experience difficulty finding its feet by By Henry Adderley Members of the nine-month-old Police Complaints Authority are determined to make the fledgling independent watchdog work despite the challenges it faces.

These include a clerical staff shortage and public scepticism, Authority chairman Coles Diel and secretary Martin Laws told The Royal Gazette this week.

Some 37 complaints against the Police have been brought forward since the Authority was realised at the end of 1998.

"As you can appreciate, under this Act we are still fairly young,'' noted Mr.

Diel.

But over that period of time the Authority has become the scapegoat for much of the community's anti-Police sentiment with unsatisfied complainants railing against the group.

Mr. Laws said this was almost expected because of the short time involved.

He remarked that it was safe to say that there had been years of mistrust between certain sectors of the community and the conduct of Police officers.

Coupled with this was the common perception that the Police looked after themselves and nothing would happen whether anyone complained or not, he added.

"It will take some time for the Authority to get away from that,'' said Mr.

Laws.

But making it difficult for the Authority presently is the need for more clerical staff to handle its present workload.

Mr. Diel noted: "Martin Laws and his staff are not enough to carry the existing workload. The Authority will not work unless we increase our clerical staff.'' Moves are under way to increase the number of staff and get the Authority operating smoothly, noted Mr. Laws.

Members of the public have spoken out against the Authority over its handling of their complaints, but it has not been allowed to respond as it is banned from discussing specific cases under its new governing legislation. However, Mr. Diel and Mr. Laws were able to outline the process the Authority followed upon receiving a complaint.

In the last three months of 1998 the Authority received 18 complaints and so far in 1999 there have been about 19 complaints.

It can receive complaints from the public directly or through the Police Service and so far some 25 percent of the complaints received have come in directly.

Meanwhile, the Police Commissioner is obliged to let the Authority know what complaints the Service has received and it must keep the Police informed of the complaints it receives.

As outlined in the Act, complaints must be made in relation to alleged misconduct, neglect of duty or negligent performance of duty by an officer.

It has no authority over civil matters and many of the cases that have been received so far fall into this category, noted Mr. Diel. He pointed out that if the Authority did not receive a complaint in relation to an incident it felt to be of public interest, it could launch an investigation on its own.

Meanwhile, upon receipt of a complaint the Authority has the power to carry out an independent investigation or supervise a Police investigation into the matter if it deems it necessary. Most complaints received thus far have compelled the Authority to direct and supervise a Police investigation into them, noted Mr. Diel.

And the Authority has the power to expand an investigation if it feels it has not been handled properly.

Such investigations are handled by the Service's Complaints and Discipline Division which is manned by the authoritative trio of a Chief Inspector, Inspector and Sergeant.

They report directly to the Service's disciplinary officer who is usually the Deputy Commissioner.

And when it comes to disciplining errant Police officers, the Authority's hands are not tied but they cannot discipline the officers directly.

Instead it makes a recommendation to the Police Commissioner unless the matter requires criminal action, in which case the Attorney General is also notified.

Mr. Laws added that if the Commissioner did not deal with a disciplinary matter to the Authority's satisfaction, then it could take further action.

Said Mr. Diel: "If action is taken which the Authority feels is inappropriate, it can take action of its own. It can send a copy of the investigation to the Governor and table a report on the investigation before Parliament.'' Mr. Laws noted that this was the "ultimate sanction'' and Mr.

Diel added: "I do not think it will ever get to this point.'' But the Authority can recommend that the Police Commissioner seek an informal resolution to the complaint or take no action at all.

And it is here that misunderstanding and a history of distrust between members of the public and the Police Service has caused tempers to flare.

Members of the public who have had their cases dismissed by the Authority have contacted The Royal Gazette alleging bias.

But quite often they have not gone directly to the Authority for answers. And the Act notes that if the Authority decides to take no action, it should inform the complainant of that decision and the reasons for it. This offer is made to complainants, but many of those who have complained have not taken it up. "If cases are dismissed the complainant is entitled to hear the reasoning behind the decision but it will not be made public,'' said Mr. Diel. The reasons for the Authority turning down a complaint are clearly defined under the Act also.

The authority can only dismiss a case if: the complaint relates to a matter the complainant has known about for longer than 12 months; it feels the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith; the complainant desires no further action be taken; an alternative remedy exists; or the investigation into the complaint deems further action is unnecessary.

Alternative remedies include civil action, which the Authority can recommend but play no part in. And further action may be deemed unnecessary when there is not enough proof to support a complaint.

Mr. Diel noted: "What do you do if you conclude that the evidence does not support the burden of proof? Act on the insufficient evidence or dismiss the case? This is a real problem. The burden of proof gives us real difficulty.'' While the Authority has the power to conduct a trial and subpoena any person it feels may have evidence which will help decide the case, it is not practical because of the length of time it would force the six-member board to meet. Mr. Diel agreed that justice must be seen to be done. But he noted that if the complainant followed the procedures outlined by the legislation governing the Authority, then this would be the case.

As far as the public seeing justice done, he continued, the public was more concerned about seeing that the Police were being watched rather than hearing the details of a specific complaint.

And public knowledge of the Authority should be satisfied by the annual report it made public, added Mr. Diel.

These reports will identify the trends in Police behaviour which the Authority thinks needs to be rectified and will seek to improve the relationship between the Police and the public.

The reports will also make officers aware that they are being watched closely, he pointed out.

HISTORY OF THE AUTHORITY A body to watch over the Police has been around since 1981 when the Police Complaints Commission was formed following a suggestion in the 1979 report by the Pitt Commission.

This became the Police Complaints Review Board in 1983. Lawyer Coles Diel -- who joined the board in 1985 -- recalled that there were major concerns about the fact that the body had no real ability to carry out investigations into claims against the Police or ensure that its findings carried any weight.

In 1993 the Tumim Report made a series of recommendations, including making the Police watchdog an independent body. And input from the board's members convinced Government that it needed more power.

Borrowing aspects of legislation existent in New Zealand, the Police Complaints Authority Act was created and subsequently signed by the Governor on October 5, 1998.