Home / Sources / IOPC Learning / 2021/159812
Source · IOPC Learning Case

Recommendations - Suffolk Constabulary, April 2023

Suffolk Constabulary Ref: 2021/159812 Recommended 13 Apr 2023 Response due 8 Jun 2023

View on IOPC website ↗

Case background

Text published by the IOPC.

We identified organisational learning for Suffolk Constabulary from a review following other handling. Large quantities of ammuniton were found during a search of a home address, following reports of a shotgun being discharged. The complainant, who was arrested, alleged that valuable cartridges were not returned at the same time as other property. They also raised a complaint that cartridges that did not belong to them were recorded as seized.

Recommendations and responses

2 indexed

Recommendation 1

Link to recommendation · Accepted

Addressed to: Suffolk Constabulary

Linked bodies: Suffolk Constabulary

IOPC recommendation

The IOPC recommends that Suffolk Constabulary review the policy and guidance for Exhibit Management pertaining specifically to the seizure, recording, storage, return or disposal of ammunition.  Guidance should stipulate that when ammunition is seized it is precisely described and documented, including, but not limited to, exact quantity, type, colour, make, packaging and condition of the ammunition.

Following an IOPC review of a complaint of theft pertaining to an incident in which officers seized shotguns and ammunition, but then failed to return valuable cartridges, it was apparent that the manner of seizure of the ammunition had been chaotic.   The Exhibits Management procedure was judged to be flawed, as whilst it was not possible for the Complaint Handler to evidence that a theft had occurred, neither was it possible to say if the contested ammunition had ever been seized at all.

To date, the force cannot produce a copy of the search record and the complainant asserts that they never received a copy.  Several years after the seizure of property, and due to the poor record keeping, it is still unclear exactly what ammunition was seized during the search and the location of the contested ammunition is still unknown. Public confidence in the force may be negatively affected, where it cannot demonstrate the correct cataloguing and storage of ammunition to adequately manage the specific associated risks, and more generally, the custodianship of seized personal property.

Response published by the IOPC

Do you accept the recommendation?

Yes

Accepted action:

I find that the recommendation is reasonable. Following discussion with Firearms Licensing, they have agreed to review and update their Firearms Policy in accordance with the recommendation.  We have requested an update on progress in relation to this and will ensure that this is completed.

Check the original case on the IOPC website

Recommendation 2

Link to recommendation · Accepted

Addressed to: Suffolk Constabulary

Linked bodies: Suffolk Constabulary

IOPC recommendation

The IOPC recommends that Suffolk Constabulary takes steps to ensure that relevant officers and staff are aware of their duty to refer to Appropriate Authorities under sections 6.6 and 6.7 of the IOPC Statutory Guidance, i.e. to ensure that parts of a complaint which relate to another Appropriate Authority are sent to the correct body to deal with. This is relevant when a complaint relates to multiple  Appropriate Authorities.

This follows an IOPC review of a complaint into the failure of Suffolk Constabulary to return valuable ammunition to the complainant following their arrest and subsequent search of their premises.  Authorised Firearms Officers from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) Police and Suffolk Constabulary had attended the property in response to the discharge of a shotgun.  MOD officers were also included in the complaint grounds submitted and received by Suffolk Constabulary, which meant the Suffolk force had a statutory duty to refer the complaint to the MOD Police.  It was found that Suffolk Constabulary had missed multiple opportunities to follow statutory guidance and refer the matter to the MOD Police Appropriate Authority.

At no time during the three years over which three linked complaints were made did this referral happen.  In the most recent complaint, though members of staff and officers were aware of the involvement of the MOD Police, specifically the inclusion of named officers within the complaint grounds, no referral was made. This is indicative of a broader, organizational failing which resulted in no complaint ever being recorded or considered by the MOD Police Force.  This means that it has never been possible to fully assess and inquire into the overall complaint, which has had a detrimental effect on the complainant and consequently, their wider family.

Response published by the IOPC

Do you accept the recommendation?

Yes

Accepted action:

I find that the recommendation is reasonable.  Following contact from the complainant there were various conversations and communications involving Suffolk Insurance Services and the OIC, which were focussed on trying to help and support him and provide a like for like replacement of the missing property.  Following a number of reinvestigations into his complaint he then alleged that officers had stolen the property.  At this stage the man also mentioned the MOD, and although this was documented as part of the assessment; the assessor had missed the fact that this related to another Force and that they needed to be made aware. The assessor has apologised for this oversight and has taken learning.

In addition to the above, the involvement of the MOD should have been identified as part of the Quality Assurance process.  The Quality Assurance Officer has advised that they are fully aware that we cannot provide a response about the involvement of another agency’s personnel in such circumstances and it would be usual practice to flag this to the AA when submitting the written outcome for sign off.  Having reviewed the audit trail on centurion the QA Officer has confirmed that they did not document a rationale around the alleged involvement of the MOD, although the mention of their involvement came quite late on in the complaint handling process. They acknowledge that they missed this and reflected on their actions and taken learning.

CMU do adhere to statutory guidance at points 6.6 and 6.7 and acknowledge that on this occasion these were not followed.  This has been progressed as learning for both individuals and a general reminder for the team.  Both have reflected on their handling and acknowledge that there were failings, for which they have taken learning and offered an apology.   This is a simple case of ‘human error’ and I could find nothing that is evident or ‘is indicative of a broader, organizational failing.’

What was evidenced was the desire to engage with the complainant, to understand their concerns, with a view to resolving to their satisfaction.  In essence this was a very frustrated elderly gentleman who just wanted his cartridges returned and the CMO tried to do his best to address this.  He acknowledges that he made an error in failing to notify the appropriate authority to consider the concerns raised about the MOD personnel who were also present.

Check the original case on the IOPC website