2.11 IPID’s Strategies to ensure Police Accountability
2.11.3 The investigation process dealing with complaints
To fulfil the obligation highlighted in section 4 (1) and (2) of Act No. 13 of 2013 (RSA, 2013) which states that a police officer who uses torture is guilty of a criminal offence, a person who is found guilty is eligible for imprisonment. To reach this point, the complaint has to be investigated to determine if the alleged perpetrator is guilty or not and if he/she should be prosecuted. Once a complaint has been lodged and the case has been discussed, (see Figure 2.1), the next step is to investigate the case. This involves attending the crime scene and obtaining statements. In order to achieve effective accountability, it is essential that police misconduct is thoroughly investigated (Amnesty International, 2015). One of the strategic goals of the IPID as an independent oversight body is to conduct quality investigations without fear of favour and to investigate cases effectively and efficiently. The quality of the investigations should ensure their effective completion. According to Hopkins (2009:19), the purpose of an investigation is twofold. Firstly, it must lead to an effective individual remedy;
54
and secondly, the lessons learned from it must be used by the police agency to reduce the likelihood of abuse of rights in the future.
In De Boer and Fernhout’s (2008) view, when it concerns external review procedures with a civilian element, there are three models:
Civilian review model: investigation, adjudication and recommendation of punishment.
Civilian input: the recording and investigation of complaints.
Civilian monitor: oversight of police complaints administration.
Figure 2.2 of the IPID model is in line with the three models mentioned above that emphasise the importance of an investigation into complaints. Stelfox (2009) considers that the aim of the investigation and of the investigators is not merely to generate knowledge, but rather to gather evidence with regards to knowledge. Knowledge and the truth of the matter are what concern the courts. The process of obtaining evidence, according to the Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigation (2013), also includes collecting anything that can be used as evidence in the crime scene and, in the process of procuring this evidence, the investigator has to remove persons from the crime scene and limits the number of persons who enter the crime scene. This must be done to protect the crime scene and prevent individuals from destroying physical evidence by restricting movement. According to Hopkins (2009:23), investigators should be able to gather uncorrupted evidence to determine whether the complaint had substance and to be able to identify and punish those who were responsible. According to Amnesty International (2015), investigators must hear any person and obtain any information and any documents necessary for assessing situations falling within its competence. It should also submit reports on its findings and issue recommendations.
Miller (2009:23) emphasises that the aims of criminal investigations are to bring offenders to justice, crime prevention, intelligence-gathering, protection of witnesses, asset recovery, ensuring reasonable clear-up, and [realistic] conviction rates. This requires that investigators are able to control and identify all individuals at the scene such as suspects, witnesses, bystanders, victims, as well as family and friends with the aim of interviewing them to best use their reported experiences to benefit the overall investigation (Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigation, 2013). This may assist in establishing where the victim is at risk or whether the witness needs protection. The New York American Civil Liberties Union notes
55
Figure 2.5: Independent Police Investigative Directorate Logic Model High Level Strategic Outcome-Oriented Goal
Strategic Outcomes
1 2 3 4
Strategic Objectives
1.1 2.1 3.1 3.2
4.2
1.2 2.2
3.2
2.3
1.3
2.4
Source: IPID Strategic Plan (2015)
An effective independent investigative oversight body that ensures policing that is committed to promoting respect for the rule of law and human
dignity
The IPID is an effective independent
oversight body
The IPID investigates cases effectively and
efficiently
The IPID is accessible to the
public
Capacity building is undertaken
Departmental performance management
system operated optimally
Legal and litigation services
Case management
system
Decision- ready cases
Recommend ation reports
generated and referred
Investigation advisory services
Quality assurance if recommendatio
ns are reported
Compliance with responses to recommendations
Public awareness campaigns
Stakeholder management The police service is
responsive to IPID recommendations
56
that “[P]atterns and practices of police misconduct will not become apparent without the rigorous investigation of individual complaints. [In the absence] of thorough investigation it is unlikely that discipline of an individual police officer or reforms of lawed policing practices will occur” (Hopkins, 2009:20). Thorough investigations create greater public confidence, and therefore investigations against the police have to be carried out properly. This means that strategies to investigate complaints against police officials are a critical function of the independent oversight body. A point that does not seem to receive focus in the literature is that police officials may also be falsely accused for various reasons, two of which are to exert revenge or to weaken police investigative powers in a particular case. It is also for the latter reasons that IPID investigations have to be thorough, fair and fast.
According to Bruce (2007), one purpose of the oversight body is to reassure members of the public that investigations against the police are carried out properly, even though there is a tendency for members of the public to suspect that investigations carried out by police agencies to investigate their own members are not necessarily carried out vigorously or impartially. In the view of Bruce (2007), this suspicion is not without basis, as police throughout the world have been known to protect their colleagues from being held accountable under the law. In Hopkin’s (2009:24) view, the effectiveness of the investigation strategy as an accountability measure lies in the element of public scrutiny of the investigation or the result generated from that investigation as a way to ensure accountability in practice as well as in theory. However, the most important issue is to maintain public confidence in the authorities as they will take note of the fact that authorities adhere to the rule of law and prevent any tolerance of unlawful acts.
The core responsibility of the IPID as an independent oversight body in investigating especially cases of torture committed by members of the SAPS is, according to the Technical Working Group on Crime Scene Investigation (2013), to preserve the scene with minimal contamination and disturbance of physical evidence. This can be done by being aware of any persons or vehicles leaving the crime scene, approaching the scene cautiously, scanning the entire area to thoroughly assess the scene, and noting any possible secondary crime scenes and being aware of any persons and vehicles in the vicinity that may be related to the crime. The main responsibility of the investigating officer is to be observant when approaching, entering, and exiting a crime scene.
57
Evidence collected from a crime scene, including statements by the victim(s), suspect(s), witnesses, family members and friends, makes up the knowledge that Miller (2014:24) considers to be information that can prove whether or not a suspect is factually guilty and, if so, to recommend that the suspect be prosecuted. But the issue of stating whether the suspect is legally guilty is a matter for the courts to determine. Thus, Hopkins (2009:20) argues that public complaints and investigations of the police are “the gateway to criminal or disciplinary sanctions against the perpetrator of human rights abuses”. Figure 2.2 indicates that the IPID is tasked to ensure effective and efficient investigation of the complaints. Bruce (2007) indicates that the purpose of oversight bodies is to ensure that investigations into the police are carried out effectively, thereby making certain that cases in which it is alleged or possible that there has been criminality on the part of the police are investigated properly.