Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 25 March 2004 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

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

MPA officers

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

MPS officers

• Sir John Stevens (Commissioner)
• Sir Ian Blair (Deputy Commissioner)
• Bernard Hogan-Howe (Assistant Commissioner)
• Tarique Ghaffur (Assistant Commissioner)
• Keith Luck (Director of Resources)
• Steve House (Deputy Assistant Commissioner)

Part 1

90. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

Apologies for absence were received from Nicky Gavron and Diana Johnson. The Chair also reported that this was Nicholas Long’s last Authority meeting as an MPA member. On behalf of all members he thanked Nicholas for his invaluable contribution, in particular on estates matters, and wished him well in his new role as a Commissioner for the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

91. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

Nicholas Long declared that, in view of his appointment to the IPCC, he would withdraw from the meeting during any discussion on the question of funding of legal fees for a judicial review of the Roger Sylvester inquest verdict.

92. Minutes

(Agenda item 3)

Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting of the Authority held on 26 February 2004 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

93. Minutes of committees

(Agenda item 4)

The minutes of the following committees were received:

• Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board, 5 February
• Co-ordination & Policing Committee, 5 and 15 March
• Planning, Performance and Review Committee, 12 February
• Finance Committee, 19 February
• Human Resources Committee, 4 March

Members referred to item 84 of the draft minutes of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee on 15 March, in relation to a decision by that committee to meet the legal fees of eight police officers seeking a judicial review to challenge the findings of the inquest into the death of Roger Sylvester. Some members had concerns about the way that matter had been minuted, for instance in terms of members’ views not being recorded and the proposal to minute the outcome of a confidential discussion in the open part of the minutes.

Members then turned to a consideration of the committee’s decision to meet the officers’ legal fees. In anticipation of this discussion the Deputy Clerk and Solicitor had prepared a report giving information and legal advice and referring to a request from solicitors for the family of Roger Sylvester asking, amongst other things, whether the Authority was able and willing to meet the legal costs of the family as an interested party in the judicial review. The Chair also read out a letter from Mr and Mrs Sylvester.

The Deputy Clerk and Solicitor highlighted some key aspects of his report. He commented that the judge’s observations reflected in paragraph 5 of the Commissioner’s report solely related to the matter of whether to grant a judicial review. The issues would have to be fully addressed in court if the judicial review went ahead. The ‘strong presumption’ in favour of providing financial support for officers in legal proceedings, which is stated in the Home Office Circular, is a matter of policy, not of law. As to whether the officers might challenge an Authority decision not to provide funding, the Deputy Clerk and Solicitor considered that it would be difficult for such a challenge to succeed. With regard to the request for funding from the family, he was not in a position to advise at that stage on whether the Authority had the powers to do this – Counsel’s advice would be needed if the Authority were minded to follow this course of action.

The Deputy Clerk and Solicitor was asked whether an impact assessment under the Race Relations Amendment Act had been carried out on the decision. He responded that the duty under the Act was to impact assess policies. In his view this was not a policy as such but an individual case and so no impact assessment was required. However, as stated in his report, in considering this matter members should have regard to the Authority’s obligations under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. Members should assess and weigh carefully how each potential course of action might serve the need to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations.

At this point the Authority considered whether it wished to call in the decision of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee, as provided for by Standing Order 3.1.2. The Deputy Clerk and Solicitor advised that if that decision was called in it effectively became a recommendation for decision by the Authority. It was

Resolved – That the decision of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee in respect of this matter be called in.

Before moving on to consider the issue itself there were a number of questions from members for clarification, particularly around the reasons why the original report was submitted late to the Co-ordination & Policing Committee and as an exempt paper. Issues discussed also included the need to look again at the transparency of the delegated action process, in terms of members being alerted to sensitive or controversial issues, and the need to arrive at an agreed understanding about the requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act in respect of impact assessments.

The Authority then considered the substantive issue of whether to agree the recommendation of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee that the Authority meet the legal fees of eight police officers seeking a judicial review to challenge the findings of the inquest into the death of Roger Sylvester.

There was a lengthy debate during which a range of views were expressed. All members recognised and sympathised with the ongoing distress that the judicial review process would cause the family. There was a view that this case had a totemic significance, particularly for Black communities, which the Authority should take into account in reaching a decision. There were also arguments that the Authority owed a duty of care to police officers in such circumstances, although opinions were divided on whether this extended to the pursuit of a challenge to an inquest verdict. Some members saw the judicial review as valuable to clarify what constituted ‘legal restraint’. Whilst some members favoured deferral for more information, most considered that the Authority had sufficient information on which to base a decision at the current meeting. In expressing their views most members favoured support for both the officers and the family in terms of meeting the legal costs of a judicial review. Other views included support for the officers with support for the family only if this was legally possible; and that support for both sides represented an unacceptable compromise and that the officers’ legal costs should not be met.

Before coming to a decision on the substantive issue the Authority addressed the subsidiary issues that had come out of the discussion and it was

Resolved – That

1. a progress report be made to a future meeting on the MPS review of restraint policy;
2. the Authority returns in due course to mental health policing issues;
3. the criteria and process used for sensitive and significant cases be reviewed;
4. Standing Orders and internal processes be reviewed to clarify or amend the call in powers in relation to committee decisions, and to improve the handling of urgent and sensitive decisions; and
5. a report be put to the Authority to clarify the legal requirements for impact assessments and to establish a corporate approach to these for the Authority.

The Authority then agreed to a short adjournment to enable members to consider the process proposed by the Chair for reaching a decision. This process is reflected in the following decisions.

The Authority considered whether to defer a decision, for no more than four weeks, for further information.

This was rejected by majority vote

The Authority then considered whether to endorse the recommendation of the Co-ordination & Policing Committee to fund the officers alone.

This was rejected unanimously

The Authority then considered whether to fund both the officers and the family (subject to legal advice that the latter was possible) on the basis that if it was not possible to fund the family the Authority would fund the officers alone.

This was rejected by majority vote

The Authority then considered whether to fund the legal costs of both the officers and the family (subject to legal advice that the latter was possible), on the basis that if it was not possible to fund the family’s costs then neither would the Authority fund the officers’ costs.

This was agreed by 15 votes to 4 and it was therefore

Resolved – That the Authority agrees to fund the legal costs of both the officers and the Sylvester family, subject to legal advice that the latter is possible; if it is not possible to fund the family’s costs then neither will the Authority fund the officers’ costs.

94. Chair’s, members’ and clerk’s updates

(Agenda item 5)

The Authority noted updates from the Chair and other members.

95. Commissioner’s update

(Agenda item 6)

The Commissioner gave an oral update on a number of issues, including:

Counter-terrorism

Following the bomb attacks in Turkey, three officers were continuing investigations there. Following the bombs in Madrid a small team of officers were currently in Madrid assisting the Spanish authorities, although not involved in the investigations themselves.

In reply to a question from Richard Sumray, the Commissioner said that he would be informed in confidence as to the countries that SO officers were currently working with and in.

In reply to a comment from Peter Herbert, the Commissioner said that there were no MPS officers in Israel.

Demonstration at the Palace of Westminster

The Commissioner referred to the recent incident when two protesters had scaled Big Ben. He stressed that Palace Authorities had decided to commission a full review of security before this incident took place.

Murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher

The Commissioner reported that officers were going to Libya on 3 April as part of the ongoing investigation.

Launch of Safer Neighbourhoods

This significant project was being launched on 5 April. The Commissioner pointed to the progress in recent years in reducing volume crime. The Safer Neighbourhoods policing style would deliver visible and accessible policing services at a local level.

Tony Arbour asked about a report in the media that the Deputy Commissioner had referred to drink ‘no go’ areas, including a reference to Richmond as such an area. The Commissioner confirmed that the Deputy Commissioner had made no such comment and there were no ‘no go’ areas in London.

In reply to a question from Cecile Wright, the Commissioner undertook that there would be a pan London campaign on bladed weapons. In reply to a question from Elizabeth Howlett, the Commissioner said that 78% of arrests for possession of offensive weapons were as a result of a stop and search.

Peter Herbert suggested that the issue of racial harassment should be central to safer neighbourhoods. The Race Hate Forum, which he chaired, was targeting five local authorities where apparent failure of the local authority to act was contributing to high levels of racial harassment.

Performance

The Commissioner reported on the continuing fall in crime levels in London. For instance burglary was down by 7.5%, street crime by 4% on the previous year and gun related crime down 6%.

Richard Barnes registered his concern at the pressure of murder squads. The Commissioner agreed and commented that they would be receiving extra resources.

Recruitment / staff satisfaction

The Commissioner reported high morale, which he felt was closely related to the MPS’s improved performance. Up to the end of February 3,213 officers had been recruited in the current financial year. 30% of these were female and 15% from a visible ethnic minority.

96. Policing and Performance Plan 2004/05

(Agenda item 7)

The Authority considered the proposed policing and performance plan and a summary document.

Richard Sumray repeated his view that the plan should show CPA targets. He also felt that comparisons should be shown on a year-by-year basis. He had a number of other points which he would discuss with the officers outside the meeting.

Kirsten Hearn expressed her displeasure that not enough was being done to ensure that, as a blind person, she had the same access to these and similar documents as other members of the Authority. It was unreasonable to expect her to participate and make decisions without this. The Commissioner said that DAC Howlett would discuss this further with Kirsten.

Resolved – That the Authority agrees and endorses for publication the proposed content of the 2004/05 policing and performance plan and the summary of it.

97. Thematic review of race and diversity in the MPS

(Agenda item 8)

The Authority agreed to defer this report to its next meeting. The Chair asked that when the report was next submitted it was accompanied by a schedule showing the recommendations and action in hand or planned to respond to them.

98. Revenue budget 2004/05

(Agenda item 9)

The Authority considered a report by the Treasurer and the Commissioner setting out further information on the 2004/05 revenue budget since the approval of the Mayor’s budget on 18 February.

Resolved – That the Authority notes the latest information on funding and other budget changes and approves the final MPA/MPS revenue budget for 2004/05.

99. Capital Programme 2004/05 TO 2008/09

(Agenda item 10)

The Authority considered a report by the Commissioner and the Treasurer setting out proposals on how additional funds arising from the better than expected capital settlement for 2004/05 should be utilised and seeking approval of the final Capital Programme for 2004/05 to 2008/09.

Resolved – That the Authority notes the content of this report and approves the final Capital Programme for 2004/05 to 2008/09.

100. Protocol on member / officer relations

(Agenda item 11)

This item was deferred to the next meeting of the Authority.

101. Update report from the Standards Committee

(Agenda item 12)

This item was deferred to the next meeting of the Authority.

102. Action taken under delegated authority

(Agenda item 13)

The Authority noted a report by the Clerk on action taken under delegated authority since its last meeting.

103. Date of MPA annual meeting

(Agenda item 14)

Resolved – That the Annual Meeting be brought forward to 24 June.

The meeting ended at 1.45 p.m.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback