Police accountability in Northern Ireland, USA and South Africa

Former DCI Gavin Boyd of Ballyclare, Northern Ireland, has recently returned from a Winston Churchill Travelling Fellowship to South Africa and the USA. The aim of his fellowship was to compare policing accountability structures with those of Northern Ireland.

The Good Friday Agreement (or Belfast Agreement 1998) heralded a new era for Northern Ireland and included a review of policing by an Independent Commission on Policing. The commission, chaired by the Right Honourable Chris Patten, included members from South Africa and the USA as well as from across the UK and NI. In all it made 175 recommendations when it published its report (better known as The Patten Report) in 1999.

The report was later described by the Oversight Commissioner (appointed to monitor implementation) to be the most profound reform ever faced by any police force in the world, while the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) chief constable has described the PSNI as being the most accountable police service in the world. Work implementing the recommendations continues some eight years later.

Given the involvement of the representatives from South Africa and the US, I thought it would be interesting to compare the accountability structures established by ‘Patten’ against those in the US and South Africa. In order to do so I applied for – and was fortunate to be awarded – a Fellowship from the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust. I am grateful to The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust for its support.

The police accountability structure now existing in Northern Ireland is founded on two independent bodies – the Policing Board for Northern Ireland and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

The Policing Board comprises 10 local assembly politicians and nine lay members appointed by the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) following a public competition. The NIO also appoints the Police Ombudsman following a public competition for a term of office for seven years.

Both bodies actively guard their independence of police and government, and each in their own way supports policing. Each body has statutory basis and powers, for example, the Policing Board can ask questions, give advice, or require the chief constable to provide a report on incidents involving police, and, if considered appropriate, it can cause an independent investigation into any matter it feels is in the public interest to do so.

The Policing Board, besides holding the chief constable to account, is also working to widen participation and increase confidence in policing. The ‘Patten’ report made it clear that the police service itself should act in the public interest and not solely in the interests of the police service.

The Police (NI) Act 2000 requires local councils to establish a District Policing Partnership (DPP) (which is supported by the Policing Board for Northern Ireland), comprising local councillors and independents appointed by the Policing Board (politicians have a majority on each DPP).

The DPPs provide community views to the Police District Commander; monitor police performance at district level, make arrangements for getting the views of the public on policing in their area and gain their cooperation with police in preventing crime, and act as a forum for discussion and consultation on matters affecting local policing (NIPB 2008).

The role of the Police Ombudsman is to investigate all complaints against police officers and this role was later extended to include police policies. The powers of the Ombudsman are extensive with investigators having the full range of powers available to police officers, and the Ombudsman having the power to initiate investigations (without a complaint) if he feels it is in the public interest to do so. The Ombudsman investigators can have full access to all police information and intelligence.

In the recent past the Ombudsman launched enquiries that have been described as a ‘surrogate truth recovery vehicle’ (Ellison 2007) alongside dealing with pr