Case management protocol update

Report: 6
Date: 12 October 2006
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

The purpose of the report is to provide Members with an update on the application of the Case Management Protocol, in particular, to explain the outcome of the work that has been undertaken to scrutinise a further selection of cases, which fall within or beyond the ‘120 days old’ age profile.

The Protocol applies to ‘live’ investigations undertaken by the Directorate of Professional Standards (‘DPS’) into complaints or other allegations of misconduct against police officers. Its purpose is to enable the MPA’s Professional Standards and Complaints Committee to scrutinise cases, which have exceeded the target time frame for completion and to place a requirement on DPS to justify time taken to conduct an investigation and, if appropriate, to give reasons for the need for a continued investigation.

A. Recommendations

That members receive the report and note the findings

B. Supporting information

1. MPA officers identified eight ‘live’ overt complaints investigations, which were showing on IOWA [1] on 18 August 2006 as being a minimum of 120 days old. The age profile of the cases ranged from 367 to 191 days old. The cases were selected from the following DPS Commands: North West and North East Region, South West and South East Region.

2. A request for further information in respect of these investigations was submitted to the Directorate of Professional Standards and responses have recently been received.

DPS Response to request for information

3. The respective Investigating Officers responsible for the investigation have reviewed the cases and have completed a Case Review Statement for each of the selected cases. The MPA has been provided with comprehensive details of the nature of the allegations contained within each complaint, details of the progress and strands of the investigation. Reasons for the investigation exceeding the target time frame and the need for the investigation to continue have also been provided (a summary of the responses appears at exempt Appendix 1).

4. Members should note that five of the eight cases have now been completed whilst three remain the subject of on-going investigation; one of which is being supervised by the IPCC (refer to cases 3, 4 & 5 at exempt Appendix 1). For each case reasons have been provided for exceeding the target time frame and where appropriate explanation has been offered for why the investigation should continue irrespective of its age profile.

5. Some common reasons for delays in the investigation have emerged, the most frequent being the non-cooperation of complainants and difficulties in obtaining signed statements. It is not apparent from the information provided to the MPA what, if any, steps are being taken by the MPS in an attempt to address such problems.

6. It is however evident that the investigation of one complaint has been held back as a consequence of failures in the BOCU’s initial handling of the allegations. The MPA has been assured that the issues which gave rise to the delay have now been addressed and steps have been taken to rebuild the complainant’s confidence in the MPS.

Follow-up action

7. The Morris Inquiry recommended that implementation of the Case Management Model would enable the MPA to review on-going complaints investigations and to continue the scrutiny on a monthly basis until the investigation is completed. It is therefore open to Members to continue its oversight of the investigation and assess the validity of the reasons provided for the continuation of the investigation. In doing so, Members may also wish to consider whether, for example, there is any evidence of disproportionality in how the case is being or has been handled.

8. It is a recommendation of this report that the reasons provided are, on this occasion, sufficient to justify a continuing investigation in respect of the three ‘live’ cases. Members may, however, wish to monitor the continuing progress of the investigation through to completion.

9. In order to improve the MPA’s ability to monitor the progress of “live” investigations irrespective of their age profile, the Chair of the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee has recently requested that DPS provide authorisation to enable nominated MPA officers to access the Tribune System. Direct access to Tribune would enable MPA officers to scrutinise case management information and regularly review the progress of an investigation.

10. A further selection of cases will be identified and a request for information in respect of those cases will be submitted to DPS during October 2006. Details of DPS’ responses will initially be shared with the PSCC Chair, Deputy Chair and will be presented to Members at the PSCC meeting on 14 December 2006.

11. Whilst the Case Management Protocol involves details of individual cases being provided to the MPA, the Morris Inquiry team considered that independent oversight was essential to help restore confidence, both internally and externally, in the complaints investigation process. Members should however continue to evaluate the benefits derived from the operation of this protocol.

C. Race and equality impact

12. The purpose of the Protocol is to ensure that individuals who are the subject of DPS investigations are treated in an equitable and proportionate matter. The Protocol reflects a recommendation of the Morris Inquiry.

13. An initial Race Equalities Impact Assessment has been conducted to ensure that the Protocol promotes equalities and does not disadvantage any of the equality target groups. Although that assessment is still awaiting formal endorsement, the results have established that a high adverse/negative impact does not exist for any equality group.

D. Financial implications

14. In order to limit the overall cost of introducing and administering the procedure, the Case Management Protocol needs have been built around the MPS’s existing management information. Although the new arrangement increases the time spent by Members and MPA officers in undertaking their oversight role, the cost of administering the procedure is capable of being met from the existing budget.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Claire L Lister, MPA.

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback