Guidance

Designation as a Service Police Super-Complaint Body

Published 20 July 2023

Introduction

The civilian police super-complaints system (on which the Service Police super-complaints system is based) was established to address the concerns about whether the police complaints system was able to identify systemic failures in policing.

Service Police super-complaints are not an alternative way to raise an individual complaint. Rather, super-complaints are intended to raise issues or concerns on behalf of the public about harmful patterns or trends in policing by the Service Police which are, or appear to be, significantly harming the interests of the public.

Only designated bodies can make a super-complaint; they are made to His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) who, together with the Service Police Complaints Commissioner, will decide whether the complaint needs to be investigated, carry out any such investigation, and make a report of their conclusions.

The Secretary of State for Defence designates the bodies who can make super-complaints against the Service Police. An organisation must demonstrate that they met all the criteria set out in Regulation 89 of the Service Police (Complaints etc.) Regulations 2023 to be designated.

Criteria for the making of designations

Bodies wishing to become designated under the Service Police super-complaints system must demonstrate in the application form that they fulfil each of the following eight criteria:

Criterion 1

That the body is competent in, and has considerable experience of, representing the interests of the public.

The purpose of this criterion is to enable organisations to show that they have engaged in quality work representing the interests of the public in a reliable and effective way. It is important that designated bodies are trusted by the public, well-positioned to fulfil their responsibilities within the super-complaints system and have experience in reaching out to and representing communities.

Applicants should demonstrate this criterion by:

• Providing a comprehensive description of their purpose and activities, the sectors they cover, and evidence of how long the organisation has been in existence. This should be as concise as possible and is intended to ensure that the organisation has a track record demonstrating experience and competence in representing the interests of the public.

• Demonstrating experience of acting in the interests of the public, whether generally or for particular groups, and over what period of time. ‘Considerable experience’ should include a variety of high-quality work which has had a significant impact.

• Demonstrating competence within, or available to, the organisation – for example, legal advisors or case officers familiar with representing the interests of the public in the context of this criterion.

In assessing this experience and competence, the Ministry of Defence would expect the track record to be for a minimum of two years, but would consider a shorter period if it can be demonstrated by the applicant that it fulfils the other criteria.

Criterion 2

That the body will represent the interests of the public effectively in its role as a designated body and, in particular, will work to improve policing.

This criterion is aimed at ensuring that the bodies involved in the system are genuinely there to work towards the improvement of policing and are sufficiently able to represent the interests of the public. This will exclude bodies which represent a vested interest and may use the system inappropriately. This criterion is not intended to exclude bodies that are critical of the Service Police or those which may have a challenging relationship with the Service Police. The intention is for designated bodies to be able to capture and bring forward legitimate concerns on behalf of the public for the purpose of improving policing and assisting those adversely affected.

Whilst the improvement of policing does not have to be an organisational priority as such, it is expected that this will be the motivation behind any super-complaint. This criterion includes organisations that represent the Armed Forces community, the general public as a whole, as well as those supporting smaller communities with a shared interest, geographical location or protected characteristic. They should have established working relationships with the Armed Forces community or a history of engaging with government, having strong networks, a public platform or experience of working across multiple channels.

Applicants should demonstrate this criterion by:

• Showing what activities they have previously engaged in that demonstrate quality work in representing the public interest.

• Producing reports or other previous examples of raising important issues through the correct channels, or simply through the everyday work of the body.

Criterion 3

That the composition of the body and the arrangements for its governance and accountability are such that it can be relied upon to act independently and with integrity in its role as a designated body.

Bodies should have sufficient governance and accountability structures in place to ensure that, in pursuing a super-complaint, they are motivated by the interests of and detriment suffered by the group affected by the issue, and a genuine want to improve the situation and not, for example, as a result of any wider interests. An example of the pursuit of a wider interest would be the bringing of a super-complaint solely for its publicity value, rather than a realistic chance of improving policing for the benefit of the public or the Armed Forces community.

This criterion is aimed at preventing unduly biased organisations from using the system inappropriately. Applicants should demonstrate this criterion by providing the following information:

• Details of the constitution of the body including its legal or statutory status, its board and/or management structure and affiliations to other bodies.

• The current list of directors (including non-executive directors), partners or principal officers of the organisation and any other person who could be said to exercise control of the body.

• At least two years of accounts or, where this is not possible, an explanation of why these accounts are not available.

• Details of any shareholdings in the organisation.

• Details of the sources and extent of funding of the organisation by other bodies including private enterprises.

• Relevant information about the past conduct of the individuals who manage or control the organisation.

The past conduct of the individuals who manage or control the organisation (directors, partners, or principal officers) may have an impact on the way in which it would make super-complaints if it were to be designated. This would depend on the specific circumstances, including the degree of influence of the individual concerned. In appropriate cases, the Ministry of Defence will take into account evidence of the integrity of such individuals and the extent to which the decisions that individual may take in relation to the organisation could be influenced by financial or other improper considerations.

The Ministry of Defence will take into account all relevant circumstances, including (but not limited to) whether the organisation, or the individuals who manage or control it:

• have committed any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty or, in the case of an individual, any offence which might cast doubt on the suitability of an organisation controlled or managed by that person and which is not a spent conviction under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

• are subject to winding-up proceedings or, in the case of an individual, an undischarged bankrupt or disqualified director.

• have practised unlawful discrimination on grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership or pregnancy and maternity, in connection with the carrying on of any business.

• have engaged in business practices that appear to the Ministry of Defence to be deceitful or oppressive, or otherwise unfair or improper (whether lawful or not).

Criterion 4

That the body has the capability necessary to carry out its role as a designated body effectively.

In order to fulfil their role as a designated body, organisations will need to have the resource and capability to carry out sufficient research, and other work as required, to turn the issues or concerns they have identified into well-reasoned super-complaints. This criterion prevents any bodies that are not in a position to produce a fully-evidenced super-complaint from being designated.

Applicants should demonstrate this criterion by:

• Showing that they have a body of staff (paid or unpaid) capable of producing high quality, evidence-based reports, as well as adequate provision for research.

• Providing examples of previous papers and research, which could be across a number of different areas or in relation to a particular issue.

Criterion 5

That the body has made arrangements for the appropriate storage and handling of data that it may obtain in its role as a designated body.

This aims to exclude any body that cannot adhere to the relevant data protection legislation. It is important that members of the public or other bodies trust, and feel confident in sharing sensitive information with, a designated body, and for the designated body to be able to manage / share this information appropriately. Depending on the nature of the super-complaint, it may also be necessary for designated bodies to keep information confidential and limit disclosure for a specified period of time so that any investigation is not prejudiced. This would be agreed between the designated body and HMICFRS and/or the Service Police Complaints Commissioner.

Applicants should demonstrate this criterion by:

• Providing a copy of their data handling policy.

• Showing that they have secure IT systems.

• Providing examples of when they have shared sensitive data appropriately in the past.

• Applicants may also wish to provide details of any relevant training provided to staff within the organisation.

Criterion 6

That the body can be relied upon to have regard to any guidance about the making of super-complaints which is given to designated bodies by His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services.

This criterion ensures that prior agreement is obtained from the participating bodies that they will have regard to the guidance issued by HMICFRS, ensuring that the system will be used in the correct manner.

The Ministry of Defence will have regard to any representations from HMICFRS which suggest a body has failed to take into account their guidance, in considering whether to withdraw designation. Applicants should demonstrate this criterion by:

• Confirming a readiness and willingness to have regard to any guidance issued by HMICFRS on the making of super-complaints.

Criterion 7

That the body is not a trade union or an association which represents the interests of members of a Service Police force.

The Service Police super-complaints system is intended to provide a voice for organisations, such as charities, to raise a complaint on behalf of the public about patterns or trends in policing that are, or appear to be, significantly harming the interests of the public. There are already existing processes in place for members of the Service Police to raise complaints including via the Service Complaints system that is overseen by the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces.

Applicants should demonstrate this criterion by:

• Confirming that they are not a Service Police association or trade union.

Criterion 8

That the body would collaborate effectively with bodies which are not designated bodies but which are, or may be, aware of matters which could form the basis of a super-complaint and, where appropriate, make a super-complaint on the basis of matters raised with it by such bodies.

While the super-complaints system will be primarily for cross-force issues, it is important that the system can also capture and highlight localised policing issues. This criterion will ensure maximum access to the system and allow for similar issues to be collated into one super-complaint if appropriate, ensuring that systemic issues are recognised and highlighted in this way.

This would not necessarily involve bodies working together on their super-complaints, unless they wish to, but in some circumstances it may be appropriate for HMICFRS to address them simultaneously. To clarify, designated bodies will not need to be constituted as an existing umbrella body as part of their normal work, but they will have to demonstrate they are willing and able to work collaboratively with other bodies, if appropriate, within the super-complaints system.

A list of designated bodies will be published online to ensure the public and non-designated bodies know who they could approach if they had concerns relevant to the making of a super-complaint. There is an expectation that designated bodies will provide a valid, written reason if they decide not to progress as a super-complaint an issue brought to them by another body. Failure to do this may result in the removal of their designation.

Applicants should demonstrate this criterion by:

• Confirming that they are willing and able to act as a co-ordinating body for those who have collated evidence from the public – such as smaller charities, organisations or, in some cases, individuals.

• Providing previous examples of collaboration with other organisations and any existing networks with other bodies.

Withdrawal of Designation

Designated status will be removed from any designated body that the Ministry of Defence believes no longer meets the eight criteria. Designated status will not be removed, however, simply because a body does not submit any super-complaints. The emphasis is on ensuring that bodies put forward well-reasoned super-complaints, rather than submitting them purely in an attempt to retain designation. Designation can also be withdrawn at the request of the organisation.

Review of Designation

The Secretary of State may direct the Ministry of Defence to review periodically the designation of any organisation in order to ensure that it continues to meet the criteria. If, during the review and having consulted the body, it is found that the organisation no longer meets the criteria then the Secretary of State will withdraw its designation.

Applicants should undertake to formally notify the Ministry of Defence of any changes to the information supplied at the application stage, which could be relevant to meeting any of the criteria. This might include, for example, changes to directors, partners or principal officers of the organisation, or changes in the activities of the organisation. If it becomes necessary to amend the criteria against which bodies are assessed for designation, the Ministry of Defence will consider how the potential changes might affect the designation of bodies and how best to consult on the changes.

How to apply

Applicants may wish to refer to this guidance document before completing the application form. It is important that the information supplied is correct and relevant for each of the criteria and that the word count is not exceeded.

The Ministry of Defence will not be able to consider any information which exceeds the word count; however, this does not include any examples of previous work which are provided and considered relevant to the criteria. Bodies wishing to apply to become designated must complete the application form.

An acknowledgement of receipt of the application will be sent within five working days. Feedback will be provided to applicants at the end of the application process detailing whether or not an organisation has been successful against each of the criterion.

Any questions about the application process or individual applications should be directed to the following email address: People-DPT-SPCC-supercomplaints@mod.gov.uk