Question
Could PSNI outline how many disciplinary actions have taken place in the last five years (broken down annually) against officers and staff over issues relating to conduct associated with roles representing a wider group of officers in staff or officer recognised organisations.
Could PSNI outline the approach it takes within the Code of Ethics and wider disciplinary procedures in circumstances where an officer or staff member is a Chair, representative or elected spokesperson for a recognised Police Federation (locally or nationally) or officer or staff association who speaks publicly on behalf of its members.
In particular, where any misconduct proceedings take place, what is the potential ramifications of an individual receiving an outcome from management advice through to more serious outcomes on future career prospects.
Answer
There have been 42 misconduct complaints or referrals in respect of issues relating to conduct associated with roles representing a wider group of officers in staff or officer recognised organisations, in the last 5 years.
The majority have been received as ‘outside remit’ referrals from PONI subsequent to the receipt of a public complaint regarding social media posts.
We understand and appreciate fully the concerns being raised with regards to Freedom of Speech and how we handle complaints relating to those speaking on behalf of our Minority Staff Associations.
We really value the role that our staff associations and their representatives play. It’s something we have invested both significant time and resources into over the last number of years. We want candour and honesty in our relationship with them and strongly believe that they should stand up and speak out on behalf of their members.
As citizens, we all have the right to freedom of speech under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, but, you will appreciate, that whilst this is a fundamental right it is not absolute.
Crucially and, from the commentary we’ve seen and many of the representations made to us, what isn’t properly understood by many, but has long been recognised by the courts, in statute, regulation and our code of ethics, is that, as police officers, our freedom of speech must, by necessity, be more limited than our fellow citizens owing to the unique role with which we are entrusted in society and the need to maintain public confidence, impartiality, and professional standards.
So for the heads of Staff Associations or, indeed for us as senior figures in policing, care and thought needs to go into what we say and how we say it.
In many cases those representing minority staff associations are junior ranks, aren’t trained or experienced and don’t have access or avail of the support of communications professionals or legal advice – SANI, Federation and NIPSA do and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we haven’t had the same issues with them. We will discuss with our minority staff associations how we might be able to better support them in their roles.
The second element of this is about whether complaints on these matters, because they could have a chilling effect, should be dealt with differently perhaps discounted immediately or dealt with informally.
This seems, in part, to be on the presumption that all those making complaints are doing so maliciously to silence because they are motivated by hate and are opposed to the position of the staff association.
All referrals from the Office of the Police Ombudsman that originate from a member of the public are required to be reviewed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland – that obligation extends to complaints relating to officers located in Northern Ireland and those officers that are seconded to other police forces under the direction of the Chief Constable.
It is vital for both the officer and public confidence in policing that demonstrably accountable, transparent and fair processes are followed.
We can all testify as to how unpleasant it is, but, with great power comes great responsibility and, in the case of police officers, accountability.
Importantly, commencement of an investigation is not a final determination as to whether there has or has not been misconduct. It is simply the start of due process.
Cases which require an assessment of the balance between the rights of the individual and the limitations placed on police officers will almost inevitably always require at least some degree of investigation and objective assessment.
It’s through that assessment and investigative process that we determine whether or not there has been any misconduct and we can also take account of the context of the complaint and mitigate the potential for vexatious complaints.
A number of assessments and / or investigations have taken place re comments made on social media regarding networks matters. In many of these cases, however, it was clear that the officers were not speaking officially on behalf of members of those networks. The comments in question were posted on personal social media accounts of those officers and not on ‘official’ network accounts. The officers are however widely known to be police officers and network officials or representatives. Their higher profile is such that all their public comments are subject to heightened public scrutiny and often attract complaints from members of the public.
Misconduct action involving officers is governed by the Police (Conduct) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 which are strictly adhered to for all officers. All police conduct is assessed against the standards and expectations detailed in the Code of Ethics. There is no allowance or differentiation under the Regulations, Code or PSNI approach taken where officers are in elected positions or members of staff networks or associations.
Misconduct sanctions and the period for which they are in force where applicable, are clearly detailed in the Conduct Regulations. There is no further impact on the future career prospects of an officer for proven misconduct beyond that specified in the Regulations.
Les Allamby