Cornwall Police Corruption Policy (FARCE)

Cornwall Police Corruption Policy (A FARCE)

Devon & Cornwall Constabulary in theory define corruption as;

‘The abuse of a role or position held, for personal gain or gain for others’

It does not mention specifically financial gain. Homophobes keeping their jobs in the police, supported by misconduct of other officers, is a gain to those homophobically motivated police officers who maintain their position within the police force.

However, what police call conduct of numerous Cornwall police officers we CAN NAME involved in covering up the following:-

1. Failure of ‘Duty of Care’ to a homeless 15yr old teenage gay youth (UNIVESTIGATED)
2. Attempted blackmail of a teenage gay youth (UNINVESTIGATED)

3. Abuse of a gay teenager in a strip search & botched ‘Stop & Search’ (UNIVESTIGATED)
4. Seizing of a computer & destruction of a gay businesses (UNIVESTIGATED)
5. Failure to follow ‘TRUE VISION’ & CPS definition of ‘Homophobic Incident’ following serious physical assault of two gay/bi persons (UNIVESTIGATED)
6. Refusal to take statements from Gay/Bi witnesses (UNIVESTIGATED)
7. Withholding Court legal documentation (Investigated, but pitifully excused by the IPCC)
8. Perjury by a police officer in Crown Court (UNINVESTIGATED)
9. Denying a gay person arrested and held in Custody food for in excess of 7hours (investigated, but pitifully excused by the IPCC)
10. Obstruction by police to making a complaint against the police (investigated, but pitifully excused by the IPCC) 11. Un-logged visits by police officers to further intimidate complaintent’s against the police (UNIVESTIGATED)

...is a complete mystery to me as to HOW this catalogue of abuses & misconduct towards gay persons carried out by Cornwall police can remain un-investigated!

...and there are yet more incidents than those above!

To me that IS corruption on the part of Devon & Cornwall Constabulary!

Below is a Devon & Cornwall Constabulary document which given our community experience of Cornwall police conduct towards gay persons, the following police document is worth "Jack Schitt"!

DEVON & CORNWALL
C O N S T A B U L A R Y
Force Policy & Procedure Guideline Intelligence Led Integrity Testing
Reference Number D343
Policy Version Date 20 March 2007
Review Date 01 September 2006
Policy Ownership: Professional Standards Department
Portfolio Holder: Deputy Chief Constable
Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Policy and Procedure D343
Intelligence Led Integrity Testing
Version dated: 20 March 2007

POLICY AND AUDIT IDENTIFICATION (FOI – OPEN)
1.1 This policy has been audited in accordance with the principles of Human Rights
legislation, Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and Freedom Of Information Act 2000, public disclosure is approved unless where otherwise indicated and justified.

POLICY STATEMENTS / INTENTIONS (FOI – OPEN)
2.1 THE PRINCIPLES AND SCOPE OF THE POLICY.
2.1.2 The Devon and Cornwall Constabulary is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity. This policy is related to the investigation of allegations of police corruption and applies to all sworn, unsworn, temporary or contract staff, employed by the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary. The policy also extends to include any person associated with any of the above, in any capacity, regardless of whether or not those persons are employed by the Constabulary or have any legitimate association with the organisation.
20/03/07 Force Publication Scheme

2.2 THE AIM OF THE POLICY.
2.2.1 This policy is designed to provide the option of 'testing' an individual’s integrity, in accordance with the principles of the Human Rights Act 2000. The policy also aims to provide an equitable, consistent and proportionate response to such allegations, in accordance with existing criminal legislation, Police Misconduct Regulations and employment law.
INTRODUCTION (FOI – OPEN)

3.0 THE ORIGINS / BACKGROUND INFORMATION
3.1 The Professional Standards Department, Special Cases Unit, was created in April
2000 in response to the report into Police Integrity published in June 1999.
3.2 The Unit is engaged in the proactive investigation into allegations of corruption, serious malpractice and unethical behaviour, committed by any member of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, which may or may not, involve any other person, as outlined in 2.1. above.
3.3 The vast majority of police officers and support personnel act with complete honesty and integrity. When properly informed, they recognise and support those policies that exist to prevent unacceptable conduct and will actively challenge behaviour that they perceive as being corrupt. The effects of challenging and reporting such questionable conduct can only contribute to the enhancement of the professional reputation of the police as a creditable and trustworthy organisation. This of course includes each and every individual concerned in the provision of policing as a service, from those who work in numerous support roles to those at the point of service delivery.
3.4 The cost of corruption is however, considerable. It can undermine and prevent criminal prosecutions, result in wrongful convictions and render police operations ineffective. Such activity can flourish under the influence of just one corrupt person who remains either unchallenged or unrecognised, infecting entire work groups and contributing to low morale and poor performance. The financial penalties to the police as an organisation can be substantial and associated publicity massively damaging to public confidence. Perceived failures in addressing corruption effectively and robustly will further add to the eroding of trust in the police service of England and Wales and allow criminality to establish a stronghold within and outside of the service. The challenge of confronting and eradicating the existence of corruption is considerable, but it does not begin to equate with the potential cost and damage caused by recognising that the dangers exist and then ignoring them.
3.5 This policy is therefore designed to support the Force Annual Plan and the Strategic 5 Year Priorities, by providing an acceptable means of addressing allegations of corruption in the form of intelligence led integrity testing, (ILIT).
20/03/07 Force Publication Scheme
The intention of such testing being to;
‘Engender trust in the integrity of all members of The Devon and Cornwall
Constabulary’.

4.0 MOTIVATORS / DRIVING FORCES (FOI- OPEN)
4.1 There is no existing Force policy in relation to this business area.

5.0 THE LEGAL BASIS AND LEGITIMATE AIMS (FOI- OPEN)
5.1 Corruption may be defined as;
‘The abuse of a role or position held, for personal gain or gain for others’.
5.2 This definition is wide and is intended to capture intentional neglect as well as overt acts of corruption, which by its very nature is different.
5.3 The term ‘abuse’ may be defined as any act or omission, which causes damage to,
or undermines or injures, the good reputation of the Force or of any member. It includes any criminal conduct or misconduct by any member of the organisation, whether sworn, (regular and/or Special Constabulary), or un-sworn and includes temporary or contract staff.
5.4 The term ‘a role or position held’ applies to any member of the organisation, whether sworn, (regular or Special Constabulary), or un-sworn and includes temporary or contract staff.
5.5 The term ‘personal gain, or gain for others’, is intended to be equally broad and is to include not only property or other tangible items, but also non-tangible matter. For example acts or omissions which give rise to the owing of a ‘favour’, or efforts to ‘ingratiate’ oneself to build credibility, status or to obtain sexual benefits of any description. ‘Gain’ is therefore to be interpreted as any form of acquisition, real or intangible, whereby an advantage or benefit is directly or indirectly realised as a result.
5.6 Corruption must be sought out and guarded against because it often involves mutually beneficial and secretive relationships between corruptor and corrupted.
Any investigation should always seek to include the removal of the corruptor as
this individual will merely turn their attention elsewhere once a corrupted officer
or individual is removed.

6.0 IMPLICATIONS OF THE POLICY (FOI-OPEN)
6.1 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS/BEST VALUE (FOI- OPEN)
All financial implications for this policy have been considered. outine
administrative support is negligible. Applications for funding will be made as
20/03/07 Force Publication Scheme
required in accordance with existing operational planning arrangements. Best
Value will be considered on an individual basis dependant upon specific
circumstances.
6.2 HUMAN RESOURCES/TRAINING (FOI – OPEN)
The resource and training requirements are included within
PROCEDURES/GUIDANCE/TACTICS
6.3 CORPORATE/BUSINESS PLAN (FOI – OPEN)
There are no links to the Corporate Business Plan.
6.4 CRIME AND DISORDER ACT (FOI - OPEN)
There is no involvement of partner agencies.
6.5 DIVERSITY (FOI – OPEN)
There is no potential impact upon any particular group within the police service or
society.
6.7 POLICY LINKS (FOI – OPEN)
There are no common links between this and any other existing policy.
6.8 PROCUREMENT (FOI - OPEN)
Procurement of services, specialist or otherwise, is included within
PROCEDURES/GUIDANCE/TACTICS.
6.9 PROJECTS/PROGRAMMES (FOI- OPEN)
There is no impact on any Force project or programme relating to this Policy.
6.10 CONSULTATION (FOI- OPEN)
Consultation concerning the contents of this document has taken place with the
following;
Deputy Chief Constable
Force Legal Advisor
Head of Professional Standards
Head of Special Cases Unit
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACCAG)
Force Freedom of Information Officer
PROCEDURES/GUIDANCE/TACTICS (FOI – CLOSED) Section 31(1)(a) and Section
31(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 apply.
20/03/07 Force Publication Scheme

7.0 COVERT HUMAN INTELLIGENCE SOURCES. (FOI – CLOSED)
8. INTEGRITY TESTING. (FOI - OPEN)
8.1 The Devon and Cornwall Constabulary does not undertake random integrity testing or random quality assurance testing on any of its staff. Random integrity testing has not and will not take place. It is not anticipated that this policy will alter. It therefore follows that any such testing of a member of staff will only be intelligence led and subject to full compliance with relevant legislation such as: -
a) The Human Rights Act
b) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
c) Police and Criminal Evidence Act
d) Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act
e) Police Misconduct Regulations
8.2 The responsibility of integrity within the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary rests with each and every member of the organisation. However, in accordance with the Force Integrity Strategy, it will be driven by the Professional Standards Department, Special Cases Unit, who will be responsible for the implementation of any intelligence led integrity test, either as the lead investigators or as fully briefed consultants.
8.3 Prior to any application to implement an intelligence led integrity test,
consideration must be given to address the alleged conduct by alternative means.
This may include for example preventative measures like target hardening or target
removal.
8.4 It is essential that any intervention so undertaken be recorded. This record will
permit the justification of any proposed escalation in the form of intelligence led integrity testing in accordance with the principles of The Human Rights Act.
However, there are likely to be occasions when the conduct alleged or suspected is
of such gravity that the prospect of immediately considering an integrity test cannot be discounted. Each case must therefore be judged on individual circumstances.

9.0 INTELLIGENCE LED INTEGRITY TESTING (FOI – CLOSED) Section 31(1)(a) and Section 31(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act apply.

10.0 UNTRAINED OPERATIVES (FOI – CLOSED)
The following forms part of the Standard Operating Practices and as such are
exempt under Sections 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(b) of the Freedom Of Information Act
2000.

11.0 DIRECTED/INTRUSIVE SURVEILLANCE (FOI – CLOSED)
20/03/07 Force Publication Scheme

The following forms part of the Standard Operating Practices and as such is
exempt under Sections 31(1)(a) and 31(1)(b) of the Freedom Of Information Act
2000.
12.0 EXECUTIVE AUTHORITIES (FOI – OPEN)
12.1 The Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, by virtue of Section 6 Human Rights Act
1998, is a public authority. Consequently the Force must comply with the requirements of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (R.I.P.A.) during relevant criminal investigations.
12.2 However, occasions may arise whereby a surveillance technique usually associated
with R.I.P.A., would be the most appropriate method of progressing an alleged breach of a non-crime matter. For example; a member of the organisation committing offences contrary to misconduct regulations, or claiming to be unfit for work yet who is engaged in other employment, or a member of the organisation who has been retired through ill health and who is suspected of working in a capacity with similar demands of those required by the Force.
12.3 In such circumstances application may be made for an Executive Authority to
undertake an integrity test or surveillance in order to prove or disprove the suspected activity. Authorisation for an Executive Authority rests with the Deputy Chief Constable or in his absence a nominated member of the command team. The application will follow the same considerations as given in criminal investigations, particularly in relation to privacy, collateral intrusion, proportionality and necessity. It would be normal practice for an application for an Executive Authority to be made after some form of management intervention, which would assist in justifying the proposed escalation of action as a proportionate response.
12.4 It must be emphasised that an Executive Authority is not part of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, it is not intended for it to be used as an alternative.
However, the principles of R.I.P.A. could be applied to an application for an
Executive Authority, thus permitting proper consideration of those points mentioned in 8.3 above, and should therefore be considered as ‘best practice’.

13.0 TECHNICAL SUPPORT (FOI – CLOSED) section 31(1)(a) and Section 31(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 apply.

14.0 INTERCEPTION OF FORCE COMMUNICATIONS (FOI – OPEN)
14.1 Section 4(2) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 empowered by the
Secretary of State to introduce the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)
(Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000, which entitles the Force to
lawfully intercept staff communications to: -
a. Prevent crime,
b. Ascertain compliance with Force policies and procedures, and
c. Detect unauthorised use of its business telecommunications systems.
20/03/07 Force Publication Scheme
14.2 The Data Protection Act 1998 permits the Chief Constable to collect and use
employee data to the extent and standards set out within that Act and
accompanying Codes of Practice.
14.3 Consequently staff may be liable to monitoring in all aspects of their work. This form of lawful business monitoring as at 10.1, is in addition to those powers conferred on law enforcement agencies in the investigation of crime, specifically where the owner or controller of a telecommunications system provides the investigators with their permission to intercept the communications. Activity such as the one sided consensual interception of telecommunications is catered for within Part II of RIPA as a directed surveillance.
14.4 The Chief Constable of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary has given her
permission, as systems controller, for monitoring to take place as and when required, subject to authorisation for a directed surveillance. The authorising officer must, in accordance with R.I.P.A., be at least of the rank of Superintendent, however in exceptional circumstances, the authorisation will be given by the Deputy Chief Constable, or in his absence a nominated member of the command team. A copy of the Chief Constable’s authority is held within the Special Cases Unit offices for reference.
14.5 Interception of communications will not normally occur to monitor conversations
or communications which may be sensitive for example, communication to/from the Occupational Health Unit, (including welfare), Police Federation, UNISON, Force Legal Department or Personnel Departments, unless exceptional circumstances exist. Where interception is likely to result in the obtaining of confidential material, authorisation will be sought from the Chief Constable, or in her absence, a designated deputy. Where interception is likely to result in the obtaining of private information the authority of a Superintendent will be obtained, or in exceptional circumstances, a member of the Command Team. This is in line with the requirements of R.I.P.A.
14.6 Interception of communications to the ‘Crimestoppers’ telephone line is
specifically not included within this policy, which is in accordance with national
guidelines concerning confidentiality of callers identities.
14.7 Interception of Force communications is publicised to all members of the Force by way of quarterly entries in Weekly Orders which reminds all staff of the Force’s
position and their personal obligations and responsibilities. Warning notices are
also attached to all internal telephone extensions. It will be normal practice during
such investigations to obtain the relevant R.I.P.A. authority in addition to having
the Chief Constable’s consent.

15.0 MONITORING/REVIEW
15.1 The annual review of this guideline is the responsibility of the Head of Professional
Standards Department.
20/03/07 Force Publication Scheme


An effectively worthless police document since Cornwall police choose to ignore it!