AN appeal could be launched against Surrey Police Crime Commissioner David Munro after he refused to apologsie for deciding a complaint against Surrey Police concerning the issuing of search warrants, was invalid.

The search warrants in question were issued in relation to active court proceedings – the complaint cannot be resolved by the police until after the outcome of the trial, due to be held this year.

In November, the police and crime panel’s complaints sub-committee agreed to uphold a complaint it received about Mr Munro’s decision dismiss the complaint.

The complaint to the PCC was based on one already lodged with Surrey Chief Constable Nick Ephgrave – and one which Mr Munro described as an “abuse” of the process.

Writing to inform Mr Munro of its decision, the panel said: “It was concluded the matter involving the chief constable should not have been disapplied.

“The complaints sub-committee concluded the complaint against the chief constable should have been investigated by you.

“The complaints sub-committee therefore recommended you should write a letter of apology to the complainant for not following due process.”

But after taking legal advice, Mr Munro responded this month to say he had made the correct decision, because the complaint was “an abuse of the complaints process”, and he would not apologise.

But he advised the panel it had the right to appeal his decision to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

A spokesman for the PCC told The Herald: “The complaint was with regard to whether the PCC should have investigated an initial complaint made to his office regarding the chief constable’s involvement in the issuing of a search warrant.

“The PCC’s decision to disapply the complaint was based on his view the chief constable had no direct involvement in the case, or the issuing of the search warrants, and – in accordance with legislation – was already the subject of a complaint being investigated by Surrey Police’s professional standards department.

“Consequently, attempting to escalate the matter to the PCC was an abuse of the complaints process.

“Following the legal guidance received, the PCC has now written to the sub-committee reaffirming his view his original decision to disapply the complaint was correct and therefore he will not be writing to the complainant to apologise.

“He has however informed the sub-committee he has written to the complainant to highlight the right to appeal his decision to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.”

Surrey Police told The Herald this week, the chief constable was not involved with the search warrants or the investigation due to go to trail.

Mr Ephgrave’s only involvement was, as chief constable, he receives all legal correspondence on behalf of the force.

A force spokesman told The Herald: “Surrey Police has received a complaint against Chief Constable Nick Ephgrave and the force in relation to the issuing of search warrants.

“There are currently active court proceedings in relation to these warrants.

“The chief constable was not involved in the issuing of the search warrants or the investigation.

“The reason he is cited in the complaints is that all legal correspondence, of which the complainant received, is issued on behalf of the chief constable as head of the force.

“Due to the ongoing legal process, any action on the main aspects of the complaint will be held until the outcome of the trial, set to take place in 2018, is known.

“This is in line with complaints legislation and has been supported by both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

“However, one element of the complaint from the same individual, which is unconnected to the matters being heard at the upcoming trial, has been reviewed by Surrey Police and not upheld.

“This was appealed to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who found no evidence to support it, and the appeal was therefore also not upheld.”