Annual Report 23/24 Accessible Version

Police Complaint Reviews

Following changes to the police complaint system in February 2020, the OPCC is one of two ‘review’ bodies (along with the Independent Office for Police Conduct) to which members of the public may appeal after they have complained to Kent Police and had a response from the PSD.

Subject to the nature of the complaint, it is the role of the OPCC to determine whether the handling of the complaint was reasonable and proportionate; and if not, to make recommendations to Kent Police to redress any concerns. This may be that Kent Police apologises to the member of the public, through to the identification of process failures that need to be addressed. It is not a reinvestigation of the complaint itself though, as this is not within the PCC’s remit.

In 2023/24, the OPCC received 230 requests for an independent review into how a complaint had been handled by Kent Police. Of those: 35 were upheld; 76 were not upheld, with a further 62 not upheld but points fed back to PSD; 15 were out-of-time (the Act places a 28-day limit on complainants to request a review unless there are special circumstances to justify an extension); 26 did not have sufficient information to enable a review; 13 were passed to the IOPC as the correct review body; 2 were withdrawn by the complainant; and 1request was held in abeyance awaiting the grounds for the review.

Custody Detention Scrutiny Panel

In 2023/24, the Association of PCCs, and National Police Chiefs’ Council (with Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Independent Custody Visitors Association support), contacted all PCCs and Chief Constables, with an expectation that all areas create and implement Custody Detention Scrutiny Panels (CDSPs).

It was recognised that scrutiny of custody was limited to either infrequent, large scale inspections - such as by HMICFRS - or regular, more limited review by Independent Custody Visitors (ICVs). Therefore CDSPs were to provide a more frequent, in depth review of custody and the practices within suites by: assessing and reporting on detention and custody processes; reviewing and advising on matters of disproportionality; and assisting in generating a transparent product suitable for public consideration at the end of each annual Panel cycle.

In Kent, the meeting is co-chaired by the OPCC Chief Executive, and one of the ICV Panel Coordinators. It includes representation from Kent Police, the Independent Advisory Group, both Appropriate Adult organisations, ICVs as well as OPCC staff. The meeting scrutinises data from custody, looking at the numbers detained, broken down by sex, ethnicity, age and vulnerability; complaint outcomes; and ICV quarterly reports.

The Panel has received updates on Kent Police’s response to Inquest outcomes, and information on key issues such as staffing and training. It also recently produced a report on the treatment of detainees with mental health issues.

Wider criminal justice system (CJS): 2023/24 was my sixth year as chair of the Kent Criminal Justice Board (KCJB). The Board brings together chief officers from criminal justice (CJ) agencies and wider partners and has responsibility for overseeing CJ across Kent and Medway with the purpose of delivering effective, efficient and fair justice.

Over the last year the Board has focused on doing all it could to limit the increase in outstanding caseloads in both Magistrates and Crown Courts, which continued to rise resulting in ever longer delays to justice. With the increase in police officer numbers, work entering the system is simply greater than the wider CJS can manage. Kent also remains short of key resources including Judiciary, Magistrate Court Legal Advisors, Prosecution, Defence Counsel and Court Probation Officers, contributing to a lower than required number of courts sitting.

With Kent a national priority for Judicial cover and new recruits across agencies coming on board, there is some optimism that the increase in caseload numbers will slow and perhaps fall slightly going forward. However, the fact remains that Kent is nowhere near being in a position to enter a period of sustained recovery.

Maidstone Crown Court remains a critical issue; it is accepted the court does not have the physical capacity to manage the volume of work. This is a priority for HMCTS, and findings are awaited from a review into whether extra courtrooms can be added within the confines of the current site.

Increased case numbers and delays to justice have dramatically impacted the force’s Victim and Witness Care Unit. Despite an increase in staff numbers the team remains under immense pressure to manage the volume of work required to update victims and witnesses along with increased anger, upset and levels of attrition from victims.

Through the KCJB, work continued on delivering efficiency improvements including maximising the use of Out of Court Disposals which increased significantly, along with delivering early guilty pleas and reducing avoidable adjournments. Work also focused on ensuring rehabilitation programmes and other work delivered positive outcomes to prevent further offending.

As PCC and Chair of the KCJB I continued to lobby and meet with senior government ministers and Ministry of Justice (MoJ) personnel to raise the recruitment issue in Kent and across the Southeast, including the need for a Southeast allowance. Unfortunately, until the staffing shortages are addressed, delays to justice will not improve.