The Police Complaints Authority (PCA) is now facing public ridicule after director David West issued a call for the independent body’s legislative powers to be increased to allow them to investigate, charge and prosecute errant police officers—effectively undermining ongoing police investigations and bypassing the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
During a public consultation in San Fernando on Wednesday, West said this was one way to restore public confidence in the Police Service and to address numerous legal and judicial delays.
Responding to West’s calls yesterday, president of the Police Service Social and Welfare Association, Insp Anand Ramesar, said, “I think David West wants to be a policeman for all intents and purposes.”
He speculated, “Maybe he wants to establish a parallel Police Service and maybe wants to be a parallel Commissioner of Police.”
Prominent attorney Larry Lalla agreed that it was unrealistic and even ventured that West was “attempting to establish a new political party.”
Not surprised by the call, Ramesar said the majority of members of the PCA’s investigative team were usually former police officers, who themselves are able to anticipate which direction to follow regarding investigations, given their former choice of profession.
He said this was often done without “recognising there is a role for a civilian oversight body when it comes to managing and monitoring the conduct of police officers.”
Ramesar declared, “It would be a most unfortunate situation if the PCA loses its power that it has under the rubric of a civilian oversight body.”
Acknowledging the push for more power by the PCA, Ramesar said there appeared to be a certain level of ignorance at play as their current remit allows them much more scope than that of police officers investigating their own colleagues.
He warned, “I think they are missing the bigger picture in terms of what is their role and relevance, and the powers that they have as a civilian oversight body. They must recognise that some of the powers they have are not available to police officers and will be lost if they get the powers of a policeman.”
Constitutional rights
Ramesar explained, “There are certain constitutional rights that are available to someone who is being investigated by a policeman with police powers, as opposed to somebody who is doing an investigation as a civilian oversight body.”
Describing it as a “lack of an appreciation for the differences between the police body and the civilian oversight body,” Ramesar said it was clear that the PCA does not fully understand the strength it possesses and how it can be applied to ensure it fulfils its mandate.
With no conflict of interest between the PCA and the Professional Standards Bureau (PSB) of the Police Service, which was formed to investigate complaints against rogue and errant officers, Ramesar said both entities had certain strengths that the other did not have.
The PSB is a police body which is limited by certain parameters, while the PCA has certain strengths not readily available to the PSB.
Under the current legislation, the PCA can call on any officer to make available to them any material including statements, documents and photos which could assist in their investigation of a particular matter, while this does not apply to the PSB.
Ramesar said, “The Professional Standards Bureau must follow hard police investigation, the rules of evidence and constitutional safeguards that are there for persons who are being investigated, whilst those things are not immediately discernible coming from the powers of the PCA.”
He added, “The PCA has a major role to play when it comes to managing police conduct and monitoring police behaviour, but I think for some reason or the other, they are not opening their eyes and seeing it, and that is unfortunate.”
Attorney: Recipe for disaster
Agreeing that it was a recipe for disaster and would generate chaos right around, attorney Larry Lalla said delays with investigations upon reaching the DPP’s Office were a reflection of the constraints they faced.
“I think that if the DPP’s Office is understaffed, then attention needs to be focused on the DPP’s Office to ensure it is staffed with the brightest prosecutors and that those prosecutors are offered proper terms and conditions so that they remain at the DPP’s Office,” Lalla said.
He added, “I think what Mr West is asking for is going to lead to an unacceptable duplication of investigation and prosecutorial resources.”
Referring to the DPP’s Office as the prosecutorial arm of the State that needed to remain independent, Lalla added, “We have to ensure that arm is properly resourced, rather than trying to create another arm to deal with prosecutions.”
Pressed to say if the PCA should remain as an independent civilian oversight body, Lalla said yes.
Standing firm that the PCA’s legislative powers should not be increased Lalla argued that if the problem at the DPP’s Office was addressed, it would remove many of the problems outlined by West in his argument for the PCA to be given more “teeth.”
Lalla was critical of the arguments voiced by West as he said, “It appears as though the director of the Police Complaints Authority is attempting to establish a political party.”
“He should leave the politicking to the politicians, and he should write Members of Parliament to raise his concerns and proposals for amendments to the law and have his concerns raised in that way. His office was not meant to be politicking all over the country,” Lalla said.
What West wants
•For the PCA to be able to arrest and charge officers who are bringing the Police Service into disrepute.
•Prosecute matters on their own to avoid delays in the laying of charges by the Police Commissioner and the DPP.
•Stop and search persons involved in ongoing PCA investigations
•Search and arrest police officers for illegal weapons
•For the director and deputy director of the PCA to be given permission to carry a firearm so they can visit crime scenes and secure weapons used
•The ability to secure narcotics as they sometimes discover drugs at scenes but are unable to take possession of them.
•The ability to access information from communications networks in order to corroborate complainants’ information
•The power to preserve a crime scene.