IPCC – Ebrahimi Report

The IPCC released its Part B report on the death of Bijan Ebrahimi. The opinion of its Investigator Mr Simik, is that as a result of the failures of the Organisation, Lee James felt impunity, when he decided to brutally murder Mr Ebrahimi. This is not something we agree with. Lee James had his own reasons and motivations for the brutal murder of Mr Ebrahimi.

The Constabulary has apologised for the failing of its systems and has indeed introduced a number of measures in order to mitigate a future similar incident from happening again. One of its key areas of work is around Leadership. As the Representative body of the rank and file of the Constabulary, whilst accepting there are always area of learning following tragic events, we remain concerned that both the IPCC and Constabulary were quick to apportion blame during this Investigation. Opportunities to learn from the mistakes were delayed whilst the IPCC decided who was to blame and at what level. There were significant Leadership issues running throughout Mr Ebrahimi’s interactions with the Constabulary, yet only Sergeants and Constables were held to account either through Criminal or Gross Misconduct proceedings. These are not the ranks that set the direction or policies of the Constabulary.

The public rightly expects those who have been negligent or have deliberately misconducted themselves to be held to account. In this instance there were a number of Organisational failings where the system did not identify the risk.

The Impossibility of Policing, where officers are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, sees Police Officers doing an incredibly difficult job, often under resourced, making difficult decisions armed only on the information they have at the time. Inevitably mistakes will be made. It is the decision whether to learn from those mistakes or simply to lay blame, that will ultimately determine the level of service that is delivered to the Public.

Police Drivers Are Still Vulnerable


Attending our national conference I was dismayed to hear that you still find yourselves vulnerable to potential prosecution whilst engaged in response or pursuit drives.

A campaign led by a member of the Interim National Board is underway to get legislation changed, to ensure that officers who engage in pursuit and response drives can be afforded better protection.

What needs to change, and why?
The current legislation leaves police drivers vulnerable: it is illegal to engage in pursuit or response drives. This is because there are no exemptions in the current legislation that take into account the high level of specialised training officers are given. All driving standards are measured against that of a “competent and careful driver”.
According to the law, ‘dangerous driving’ includes speeding, ignoring traffics signals, or overtaking dangerously. There can also be liability for causing others to drive dangerously.

Officers who have engaged in pursuits or response drivers have, in the past, been charged with dangerous driving, even if no complaints were made, and no one was injured (the outcome is not the matter that should be considered although it almost always is the catalyst).

Police drivers are trained to the College of Policing standard. However this standard is not supported by the current law.

What we are doing about it?
The Police Federation is working to have this changed, and wants appropriate legislative change that reflects the high standard to which Police Officers are trained to be taken into consideration.

Since 2012, work done by the Police Federation of England and Wales helped lead to the Crown Prosecution Service creating the Crown Prosecutors Guidance.

Work continues to bring about a change in legislation to protect officers.

What should you do?

You have a sworn duty to uphold the law and should drive in a way which is lawful and does not contravene the laws of dangerous or careless driving.

You are advised not to undertake any manoeuvre which may well fall outside the standard of the careful and competent non-police driver.

Further advice can be sought via info@avsomfed.org or your local representative.

Flint House is for you!

Since the start of this year we have recorded 171 assaults against officers, a rate of almost 45 a month. The situation is unnaceptable by any standard with some assaults resulting in significant injury to officers.

It is useful that we now receive information through the ‘7 point plan’ not available to us previously, but it has also highlighted another issue. Many officers are not members of the Group Insurance Scheme or Flint House both of which have something to offer injured and recovering officers.

The ramifications of an assault cannot be understimated. As well as mental and emotional concerns that officers can carry the worst cases could result in an officer being considered for medical retirement. Our Occupational Health Department offer first class assistance but in addition those officers who donate to Flint House are able to make use of its first-class facilities. Located in Goring-on-Thames the mission of the centre is “to provide the highest standards of individually planned, intensive, rehabilitation services for sick and injured, serving and retired police officers”. They support officers injured on or off duty.

I have yet to meet anyone that has attended that does not speak highly of the care, treatment and support they received. In some cases it is the reason they have been able to continue serving rather than be retired. Those that donate can usually be admitted within 3 weeks for a 10 day stay at what is the equivalent of a ‘5 Star Country Hotel’ with medical and care facilities.

Flint House however is a charity only available to serving police officers who donate to it (and retired officers who donated prior to retirement). The centre relies on these donations to sustain the treatments it offers against increased demand. The cost monthly to serving officers is £9.21, but a stay for those that don’t donate is around £1200 for 10 days. Like any insurance policy, you don’t know how good it is until you need it. When you do need it make sure its there for you by starting to contribute now.

Find out more about Flint House here, or better still speak to a colleague that has been and get a first hand account of what it can do for you.

To join please complete a deduction form and return it to our office and we will arrange for your deductions to commence from your pay.

PC Keith Palmer

Given the incredibly sad nature of the events that took place in London yesterday which saw PC Keith Palmer lose his life protecting others whilst simply doing his job, I felt it appropriate to share some of the commentary regarding this event.

‘A service left numb following police officer death’

“No words can capture how members of the policing family will feel after today’s horrific events,” Steve White, Chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said.

The Prime Minister has paid tribute to the “exceptional bravery” shown by police officers following Wednesday’s terrorist attack which left one officer dead.

An MP has called for a permanent memorial to the police officer who died protecting Parliament in a terror attack that struck at the heart of Britain’s democracy. Police Constable Keith Palmer was one of five people – including the suspect – killed as he tried to intercept a terrorist believed to have driven through crowds on Westminster Bridge before storming the entrance to the Houses of Parliament. PC Palmer, part of the Parliament and Diplomatic Protection Command, was stabbed to death confronting an attacker who had already fatally injured three other people.

Policing is a difficult and dangerous job and there is no doubt in my mind that the public are thankful for those officers who do it every day.

We must also remember the members of the public who lost their lives in this incident and those injured by this terrible act, we wish them all a speedy recovery.

Should you wish you can donate to the Police Dependants’ Trust which provides financial support to injured officers, their families and loved ones when things go wrong.

Our thoughts and prayers and most sincere condolences go out to PC Palmer, his family, friends and colleagues. He will not be forgotten.

Judges’ pensions Employment Tribunal: Implications for Police Officers?

The Employment Tribunal on judges’ pensions has been reported as a victory. But who wins? The ET ruling was on a narrow part of pension legislation, and ruled against a provision that unions across the public sector had fought for. It is possible that the success of this challenge could have unintended consequences to the detriment of some Federated members.

The case was solely about transitional protections, and whether these caused direct discrimination by age, and indirect by gender and ethnicity.

The judge was very clear that he was not ruling on wider public sector pensions’ reform, as this is a matter of public policy.

What are transitional protections?
Transitional protections are a mechanism that was lobbied for by unions – including PFEW – to protect members.
The aim is to ensure those members who cannot remain entirely in “old” schemes, are given special arrangements to help them adjust.

What does the judgement say?
The judgement does not state that either judges only subject to the new scheme (without protection) or in the old scheme have been treated illegally.

It only states that those judges afforded transitional protection have been treated in a way that causes discrimination. In fact, the judge goes further, and states that those with transitional protection have been treated better than they could have been. When considering whether transitional protections were a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, the judge considers whether they may have been “excessive” and states that an option might have been to simply follow Hutton’s recommendation that accrued rights under the old scheme be protected. The judges’ schemes both protected old rights and offered transitional protection. (As do the police schemes).

What might be the next steps in this case?
There are a number of things that may happen:

  • The Ministry of Justice may appeal. However, if it does, it will actually be forced to adopt the position the unions initially argued for – i.e. that transitional protections are a good thing.
  • The Ministry may not appeal, and instead seek to remove the unfairness.

There are a number of ways the Ministry might do so:

  • The Ministry could offer all judges the same protection that members with transitional protection get – but that would cost more money from the public purse – possibly an additional £80,000,000 for judges alone. (The same across the public sector would cost billions of pounds).
  • Bearing in mind that the unfairness has been deemed to be insofar as those with transitional protections have been treated better (in the judge’s view) than they might have been, one option may be to remove transitional protections completely.

This would reduce the cost to the public – possibly by £28,000,000.
Unfortunately if this latter course is taken, some members of the pension scheme lose out. Ultimately it would mean no member of the pensions’ scheme will gain from the claimants’ win, in this ET.

What is the PFEW doing?
Nationally and locally we continue to monitor the situation. We believe that transitional protections are a good thing, are deeply disappointed that this case may have consequences that the litigants did not anticipate, and are concerned this may cause pension scheme members to lose money.

We believe it is important that we act in the best interests of as many of our members as possible and that transitional protections offer a better pension for more members.

The ET decision is only binding on the judges, not on any other employers, although it may be referred to in other ET cases.
The judges’ position is different in many respects from the police position. However, it remains to be seen whether – in fighting the one common element of schemes, the transitional protection – the litigants have opened the door to poorer pension provision in the public sector?