points. They had access to all of the evidence supporting the investigating officer’s decisions alongside their report. In addition, Mrs Laskaris provided further information in support of her appeal which was considered. Mrs Laskaris has been informed of the information used to form the basis of the IOPC’s decisions.

 

  1. The appeal judgment from the IOPC concluded the WYP Investigating Officer had carried out a “justifiably proportionate investigation into all the allegations”, having considered the IO’s report and the evidence, but disagreed with the findings in some aspects.

 

  1. The appeal considered four complaints. Two had previously been upheld by WYP and two had not been upheld. The IOPC upheld both complaints previously not upheld by WYP. One of these was that WYP failed to safeguard Christopher after he was arrested on 8 October 2016. Officers failed to recognise his vulnerabilities, his obvious care and support needs, and the risk of abuse and exploitation. The Casework Manager considered the officers could have recognised Christopher’s behaviour and the self neglect evident at his home address as an indication of his inability to cope. The Casework Manager also considered the Custody Sergeant could have done more to record Christopher’s vulnerabilities on the custody record and to consider a safeguarding referral.

 

  1. The second of these was that Christopher’s home was left unsecured for five days before a temporary door was fixed, leaving him vulnerable and at risk. The IOPC did not uphold this allegation in respect of the delay to fitting a new door as this was not the responsibility of WYP. However, we did consider the custody sergeant should given consideration to the fact Christopher’s home address was now boarded up and inaccessible to him in the assessment of the suitability of the bail address. 

 

Learning in this case:

  1. The IOPC did not make any formal learning recommendations in relation to this appeal. We did raise the case to West Yorkshire Police through our oversight function and discussed the risks associated with releasing a vulnerable detainee on bail to an address that had been boarded up without easy access, and the extent to which custody sergeants should check to ensure the safety of a bail address. Whilst WYP were sympathetic to the issues that arose in this instance, they highlighted the extraordinary circumstances of this case and the risk to breaching custody time limits a requirement to physically check addresses would pose.

Disclosure:

  1. Mrs Laskaris has commented on the lack of disclosure of police logs and accounts and the difficulty she has encountered in understanding what happened. We recognise that this has been extremely frustrating for her and has led her to question how thorough the consideration of the underlying issues has been.

 

  1. Mrs Laskaris was informed what evidence formed the basis of the West Yorkshire Police’s complaint report and the IOPC consideration of the appeal in our appeal assessment. Unfortunately these documents could not be disclosed to her in their entirety because they remain the property of West Yorkshire Police and because of the third party information they contain.

 

  1. In IOPC appeals, the IOPC is provided information by the relevant police force or other appropriate authority for the purposes of considering the appeal. Decisions regarding onward disclosure of underlying information supporting the investigating officer’s conclusions are usually a matter for the appropriate authority to determine. When considering an appeal, the IOPC tests whether the complainant has been provided with sufficient information to understand the appeal decision.  Complainants can request information from the IOPC through freedom of information requests and subject access requests. In this instance, having received a subject access request, the IOPC was unable to disclose data to Mrs Laskaris regarding her son, Christopher, as unfortunately this was not data we had processed regarding her.

 

  1. Following the conclusion of the appeals, the IOPC did raise the issue of the disclosure of further information to Mrs Laskaris with WYP. We are aware that this was an issue they were actively considering, giving proper regard to the data protection act and legal safeguards surrounding the provision of information.

Scope of investigation:

  1. Mrs Laskaris has raised concerns with the IOPC failure to carry out a comprehensive review of the case to establish the circumstances which led to Christopher having no functioning front door for five days.

 

  1. We understand her frustrations in this regard.  However, as responsibility for replacing the door does not lie with the police, but with other agencies outside the jurisdiction of the IOPC, this is not an issue an investigation under the Police Reform Act could examine – regardless whether it was carried out independently by the IOPC or by the police force.

 

 

  1. We recognise that this delineation between the responsibilities of different agencies and bodies can be very difficult for complainants to understand. We do what we can to ensure requests for information that are made to us where we do not bear responsibility are passed on to the relevant authority. Whilst we can ask that they consider such requests, we do not have the authority to require any action from them.

Why we cannot “call the matter in” now:

  1. Mrs Laskaris has asked that the IOPC independently investigate this case.  As this matter has been investigated as a complaint and appealed to the IOPC, there is no basis on which the IOPC could now call the matter in to investigate it.

Second complaint and appeal:

  1. Mrs Laskaris made subsequent complaints regarding failures on the part of the WYP murder team to provide information to her and inaccuracies in the information provided to others. As part of this complaint, Mrs Laskaris complained about the failure of the police to refer the police contact surrounding Christopher’s death to the IOPC in a timely manner. Following consideration of the complaints by WYP, these matters were appealed to the IOPC.  After careful consideration, the IOPC did not uphold Mrs Laskaris’s complaint regarding referral of the police contact.

 

Subsequent contact with senior IOPC staff:

  1. Following the conclusion of the appeal, Michael Lockwood met with Mrs Laskaris to listen to her concerns.  Mr Lockwood asked Regional Director Miranda Biddle to consider the issues raised by Mrs Laskaris. Ms Biddle, and Director of National Operations, David Ford (who temporarily acted as Regional Director for the North East during a leave of absence) responded to concerns raised by Mrs Laskaris in correspondence. These letters made offers to Mrs Laskaris to facilitate restorative practice with both WYP and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to try to resolve Mrs Laskaris’s continued concerns. We reiterate this offer, should Mrs Laskaris wish to engage with us.

May 2021

[1] Section 12, Police Reform Act 2002. For a definition of a Serious Injury, see Section 29 of the Police Reform Act 2002. There is also an explanation of the requirements for the identification and referral of DSI matters in Chapter 7 of the Statutory Guidance to the Police Complaints System