The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Relatively Speaking
A thematic inspection of Family Liaison in Scotland

PROCESSES

Selection and Appointment

3.84 Of the 510 solved homicide cases in Scotland in the five year period between 1997-2001, the victim and the main accused were known to each other, either as relatives or acquaintances, in 394 (77%) of cases. ²⁷ In very many instances the lifestyle, family, friends and associates of the victim may hold the key to identifying witnesses or suspects; making family liaison potentially, of great value, and in some cases a pivotal factor for success in the investigation.

3.85 With the Scottish Executive's commitment and move towards a victim focused criminal justice system, dealing properly and sensitively with the family will be a key feature of progress in that direction.

3.86 Selection of a particular FLO for deployment must always be a considered decision by the SIO in discussion with the Family Liaison Co-ordinator. Whether or not this responsibility is delegated, the officer making the selection must be aware of all professional and personal circumstances of potential candidates and their ability to effectively perform the function at that time, so that an inappropriate selection is avoided.

3.87 In a number of forces FLOs were selected for deployment by the force co-ordinator, who matched a FLO(s) to the anticipated demands of the SIO and family. Other forces, notably those with larger numbers of FLOs or wider geographical areas, have chosen to delegate the selection of officers to territorial commanders, with Family Liaison Co-ordinators maintaining an overview and scrutiny of FLO usage.

3.88 It is accepted that both systems have their merits, however the crucial element common to both is the awareness of all the professional and personal circumstances of FLOs prior to their selection for deployment.

3.89 HMIC found that the selection of FLOs was frequently based on immediate availability or with short-term financial considerations in mind, rather than an appropriate and considered selection based on the collective needs of the family and the investigation.

3.90 When considering a particular FLO, it is good practice to seek confirmation that they are in a position to take on a new deployment before appointing him or her to the post. Consideration should also be given to the employment of deputy FLOs in appropriate cases to ensure resilience and continuity in the liaison function over extended periods.

3.91 In some forces it is common practice to select a second, untrained, officer to shadow and deputise for the FLO. Where this is done, it is important that the same selection criteria are applied in appointing untrained officers to the role. Good management may provide an opportunity to give officers who have expressed interest in the role some exposure to it, whilst ensuring that the needs of the families and investigative requirements are not compromised.

3.92 In view of the pressure which maintaining a pool of suitable officers may place on forces, perhaps consideration could be given to utilising appropriately skilled retired officers or specifically trained support staff to undertake an FLO or FLO support role. HMIC notes that Avon and Somerset Constabulary are already giving serious consideration to the feasibility of this option.

Deployment

3.93 It is recognised good practice that an FLO should not be deployed on a new case whilst he or she has yet to implement an exit strategy in an existing deployment. HMIC found substantial evidence, during Inspection visits and from questionnaire responses, that FLOs were regularly engaged in multiple deployments, with a significant number of FLOs managing three or more simultaneous deployments.

3.94 The following graph illustrates the experience of questionnaire respondents in terms of their greatest ever number of simultaneous deployments.

Fig 3: Experience of Simultaneous Deployments

3.95 Those FLOs with experience of more than 3 simultaneous deployments are from the same force.

3.96 HMIC considers this situation far from ideal, as a family should have the undivided attention of the FLO in its time of need. HMIC considers that forces should be more proactive in managing deployments to ensure that such situations are kept to an absolute minimum.

3.97 Evidence was apparent within forces of a significant imbalance concerning the use of particular FLOs with a tendency towards overuse of a core number of tried and tested officers to the detriment of others. Some FLOs had been deployed almost continuously whilst others had been rarely used since completing their training. The results of these findings were again borne out in answers to the FLO questionnaire, where 25% of respondents felt that selection for deployment was "not very fair" while a further 12% believed selection to be "not at all fair".

3.98 Some anecdotal evidence was found within forces of FLOs being deployed as a means of addressing issues which required police action, but in no way fell within the scope of family liaison. One example given was of a senior officer recalling a FLO to duty for the sole purpose of delivering a routine death message. There was also evidence of FLOs being deployed midway through lesser investigations to avert criticism of an enquiry and/or to appease victims' families. Other examples included the deployment of a FLO to the victim of an attempted homicide several weeks after the attack when the accused had been arrested on the day of the crime and remanded in custody the day after.

3.99 HMIC considers such deployments to be inappropriate and a misuse (or at least misguided use) of scarce resources, which do nothing to enhance the role or to encourage officers to volunteer for it.

3.100 There are many good reasons for (at least) two FLOs being deployed to a family, not least to ensure continuity of service to family members and to provide a measure of support for individual FLOs. HMIC found that practice in forces varied, and that FLOs had been deployed singly in the majority of cases when a double deployment would have been more appropriate. On occasions when FLOs were deployed in pairs, it was usually at their insistence and not a considered decision by the SIO.

3.101 HMIC heard of the experiences of two FLOs deployed alone in different incidents. One recounted how a family member had assaulted them by grabbing their jacket, the other described being verbally threatened with physical violence. Whilst it is accepted that there will be cases where a single FLO will be able to meet all the objectives without detriment to that officer's welfare, HMIC believes that the single deployment should be the exception rather than the rule.

Co-ordination of Deployments

3.102 The role of the Family Liaison Co-ordinator is essential to the cohesive and efficient structure of family liaison within forces. The FLC is responsible for the administrative supervision of family liaison and acts also as a support point for FLOs. Within this remit, the FLC has responsibility for maintaining a register of all FLOs, which should include:

• details of their lifestyle diversity;
• ethnic/cultural origins;
• FLO experience (number and nature of deployments) and brief synopsis of specific FLO skills utilised and enhanced;
• details of other skills or qualifications held by the officer (e.g. trained to deal with sexual offences, language/communication skills);
• current availability status of FLO.

3.103 The importance of a monitoring system for deployments cannot be over emphasised as an essential tool in the effective management and co-ordination of family liaison. As well as providing a means for matching the suitability of a FLO to the requirements or unique demands of a particular investigation, an accurately maintained register should also serve to highlight instances of over and inappropriate use of individual FLOs, thereby ensuring fair and even use of available resources.

3.104 HMIC was concerned to note that a significant minority of forces had failed to implement any means for monitoring or co-ordinating deployments, which evidently contributed, to over-use and multiple deployments of a core number of FLOs, within the forces concerned. It was also apparent that co-ordination worked best in the smaller forces where the FLC managed a correspondingly small pool of FLOs, invariably through a single point of contact.

3.105 The methods employed by forces to gather and record information and maintain deployment registers varied considerably. The more effective systems were found in forces where the FLC created a register entry from the outset of a deployment and updated it as the enquiry progresses. Other forces operated a retrospective system whereby the onus fell on the FLO to notify the co-ordinator at the conclusion of an enquiry that they had been so deployed, usually by submitting a written report outlining details of the deployment.

3.106 In practical terms, the latter system was found to be less robust, not least because FLOs were regularly failing to submit these deployment reports and no backup mechanism existed to secure their submission, with the result that many deployments went unrecorded.

3.107 HMIC considers that forces must ensure more robust monitoring systems exist to accurately record details of all FLO deployments.

3.108 HMIC acknowledges as good practice the systems within Tayside Police and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary of computerising their deployment registers, including FLO contact details, and the benefits derived from ready access to accurate and detailed information.

Briefings

3.109 In formulating the family liaison strategy the SIO must aim to achieve a partnership approach with the family involved in the investigation.

3.110 The strategy should be defined and developed taking into consideration the needs of the family, the lines of enquiry and the available intelligence. This is a dynamic process that must be reviewed at regular intervals and in consultation with the FLO.

3.111 FLOs are an integral part of the investigation team and are expected to be present at and take part in all regular team briefings and debriefings. In addition there must be direct communication between the SIO and the FLO in connection with their role and issues concerning the family. Ideally the FLO should be debriefed by the SIO or someone delegated that task after every contact with a family member.

3.112 As the principal player in the partnership, it is imperative that the FLO is fully briefed and debriefed of developments in the investigation so that accurate information is exchanged between the family and the enquiry team, and importantly, to ensure that the integrity of the investigation is maintained.

3.113 It is apparent from inspection visits to forces that FLOs are regularly attending team briefings as full members of enquiry teams. However, HMIC found that attention to debriefings was less stringent, and would commend forces to pay close attention to this issue.

3.114 FLOs themselves were generally critical of the standards of briefings and debriefings received from SIOs, particularly in terms of guidance and information on the family liaison strategy and needs of the enquiry. The Inspection Team uncovered clear evidence across forces that structured briefings/debriefings between SIOs and FLOs were inadequate and on many occasions non-existent. Two FLOs recounted pre-deployment strategy briefings with SIOs that amounted to no more than "go and do your bit" and "go and read the statements".

3.115 HMIC considers this situation to be wholly inadequate not only from the point of view of the needs of the investigation and the family concerned, but also from an FLO perspective as such briefings provide a mechanism for support and supervision.

Workloads

3.116 It is recognised good practice that Family Liaison Officers, where appointed, should be dedicated primarily if not exclusively to that task.

3.117 HMIC was disappointed to note that FLOs in a number of forces were not being deployed in such a capacity, even in the early stages of major enquiries, and were regularly having to combine routine work commitments with their FLO deployments.

3.118 When FLOs were asked, via questionnaire, what typically happened to their normal workloads during routine deployments, respondents answered as follows: -

Fig 4: Routine Workloads During Deployment

3.119 Consistent themes emerged through inspection visits of FLOs returning to backlogs of outstanding work at the conclusion of deployments. Some even encountered additional work to that already outstanding because the specialist nature of their day jobs prohibited re-allocation of incoming enquiries. Others explained the difficulties and pressures of balancing their FLO role around normal work commitments when not deployed in a dedicated capacity. Numerous instances were highlighted where family liaison duties were undertaken by officers in their own time, including evenings and rest days, as the capacity in which they had been so deployed and/or other work commitments had prevented visits being carried out during normal tours of duty.

Fig 5: Hours Typically Worked in Excess of Normal Shift

3.120 The outcome of such poor practice was apparent when a bereaved woman who was interviewed for a case study, commented "I was very aware that she (FLO) was a police officer and had other work to do". It is very disappointing that any victim should have formed such a perception of the family liaison service.

3.121 When FLOs were asked, via questionnaire, how many hours they typically worked in excess of their normal shift on a routine deployment, respondents answered as follows: -

3.122 Of those working excess hours, the majority (82%) said they received full financial recompense, while 15% claimed to receive part payment, time off in lieu or a combination both.

3.123 It is the opinion of HMIC that the emotional demands made of FLOs, combined with the physical demands generated through working regularly extended hours, renders them particularly liable to stress. For the sake of the vulnerable families they are supporting, and for the sake of their own health, it is essential that forces take steps to positively manage the normal work commitments of their FLOs so that the officers concerned are free to devote their full attention to the family liaison role when called upon to do so.

3.124 Whilst FLOs may have to manage family liaison within a normal workload in the latter stages of a deployment, when contact with a family is significantly reduced, it must not be permitted or condoned when liaison is active.

Understanding of FLO Role

3.125 The experience of a significant number of FLOs spoken to during inspection visits indicated that some SIOs had little or no functional understanding of what family liaison was about and knew neither what to expect of a FLO or what could be achieved in an enquiry from deploying one. Line and area managers were said to have even less understanding of the role, which seemed in part to contribute to the number of inappropriate deployments alluded to, earlier.

3.126 Such perceptions were confirmed when 51% of respondents to the FLO questionnaire felt that SIOs had "little" or "no" understanding or appreciation of the demands made upon them when deployed in the FLO role. That figure rose to 56% when the same question was asked of their first line manager.

3.127 There was some anecdotal evidence that this lack of understanding and appreciation of the liaison role occasionally contributed to a strained relationship between the FLO and SIO. However, feedback from other FLOs suggested that some SIOs are becoming more appreciative of the particular nuances of family liaison as their understanding of the role develops.

Exit Strategies

3.128 FLOs must remain focused that their primary function in an enquiry is that of an investigator. Where the FLO has developed a good relationship with the family there is potential for the family to become over reliant on them. The implications of this could have long term effects for both the family and the FLO.

3.129 In every case the FLO and SIO should agree an exit strategy such that the FLO can maintain a professional relationship with the family and withdraw at an appropriate time. The needs of the family should also inform the exit strategy which is ultimately implemented. There is a danger of a FLO over-identifying with a family and allowing professional boundaries to erode. Whilst in the short term this may benefit the family, there is evidence that it may adversely affect them in the longer term when the FLO withdraws.

3.130 One in eight respondents to the FLO questionnaire had experienced difficulties ending contact with a bereaved family. In two thirds of these cases it was clearly the family member who, having come to rely on the FLO, appeared to prolong the contact. In other cases family contact was maintained by the FLO to counter a lack of support from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

3.131 The following extracts from the FLO questionnaire typify difficulties experienced by FLOs in severing contact with a family:

• "... family members did not want to let me go. I did not return their calls and eventually they stopped".
• "Boundaries weren't set from the outset and the natural instinct was to want to help as much as possible, particularly because of a lack of outside agency support - mainly regarding legal proceedings".
• "They (family) relied on my support and became very attached and didn't want to let go".

3.132 At present there is no definitive guidance on the stage at which a FLO should seek to withdraw, and it is recognised that it can be extremely difficult to do so without generating a sense of abandonment within the family, due to the close bonds that have formed. It was found that practice varied between forces; generally an exit was effected either at the conclusion of the police investigation or after a criminal trial. It was also apparent that contact between FLO and family was often maintained, even after the professional relationship had been formally ended. HMIC believes that force co-ordinators have a role to play in ensuring the formulation of appropriate exit strategies and their implementation.

3.133 That said, the needs of families must be high in the list of priorities, and their continual support must be assured through the involvement of whichever groups or agencies can provide for their needs.

3.134 Where professional boundaries had been unclear or had been allowed to erode; for example FLOs giving out their own mobile or even home telephone numbers to families, then the ending of the relationship between FLO and the family was invariably more difficult for all concerned. At worst, officers and family found it impossible to end contact and to continue their professional and personal lives.

3.135 Some clarity in policy should be developed when it is clear how VIA (and in its absence a role for the Procurator Fiscal in meeting the information needs of families) is to develop. Clearly it is inappropriate for police liaison to continue after the point where responsibility has transferred to another agency.

Mobile Phone Provision

3.136 HMIC noted that forces did not automatically provide FLOs with mobile phones. Only one in 4 questionnaire respondents claimed to have the use of a force phone "always" or on "most occasions" while deployed on an incident. Over half claimed never to have been given this facility.

3.137 Just less than three-quarters (72%) of FLOs had resorted to using their own mobile phone at some point in time with one third of these using it on a regular basis. Of the 36% of respondents, who had given out their mobile phone number to families, one third had experienced difficulties in being called at unusual hours, on and off duty.

3.138 Only 8% of those who had used their own phone for family liaison purposes had received any financial recompense.

3.139 It is essential that a FLO has use of a force mobile phone whenever a deployment is made in order that a family has a point of contact with its FLO, and that appropriate professional boundaries are established and maintained (unless a decision is taken to only issue an incident room number). Consideration may also be given to using a separate mobile number where an officer already has a phone for work purposes.

Family Liaison Support

3.140 The Senior Investigating Officer has a duty of care and an obligation to support and constantly monitor the health, safety and welfare of FLOs. SIOs should in particular be aware of the dangers of undue stress levels being maintained by FLOs as they are exposed to the raw emotions and needs of the bereaved, nor should FLOs be left feeling abandoned or isolated.

3.141 Recent case law has reinforced earlier legal rulings regarding the legitimacy of emotional injury and employers duty of care towards employees.

3.142 In the case of Hillsborough Officers v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police the legal position of officers vulnerability to emotional injury was examined. The case established the law relating to police officers suffering "psychiatric injury" from exposure to mental injury.

3.143 Extracts from an article discussing the court of appeal decision in the officers' favour, reported in the New Law Journal, appear below.

"It reinforces the decision in Pag e v Smith that psychiatric and physical injuries should be looked at in the same way and are not different kinds of injury."

"Employers owe their employees a duty of care to prevent them being exposed to a danger which is likely to create a mental injury."

3.144 The Murder Investigation Manual sets out obligations on SIOs in providing a duty of care for FLOs. In discharging these duties account should be taken of the following issues:

• The roles and lines of responsibility for the management of the FLO(s) should be clearly set out;
• there must be direct communication between the SIO and FLOs in connection with their roles and issues concerning the family;
• that FLOs take part in regular briefings and debriefings with the SIO and investigation team;
• that the FLOs attend mandatory debriefings with force welfare or occupational health departments;
• SIOs should ensure that FLOs are only employed on one active homicide investigation at any one given time.

3.145 It should also be emphasised that FLOs are under an obligation to inform the SIO and Family Liaison Co-ordinator (FLC) of any concerns they have in continuing to perform in a specific case or in any future role as a FLO.

3.146 The emotional intensity of the family liaison role is more pronounced than almost any other specialist role within the police service. The mental and physical demands can be extreme and, unfortunately, not always recognised or acknowledged. A recurring theme of attributing factors emerged during inspection visits, which can be summarised as follows:

• Sustained contact with a family in grief;
• regular extended tours of duty;
• prolonged periods of working in isolation;
• expectations to manage existing workloads whilst performing the FLO role;
• lack of support and recognition of the role;
• multiple deployments.

3.147 The indication that 34% of respondents to the FLO questionnaire admitted that the demands and stresses placed on them in their role as a Family Liaison Officer had a "fairly significant" or "substantial" impact on their home life, with a further 46% experiencing a "minor" impact, reinforces the points made at paragraph 3.123, regarding the stressful nature of this role.

Occupational Health Interviews

3.148 Policy in the Murder Investigation Manual directs that FLOs should attend debriefings with force or occupational health departments. Such visits are mandatory at intervals determined by the SIO in consultation with the appropriate unit and dependant on the particular case in which the FLO is deployed. Failure of an FLO to attend such debriefs must preclude them from performing the role on future occasions.

3.149 Only Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary has implemented this aspect of policy, encompassing mandatory annual interviews with an independent psychologist in accordance with a documented force policy.

3.150 The views of FLOs were sought regarding the need for occupational health interviews and if so their frequency. HMIC was interested to note that only one questionnaire respondent disagreed with the concept of mandatory interviews, whilst the remaining respondents expressed the following opinions.

Fig 6: Preferred Frequency of Mandatory Occupational - Health Interviews

3.151 When asked who was the most appropriate person to conduct these interviews, the majority of respondents (63%) favoured an external specialist with the remainder opting for either a force occupational health officer or force welfare officer.

3.152 HMIC believes that forces must take steps to meet their obligation of ensuring the health and welfare of Family Liaison Officers, and that this can be best achieved by the formulation of policies designed to include the following elements:

• availability of independent psychological services;
• mandatory attendance of FLOs at occupational health interviews, where instructed by forces;
• a minimum standard of mandatory annual interviews for all FLOs;
• additional interviews as directed by force co-ordinators; and
• confidentiality of interviews unless there are reasons to believe that a FLO should withdraw from the role.

Family Liaison Co-ordinators Debriefings

3.153 In addition to their administrative roles, Family Liaison Co-ordinators provide a support point for FLOs, one aspect of which involves independent debriefings of FLOs to draw out good practice, and any other relevant issues. Whilst this responsibility is clearly articulated within policy it was concerning to hear that nearly three quarters (73%) of questionnaire respondents had never been debriefed by their FLC. Only 8% of respondents had received these debriefings on "every" or "most" deployments.

3.154 Another facet of support provision befalling force co-ordinators is the promotion and facilitation of mutual FLO peer group support. Policy advises that FLCs should meet formally with all force FLOs not less than twice a year.

3.155 Such meetings provide opportunities for training, legislative updates and the sharing and dissemination of good practice. HMIC notes that only Northern Constabulary and Tayside Police fulfil the meeting criteria, with the latter meeting on a quarterly basis. FLOs in the three forces where no such meetings take place - all foresaw a need for internal dialogue to improve communication and address management and information gaps, perceived to exist. HMIC considers that these shortfalls should be addressed as a matter of good practice.

3.156 The use of mentors is still in its infancy, and forces are clearly still coming to terms with how to obtain maximum benefit from their expertise.

SIO Support Interviews

3.157 It is recognised good practice for SIOs or nominated deputies to conduct support interviews with FLOs at regular and significant stages of deployments. A section within the Family Liaison Log is dedicated to the recording of such interviews. HMIC was disappointed to learn that this important aspect of support was being addressed sporadically by SIOs. Sixty five percent of respondents to the FLO questionnaire indicated they had never received such an interview, in any deployment, while at the other extreme 10% of respondents received more than one interview per deployment. These facts confirmed information gathered by the Inspection Team during force visits.

Family Liaison Logbooks

3.158 In 2000, the ACPOS Investigations Sub-Committee produced a standardised Family Liaison Logbook that was subsequently introduced and adopted by the Scottish Police Service as a matter of 'good practice'.

3.159 The FLO is responsible for maintaining the logbook and detailing within it all contacts made with family members or intermediaries, including times, dates locations and methods employed e.g. telephone contact or home visit.

3.160 HMIC found that these logbooks were generally being used as intended, however less clear was the extent to which SIOs were scrutinising them. It is essential that SIOs regularly supervise the FLO logbooks to ensure the effective management and conduct of the liaison process.

3.161 Completed deployment logbooks must be securely stored with relevant case papers to ensure availability for internal or external review. HMIC was concerned to note the number of occasions where FLOs retained completed logbooks at the end of deployments, a practice that is far from ideal and which should be discouraged.

Murder Reviews - Family Liaison

3.162 The strategic importance of conducting major crime reviews has been alluded to already within the "Policy and Strategy" section of this chapter.

3.163 A small number of major investigations are the subject of review, normally if unsolved after 28 days (or less if appropriate), with the primary objective of identifying further potential lines of enquiry to assist the Senior Investigating Officer in their task. In addition, most forces have a process for reviewing solved cases, with the objective of identifying and disseminating good practice.

3.164 Family liaison is one of the areas encompassed by the review process, however no force takes this aspect to the logical conclusion of simply asking the family their opinion of the family liaison process. Whilst acknowledging the potential complexities and sensitivities involved in seeking out the thoughts of a family at a time when emotions are still raw, HMIC favours extending this aspect of the review process to include the family's perspective.

RESULTS

People Results

3.165 The following graph illustrates the experience of respondents to the FLO questionnaire, in terms of the most difficult and challenging aspects of the FLO role. A broad spread of concern is evident with no one issue emerging greatly ahead of any other. Additional difficulties mentioned include lone working, the lack of response from the Procurator Fiscal and juggling FLO duties with routine workloads.

Fig 7: Challenges of the FLO Role

3.166 When asked what the most satisfying and/or rewarding aspects of the role were, the most common response (71%) was helping the victim or victim's family and /or receiving positive feedback from them. A further 10% appreciated being able to portray the police service in a favourable light or reversing previously hostile attitudes.

3.167 From the perspective of police activity, 24% of respondents mentioned that helping in the enquiry and getting positive feedback from the SIO was amongst the most satisfying. An additional 11% of respondents commented on being able to do a good and professional job, while a further 5% reported that getting a successful outcome to an enquiry was the most rewarding.

3.168 When asked what could be done to improve the role of the Family Liaison Officer, 30% of respondents expressed a desire for refresher training, while a cumulative 39% of respondents mentioned the need to train or educate SIOs and other police personnel to better understand the role and duties of FLOs. The following graph illustrates the range of responses.

Fig 8: Suggestions for Improving the FLO Role

Recognition and Reward

3.169 The National Police Performance Review System stipulates that if an officer is to be employed through secondment or attachment to a role other than their core role, for a period of three months or more, during the performance review period, then the officers work performance in their temporary role should be reviewed on a Secondment/Attachment Performance Review Form (see Appendix 'A').

3.170 HMIC found that the majority of forces had no structured means of formally assessing or recognising the performance and contributions of FLOs during short-term or protracted deployments. Furthermore there was a lack of awareness amongst some forces to the existence of the Secondment/Attachments Performance Review Form.

3.171 Whilst a few forces claimed to appraise the performance of their FLOs following deployment in the role, little or no evidence was found by HMIC of this approach being implemented in practice.

3.172 In a wider context, over three-quarters of respondents to the FLO questionnaire (78%) had never received any form of recognition or appraisal following deployment. Only 5% claimed to receive such recognition on "all" or "most" deployments. Of those who had received 'appraisals' the format varied from an informal chat or being thanked for doing a good job, to being fully debriefed by the SIO.

3.173 It was evident during inspection visits that a significant number of FLOs had concerns that their efforts and contributions were not being recognised in their annual performance reviews. One FLO recounted being deployed on a seven-month continuous deployment with no acknowledgement of the fact being made in their annual appraisal. Examples of similar experiences were found in other forces.

« Previous | Contents | Next »