I am delighted that my review application with the IOPC was upheld and pleased they conducted a thorough assessment of the points raised. Their recommendations into the scope of the next investigation should ensure at the very least the right questions are asked in relation to the essence of my complaint.
The scope of Kent Police’s first investigation was limited and largely unsubstantiated as to how conclusions were determined. It is not sufficient to simply ask a police officer to give an account of what happened, but crucially the ‘why’ questions’ (unfortunately absent in the investigation) are far more effective in getting to underlying truths behind his actions, perceptions and behaviour. The investigation significantly failed to capture why and how the officer arrived as specific assumptions, therefore it failed to test or bring into scope whether unconscious bias was implicit in this case.
It is very important for investigating officers in the police to apply proportionality to the complainants account and fully understand that however difficult it may be to discuss race, bias (be it conscious or unconscious) and the trauma cased as a result of what they consider to be colleagues simply doing their job, these issues need to be brought into scope and addressed with the same vigour used to cover up instances of poor policing. Changing behaviour is virtually impossible if those in charge in an organisation will not accept there are issues to tackle when complaints are made.
I am thankful the IOPC caseworker homed in on the salient areas of the investigation that were insufficiently evidenced or addressed in the complaint. I remain hopeful that the next investigation will be more robust and produce a substantive, transparent outcome that will tackle head on the serious issues outlined in my complaint.