Chamber and committees

That is helpful.

In relation to the proposed 12-month time limit in the bill, have you considered fairness for officers who have left and gone on to other employment and might be unaware that there is a complaint? I am concerned not about officers who leave when they know that there is a complaint but those who, having no knowledge, are caught within the 12 months. Following that, they would have the right to defend themselves and appeal against the decision.

I am not minded to support extensions of that 12-month limit, especially if it is the limit for the time when you can pursue an officer, so it could be a much longer time before the proceedings are held, after which the officer could appeal the decision. Have I misunderstood how that would work?

So there is a bit of gate keeping in deciding which cases will be pursued but it is not in the bill that the PIRC can do that up to 12 months.

That is interesting.

And you have the expertise.

You would agree that they should still make the distinction between criminal behaviour and gross misconduct, which might be something completely different.

But those are criminal cases.

Okay. I will ask you about the bits of the bill that you do not support. Is that because you think that it works better to have a joint role between the PIRC and HMICS?

It would have been pursued as a criminal matter.

But there is gross misconduct that is not criminal.

That is my point: there will be cases of gross misconduct that are not criminal and the intention is that there will be provision for former officers to be pursued for up to 12 months after leaving the police. An officer who is charged with gross misconduct might want to appeal the decision, and they have that right. I am interested in the timescales in relation to former officers and whether 12 months is fair, given that there would then be proceedings. I am not talking about criminal cases; I am talking about gross misconduct.