You are not currently logged in. If you do not have a user account then please consider creating one and logging in before you post your comment. This will allow you to track replies to your comment, and take part in the site much more freely.
To add your comment, fill in all the boxes below and then preview it to make sure you're happy with the way that it looks.
This is the comment you were replying to, attached to the article The future of policing: trust and accountability:
#6 Re: the future of policing: trust and accountability Posted by Anonymous (92.1.xx.xx) on Thu 1 Apr 2010 at 15:25 Just to clarify - if you appeal to IPCC against an investigation into a complaint, and they do not uphold your appeal, the case does not automatically go to Judicial Review. JR is a legal process that the victim has to instigate within 3 months of the decision, at a cost to the complainant in the tens of thousands of pounds. It is the last legal resort for people who have been failed by the IPCC and who are lucky enough to have the money to take matters further. It is not an intrinsic part of the process, it is a sign that the process is not working. A competent authority should not be leaving itself open to legal challenges which, as you say, are largely successful. Successful Judical Reviews by the wealthy few are an indicator of flawed and unlawful decision making on the part of IPCC.
Posting Format:
Inappropriate comments will be removed.
Some help on entry formatting is available
Username:
Password:
Register Account
Your reaction to the lack of charges re: Ian Tomlinson
Happy, surprised. Happy, unsurprised. Unhappy, surprised. Unhappy, unsurprised.
