Joke about complaints

THE POLICE Complaints Authority, to put it bluntly, is a big joke. Its chairman, Justice James Davis, has confessed as much in the PCA’s seventh annual report which again reveals “a dismal picture” of the Authority’s record in dealing with complaints by members of the public about the conduct of police officers. According to the report, only 169 of the 4,063 complaints filed with the PCA last year have been investigated, representing a performance rate of a mere four percent.

We consider this an intolerable scandal, having regard to the expressed motto of the Service, “to protect and serve.”  Police officers of whatever rank must know that the authority they wield within the society is intended for the fulfilment of that motto, that it should be employed exclusively for the maintenance of peace and order and for the prevention and detection of crime. Also, it must not be used for the harassment of law-abiding citizens who are supposed to have an agency, namely the PCA, by which policemen can be held accountable for any abuse or misuse of their power. As the statistics indicate, however, the Authority has been failing dismally to carry out this important function. Its virtual impotence, in fact, may well have served to foster an idea among officers that they are untouchable, that they can mistreat members of the public with impunity. But Trinidad and Tobago is not a police state and this situation must not be allowed to continue.

The truth is, there can be no change, no solution to this problem, until the proposed Police Complaints Authority Bill is passed in Parliament. When this will happen, however, is anybody’s guess since the passage of the Bill, together with others designed to reform the Police Service, has been suspended for several months following the declaration of non-support by the UNC opposition which is calling first for action on constitutional reform. The ineffectiveness of the PCA lies in the fact that it can only receive and refer reports from the public; it has no power or mechanism to investigate complaints on its own. To carrry out this function, it must rely on the Complaints Division of the Police Service which comprises police officers who are obviously reluctant or averse to investigate the conduct of other police officers.

“This constraint,” Justice Davis stated in his report, “negatively affects the efficient operation of the Police Complaints Authority. I have pointed this out on numerous occasions in the past and offered recommendations to remedy the situation, but all to no avail.” This observation is sad indeed, and only goes to strengthen public disenchantment and cynicism about the commitment of the Police Service both to its treatment of citizens and to putting its own house in order. The Bill before Parliament will replace the impotent PCA with an independent body having the power “to investigate serious police misconduct, police corruption, criminal offences committed by police officers” and to refer its findings to the DPP, the new Police Management Authority which will be created by another of the pending bills, or the Police Commissioner for “for appropriate action as they see fit.”  The intention of the bills is clearly to radically reform the Police Service to make it more efficient, more effective, more accountable and more considerate of the country’s citizens. The question is, when will these reforms be implemented? Will Justice Davis’ report next year tell of the same old song and dance? When will this sorry situation end?