Minutes

Minutes of the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 18 May 2006 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Reshard Auladin (Chair)
• Elizabeth Howlett (Deputy Chair)
• Tony Arbour
• Damian Hockney
• Karim Murji
• Aneeta Prem (item 1-13)
• Rachel Whittaker (item 1-13)

MPA officers

• Hamida Ali (Policy development Officer, Race and Diversity Unit)
• Claire Lister (Professional Standards Officer)
• David Riddle (Deputy Chief Executive and Clerk) (item 9 – 20)
• Ruth Hasting Iqball (Committee Services)

MPS officers

• Commander Sue Akers (Directorate of Professional Standards)
• David Martin (DPS)

Also in attendance: Deborah Glass (Commissioner, Independent Police Complaints Commission); Amanda Matravers (Lecturer and research, University of Cambridge) and Machi Tseloni (Associate Professor, University of Macedonia).

69. Apologies

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Richard Barnes, Jenny Jones and Richard Sumray (members) and from Alan Brown (assistant Commissioner), Steve Gwilliam (DPS) and C Bussey.

70. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations of interests were received from members.

71. Minutes of Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee (part 1): 9 March 2006

(Agenda item 3)

Resolved – That the minutes of the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee (Part 1) meeting held on 9 March 2006 be agreed.

72. Minutes of a special Senior Officers Conduct Sub-committee (part 1) (to note): 24 March 2006

(Agenda item 4)

Resolved – That minutes of a special Senior Officers Conduct Sub-Committee (Part 1) 24 March 2006 be noted.

73. Minutes of The Police Pension Forfeiture Sub-committee (part 1) - (to note): 23 March 2006

(Agenda item 5)

Resolved – That the minutes of the Police Pension Forfeiture Sub Committee (part 1) 23 March 2006 be noted.

74. Minutes of a special Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee (part 1) (to note): 3 May 2006

(Agenda item 6)

Resolved – That the minutes of a special Professional Standards Cases Sub Committee (Part 1) 3 May 2006 be noted.

75. Complaints management information

(Agenda item 7)

Members received a report including complaints management information for the 12 months to March 2006 and focusing on the key changes or exceptions within the data.

Members noted the average number of days between the decision to hold a misconduct hearing or reach a final resolution was considerably below the target of 120 days. They were informed this target had been borrowed from the HMIC as there had been no pre-existing target. The Chair requested a report be received at the next meeting on how this target could be reduced or made more meaningful. The Commander, DPS, was concerned that a reduced target could affect the thoroughness of an investigation. Whilst this fear was recognised, it was requested that the report should suggest ways of moving forward in this matter.

Members were concerned about the low local resolution figures and officers reluctance to accept local resolution, although it was recognised this was linked into line management and supervision.

Members felt link members should be made aware of comparative performance data between BOCUs and of any remedial action taken. The Commander, DPS, said she would welcome any input.

Resolved – That

1. the report and the illustration of trends in the report and the Borough performance information contained in Appendices 1 and 2 be noted; and
2. a report be received at the next committee considering ways in which the present target for a decision to hold a misconduct hearing or reach a final resolution could be made more meaningful.

76. Case management protocol update

(Agenda item 8)

This report provided a brief update on the application of the Case Management Protocol, which was approved by the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee (PSCC) in September 2005 in response to recommendations made be the Morris Inquiry. Its purpose was to provide an effective framework for oversight of the complaints investigation process and discipline matters in the MPS. In January 2006, the PSCC received a report confirming that the Case Management Protocol was undermined by the unreliability of MPS case management data. The DPS agreed to undertake some remedial action to ensure the accuracy of its case management records. In February 2006, the MPA selected six cases, which appeared on the Investigating Officer Workload Analysis Report as live investigations that had reached the 120 days age profile. For each case, DPS was asked to complete a Case Review Statement. For each of the six cases identified, the MPA was advised that at the time of reporting the cases had in fact been concluded within 120 days. Four of the complaints had been resolved under the local resolution procedures and in two cases the complainants had withdrawn their allegations. The Commander, DPS, acknowledged the reports finding, and stated that matters should improve when the new Tribune IT system came into use.

Resolved – That

1. the report be received and the difficulties experienced to date in implementing the protocol be noted; and
2. a further report be received at the next committee

77. Update on the programme for the fundamental review of the Directorate of Professional Standards

(Agenda item 9)

Members received a report setting out the latest progress in respect of the implementation of the DPS’s Review Implementation Programme.

The Commander, DPS, provided a brief background to the fundamental review, which had been overseen by the DPS Review Project Board. It was noted that its last meeting had been cancelled and the Commander, DPS, said that it was proposed to dissolve the Project Board by letter, as it was poorly attended and the Review already had its strategic direction. It was proposed to monitor the Review’s progress internally by six monthly reviews, the results of which would be reported to the PSCC. The Chair felt it would have been more courteous for the Project Board to have met to discuss the proposal. The Deputy Chief Executive felt that that changes resulting from the review were now only beginning to come to fruition and suggested that members and officers should meet with AC Alan Brown and the Commander to discuss how the effects of the review would be monitored.

Resolved – That

1. the progress made across the individual commands since the ‘go live’ of implementation on 1 April be noted; and
2. members and officers should meet with AC Alan Brown and the Commander, DPS, to discuss how the effects of the review would be monitored.

78. MPA dip sampling of public complaints

(Agenda item 10)

This report summarised the outcome of the MPA’s review of a further selection of MPS closed public complaints files. The cases reviewed on this occasion were limited to those complaints that had been dealt with under the local resolution procedures. For each case reviewed, the MPA made an assessment as to whether the complaint had been resolved in a timely, customer-focused manner and in accordance with procedure. The MPA had shared its findings with the new Prevention and Organisational Learning Command within the DPS and its comments were included in the report.

The Commander, DPS, expressed disappointment that the report did not acknowledge the work that DPS was already doing to meet the points raised in the report. The Chair recognised her comments, but stated that this was a statutory task and hoped that it added value.

Resolved – That

1. the outcome of the MPA officers’ review of locally resolved public complaints files be noted; and
2. the next PSCC receive a report from DPS detailing work that had been undertaken to satisfy the recommendations made by the MPA to improve effectiveness in complaints handling.

79. Cambridge University report on disproportionality

(Agenda item 11)

Members received a report stating that the final report from Dr Matravers would not be received in time for circulation to this committee, however it would be available for the next meeting, and be accompanied by a report incorporating the MPS response to the research findings.

Resolved – That

1. the report was noted; and
2. the report, and the MPS response be received at the next PSCC.

80. Membership of the Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee

(Agenda item 12)

Following the recent restructuring of committees and subsequent appointment of the PSCC at the full Authority meeting on 30 March 2006, members were asked to appoint the Chair, Deputy Chair and members to the Professional Standards Cases Sub Committee until the annual meeting in June. The proposed Committee membership was agreed. Reshard Auladin was appointed Chair and Rachael Whittaker Deputy Chair of the Professional Standards Cases Sub Committee. If Reshard Auladin or Rachael Whittaker were not present at a Sub Committee, the chair would be elected from those members present.

As it was important that meetings should not be inquorate, members were asked to recommend to the MPA that there should be a quorum of three for Sub-Committee meetings. Where the Sub-Committee was meeting to hear pension forfeitures cases, for example it was proposed that not more than five members should be present, otherwise the process might become intimidating for appellants. The report suggested that attendance at meetings be pre-planned so that each member would attend five or so meetings each year. Members were reminded that each Professional Standards Cases Sub Committee would deal with ACPO conduct, police pension forfeiture or business appeals as cases arose.

Resolved – That

1. Anthony Arbour*, Reshard Auladin*, Cindy Butts, Damien Hockney*, Elizabeth Howlett*, Karim Murji*, Aneeta Prem*, John Roberts, Richard Sumray* and Rachael Whittaker* be confirmed as members of the Professional Standards Cases Sub Committee;  (* indicates members of the PSCC Committee)
2. Reshard Auladin be appointed Chair and Rachael Whittaker Deputy Chair of the Professional Standards Cases Sub Committee;
3. the Committee recommend to full Authority that the quorum for meetings of the Sub-Committee should be three members;
4. the Committee agree that, in general, pension forfeiture and other cases should be heard by not more than five members; and
5. MPA officers seek to schedule members’ attendance so that each member will attend five meetings a year or thereabouts (assuming a standard cycle of monthly meetings).

81. Exclusion of press and public

(Agenda item 13)

A resolution was put to exclude the press and public from the meeting during remaining items on the agenda as it was likely to disclose exempt information as described in Schedule 12(a) (1 and 14) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Resolved - That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the remaining items on the agenda.

Summary of exempt items

82. Minutes of Professional Standards and Complaints Committee (Part 2): 9 March 2006

(Agenda item 14)

The minutes of the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee (Part 2) meeting held on 9 March 2006 were agreed.

83. Minutes of a special Senior Officers Conduct Sub-Committee (part 2) (to note): 24 March 2006

(Agenda item 15)

Resolved – That minutes of a special Senior Officers Conduct Sub-Committee (Part 2) 24 March 2006 be noted.

84. Minutes of the Police Pension Forfeiture Sub Committee (part 2) (to note): 23 March 2006

(Agenda item 16)

Resolved – That the minutes of the Police Pension Forfeiture Sub Committee (part 2) 23 March 2006 be noted.

85. Minutes of a special Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee (part 2) (to note): 3 May 2006

(Agenda item 17)

The minutes of the special Professional Standards Cases Sub Committee (Part 2) 3 May 2006 were noted.

86. Quarterly summary of exceptional and significant case results

(Agenda item 18)

Members received a report containing a summary of exceptional and significant case concluded in the period January 2006 – March 2006. The summary was noted.

87. Summary of suspended Police Officers as at 26 April 2006

(Agenda item 19)

This report contained updated reports for four police officers suspended from duty from date of last committee meeting. The report was noted.

88. Settlement

(Agenda item 20)

Members received a report recommending that the MPA make a payment of £2000 to a nominated charity as requested by an ex officer, who claimed he had been dealt with less favourably because of his racial background. The Deputy Chief Executive and Clerk to the Authority informed members that the MPA did not have the legal power to make payments to a charity, therefore the recommendation could not be agreed.

The meeting ended at 4:45 pm

(Note: In between part 1 and part 2 of the committee, Amanda Matravers, lecturer, University of Cambridge, and Machi Tseloni, associate professor, University of Macedonia, gave a presentation to members on the Cambridge University report on disproportionality.)

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback