Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 29 May 2003 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Toby Harris (Chair)
• Richard Barnes (Deputy Chair)
• R David Muir (Deputy Chair)
• Anthony Arbour
• Jennette Arnold
• Reshard Auladin
• Lynne Featherstone
• Kirsten Hearn
• Peter Herbert
• Elizabeth Howlett
• Diana Johnson
• Jenny Jones
• Nicholas Long
• Noel Lynch
• Eric Ollerenshaw
• Sir John Quinton
• Richard Sumray
• Abdal Ullah
• Rachel Whittaker
• Cecile Wright

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Clerk)
• Peter Martin (Treasurer)
• David Riddle (Deputy Clerk)
• Simon Vile (Head of Secretariat)

MPS officers

• Ian Blair (Deputy Commissioner)
• Keith Luck (Director of Resources)
• Tim Godwin (Assistant Commissioner)
• Martin Tiplady (Director of Human Resources)
• Bill Griffiths (Deputy Assistant Commissioner)

Part 1

120. Apologies for absence and other communications

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Cindy Butts, Graham Tope and Sir John Stevens (Commissioner).

The Chair welcomed Noel Lynch as a new member of the Authority, following the resignation of Darren Johnson.

121. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations of interest were made.

122. Minutes

(Agenda item 3)

The following points were made in relation to the accuracy of the minutes of the meeting held on 24 April 2003:

• Cecile Wright to be included on the list of those present
• With regard to item 112, Tony Arbour said that the request in relation to CPCG funding had been that link members in particular should receive the relevant application forms for their link boroughs and the comments made by the MPA about those applications – he asked that this now be done.
• In relation to item 116 (Commissioner’s Update), the Deputy Commissioner commented that as a matter of course speed cameras are set to trigger at a speed in excess of the speed limit. His comment had been that the MPS had not done anything to further raise that trigger point.

Resolved – That, subject to the above, the minutes of the Authority meeting held on 24 April 2003 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

123. Question from the public

(Agenda item 4)

In accordance with Standing Orders, the Authority received a question from Mr. Duwayne Brooks. The question and the reply given by the Clerk are shown below:

Question to the Authority by Mr. Duwayne Brooks

“ When there is a serious violent crime the police must take care to assess who is the victim and to treat the victim with reasonable respect and courtesy and give the victim appropriate support and assistance. They must give reasonable weight to the victim's account of what happened. This is common sense.

They are also principles established by the Court of Appeal last year in my case against the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. I take it, in light of Lord Harris's claim that the MPA is proud of its role in improving the assistance given to victims of crime that they are principles the MPA agree with. I'd be grateful if the MPA could explain why they do not, if my assumption is wrong.

The Court of Appeal allows such victims to enforce those basic rights in the Courts if the police fail them and if we have suffered psychiatric damage as a result. So in reality although my case has established the principles, only a handful of people - a tiny minority of victims of serious violent crime - are entitled to go to Court to enforce them.

The Commissioner is spending tens of thousands of pounds fighting me in the Courts to defeat these principles, he is now proposing to spend tens of thousands more appealing to the House of Lords to overturn them. Meanwhile my life is kept on hold, more than ten years after the attack, while this legal battle is fought out. At the same time the Commissioner has spent about £320,000 paying off Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence so that their claim based on much the same principles did not reach the Courts.

Why is the MPA failing to adopt these principles with open arms, and allowing the Commissioner to treat my claim with such hostility compared to the manner in which the Lawrence's claim was treated?”

Response by the Clerk

“I am sure that all the Members of the Authority will appreciate the strength of feeling that lies behind Mr. Brooks’ question.

The issues raised in this question have been aired in extensive correspondence between his solicitors and the Authority. In addition, the Chair of the Authority met with him and his solicitor in April 2002 to listen to their concerns on this and other matters.

The Authority is not a party in the proceedings initiated against the MPS. The defendants are the Commissioner, and a number of individual officers. The claim is for damages for breach of duty under the Race Relations Act, against the officers, and for negligence, against the Commissioner. The County Court ruled initially that the claim against the Commissioner should not be proceeded with, on legal grounds. That Court also struck out some of the claims against individual officers. Mr. Brooks appealed to the Court of Appeal, which substantially reversed the decision of the County Court.

The judgement of the Court of Appeal raised important questions about the liability of police forces to negligence claims in connection with criminal investigations, and appeared to contradict a long-standing ruling of the House of Lords. There could be profound implications for all police forces if the law stands as stated by the Court of Appeal. In view of the importance of this issue for the MPS and policing in general, and after taking further legal advice, the Commissioner obtained leave from the House of Lords to appeal to them for a definitive statement of the law. That appeal will be heard as soon as practicable.

I understand that the proceedings and judgements to date have been restricted to points of law, and that there has been no hearing on the specific allegations and claims made by Mr. Brooks.

It would be improper and invidious to discuss the settlement of the claim by Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, save to say for the present that it is my understanding that the factual and legal basis of their claim was different.

The Chairman and I have explained to Mr. Brooks, via his solicitor, the fundamental constitutional principle that police authorities should not seek to interfere with or influence the decisions of chief officers in the day to day management of the police service or individual cases, and that the Authority has no locus to intervene in this individual action.

However, I assure Mr. Brooks that the Authority will give every encouragement to the Commissioner to conclude the legal process as swiftly as possible, and that it will continue to concern itself that the delivery of an efficient and effective police service takes full account of the rights of individuals.”

124. Minutes of committees

(Agenda item 5)

The Authority received the draft minutes of the following committees:

• Finance Committee, 10 April
• Consultation Committee, 24 April
• Professional Standards & Complaints Committee, 28 April
• Equal Opportunities & Diversity Board, 1 May
• Co-ordination & Policing Committee, 2 May
• Planning, Performance & Review Committee, 8 May

In relation to item 56 of the Consultation Committee minutes, it was agreed that a report to be made to a future meeting of the full Authority to address some members’ concerns about the basis for decisions on CPCG funding and the information that has been provided to members about the decision-making process. The issue of Racial Incidents Panels would be referred to the appropriate committee.

It was also pointed out that the reference in item 91 of the Planning, Performance and Review Committee minutes should be to the Deputy Clerk, not the Deputy Chair.

125. Chair’s, Members’ and Clerk’s updates

(Agenda item 6)

The Authority noted updates given by the Chair and other members.

126. Acting Commissioner’s update

(Agenda item 7)

In the absence of the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Ian Blair, updated the Authority on a number of issues:

Security arrangements at the Houses of Parliament and other significant buildings

The Deputy Commissioner referred to the additional measures that had been taken, including placing concrete blocks outside the Houses of Parliament. He said that these measures were not a response to a particular threat but part of a continuing review of security.

In reply to a question from Peter Herbert about the ability to respond to bio-chemical terrorist attack, the Deputy Commissioner offered to give a confidential update in a suitable forum on the ability of the MPS to respond to any terrorist threat.

May Day 2003

The Deputy Commissioner reported the final figures for this policing operation: 3,291 officers had been deployed of whom 2,868 were MPS officers – this was a 40% reduction compared to the resources deployed in 2001. There had been 38 arrests. The estimated costs were £1.5 million, which included £1.1 million opportunity costs.

National Firearms Amnesty

In the MPS district 3,189 firearms had been handed in during this amnesty, including 753 prohibited weapons and 75,606 rounds of ammunition.

Commendations for bravery

The Deputy Commissioner reported that on 14 May he had awarded commendations to 22 officers who had shown extreme bravery in tackling armed criminals. The commendations related to nine separate incidents and of the officers involved 21 had been unarmed. He found it very disappointing that this occasion had attracted no media interest and had written to the Evening Standard about this. The Chair suggested that in future a written briefing on such commendations should be included as part of the Commissioner’s Update.

Police Community Support Officers

The first edition of ‘Eyes and Ears’ – a PCSO newsletter – had recently been published.

Self-reporting pack for London’s Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender communities

A new self-reporting pack had been published on 30 April, the fourth anniversary of the Admiral Duncan public house nail bombing. This was designed to enable crimes to be reported without having to visit a police station.

Peter Herbert congratulated Duwayne Brooks for his courage over the past ten years and suggested that the MPA should obtain separate legal advice on whether a settlement of his personal case could be made separate to the legal points of principle the MPS were appealing to the House of Lords. The Deputy Clerk offered to provide interested members with a briefing, although litigation was a matter for the Commissioner and the settlement was linked to that litigation.

Brixton Cannabis Festival

Jenny Jones commented that there had appeared to be more police officers on duty for this festival than were necessary. A.C. Godwin responded that residents had raised concerns about aggressive drug dealing, so a police presence had been provided to ensure that the festival remained a fun event.

127. Major Investigation Team Model 2002

(Agenda item 8)

The Authority considered a report by the Commissioner on this model, which would now form the basis for the investigation of serious crime.

It was clarified that by June 2004 the agreed number of additional posts would have been allocated to specialist crime units and the Management Board would decide which of these would be allocated to strengthen homicide investigations.

Members commented on the three categories used to distinguish homicide investigations. Members suggested that naming Category A ‘murders of high public interest’ gave the impression that inclusion this category would result from high media coverage as opposed to responding to what the MPS referred to as ‘public anxiety’.

With regard to the high level of domestic murders, the Deputy Commissioner offered a further report on the continuum of work being carried out by the MPS on domestic violence and identifying dangers and predictors in order to reduce the number of domestic murders.

Jennette Arnold asked for information in writing that demonstrated that senior officer turnover in the Domestic Violence Task Force was no different to that in other areas.

Jenny Jones asked to be sent information on the programme for allocation of officers to traffic policing.

After further discussion it was

Resolved – That the report be noted.

128. Performance assessment of the Authority

(Agenda item 9)

The Authority considered a report by the Clerk on the Audit Commission’s plans to carry out an Initial Performance Assessment (IPA) of the GLA group and the relevance to this of the Association of Police Authorities’ developing self-assessment framework. The Clerk also reported some uncertainty as to whether the IPA would go ahead as the GLA were still discussing with the Audit Commission the timing, relevance and legality of the IPA.

The Chair indicated that he would be writing to the Chair of the Audit Commission for an assurance that the MPA would be compared with relevant organisations, and that such comparisons would be made on the basis of thorough research.

Resolved –

1. That the Authority agrees the approach to the self-assessment element of the Initial Performance Assessment set out in paragraph 16 of the report, namely that the Authority seeks agreement with the Audit Commission and HMIC to use the APA self-assessment and improvement framework, to avoid duplication of effort later in the year; and
2. That the Co-ordination & Policing Committee should oversee the Authority’s response to the Initial Performance Assessment.

129. Review of Standing Orders

(Agenda item 10)

The Authority considered a report by the Clerk proposing a new set of procedural Standing Orders.

The following amendments to the proposed Standing Orders were agreed:

• 2.7.5: replace ‘following the meeting’ with ‘within ten working days of clarification being sought
• 6.1.1: replace ‘the Deputy Chair’ with ‘a Deputy Chair’

Resolved -

1. That, subject to the amendments set out above, the Standing Orders attached as an appendix to the report be adopted;
2. that these replace all previous Standing Orders with immediate effect; and
3. that the Deputy Clerk to the Authority, David Riddle, be appointed to act as the Authority’s Monitoring Officer under Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

130. Arrangements for the Authority’s annual meeting

(Agenda item 11)

The Authority considered a report by the Clerk seeking endorsement for the arrangements for the Authority’s Annual Meeting.

Resolved –

1. That the Authority’s current committee structure be continued in the forthcoming year; and
2. that the process for making appointments at the annual meeting be agreed, subject to the deadline for the receipt of nominations be seven working days before the annual meeting.

131. Action taken under delegated authority

(Agenda item 12)

The Authority considered a report by the Clerk on action taken under delegated authority on the grounds of urgency.

Resolved - That the report be noted.

132. Exclusion of press and public

(Agenda item 13)

Resolved - That the press and public be asked to leave the meeting during discussion of the remaining item of business because exempt information as defined in paragraph 8 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 is likely to be made known.

133. Contractual negotiations

(Agenda item 14)

The Authority considered an urgent report, which was tabled at the meeting, setting out the outcome of recent negotiations on a contractual matter.

Resolved – That the recommendations to the report be agreed.

The meeting ended at 12.55 p.m.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback