I certainly support and think the greater degree of civilian oversight of police forces and the dealing with police overstepping the lines in a discipline context and an ethical review are commendable.
I'm not sure this really answers the issue here under 25.1 to 25.4, because the citizens who are affected—the people who would be complaining to police complaints commissions and the like across the country—are unlikely to know, except in the narrow circumstances in which there has been loss or destruction of property, that it's the police they've been dealing with.
It may be that the person who's the victim of this justified crime is one of the targets of the criminal organization. It may be that it's a completely innocent third party who has no idea that the police are engaging in what would otherwise be unlawful conduct.
Because the provisions don't contemplate judicial oversight and therefore subsequent public scrutiny, because the reporting provisions are so narrow that the public officer doesn't even have to give the justification in the report he provides under 25.2, and because the annual report is so threadbare in terms of the information that one can't evaluate whether these circumstances were justified or not, in my view individuals would be hard-pressed to figure out who and what they should be complaining about.