Stockwell 2 IPCC report

Report: 7b
Date: 6 September 2007
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report accompanies the Commissioner’s response to the six general recommendations made by the IPCC in their Stockwell 2 report. It suggests points on which the Authority might seek further explanation and reports from the Commissioner, and it proposes that MPA should seek to agree a coordinated assessment of the Commissioner’s response with HMIC and the Home Office.

A. Recommendation

That

1. the Authority determine its provisional views on the Commissioner’s response to the IPCC report;
2. the Chair of the Authority to seek discussions with HMIC and the Home Office with a view to developing a coordinated assessment whether any further action is needed, in order to fulfil the IPCC recommendation to the three bodies;
3. the Authority consider whether a review of the new arrangements for a more systematic approach to information handling should be conducted and reported to the Authority in twelve months time; and
4. the Authority decides if further reports be called for consideration at future meetings.

B. Supporting information

1. All Members have received a copy of the IPCC report. The six general recommendations made by the IPCC are set out on page 108 of the report. The report on this agenda from the AC Operational Services, on behalf of the Commissioner, sets out the response to each of those recommendations.

2. Members are reminded that a number of matters are sub judice and may not be discussed.

3. The IPCC Stockwell 1 report - concerned with the shooting of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes - has not been published. Following consideration of that report, the CPS launched criminal proceedings against the MPS corporately for a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and the trial is to start in October 2007. Also arising out of the Stockwell 1 Report, the Authority has made recommendations to the IPCC as to whether DAC Cressida Dick should face misconduct proceedings, and there will be no determination of that matter until after the end of the Health and Safety trial. Therefore, matters related to the question of culpability or liability – corporate or individual – for the shooting of Mr de Menezes are sub judice and may not be discussed.

4. The Stockwell 2 report from the IPCC specifically identifies conduct issues in relation to AC Andy Hayman and recommends that the MPA, as the appropriate authority for ACPO officers’ conduct, considers what action it intends to take (referring to the question of misconduct proceedings). Consideration of those matters is delegated to a sub-committee of the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee (PSC). There should be no discussion at this meeting of any of the content or findings of the IPCC report in relation to AC Hayman’s actions or conduct, in order not to compromise the functions of the Sub-Committee of PSC Committee.

5. The response from the MPS is a full one. The Authority needs to be satisfied that the MPS response demonstrates fully that learning has taken place and that action will follow on all of the IPCC recommendations. This present report is not intended to be a critique or commentary on the Commissioner’s response, which must speak for itself, but rather to offer a few observations to assist members’ consideration.

6. IPCC recommendation 1 referred to ‘serious weaknesses in the MPS in relation to the handling of critical information including within the senior management team’. It invites the MPA to consider what management action should be taken to resolve these weaknesses, and also invites the Home Office and HMIC to consider what action they need to take to address the issues raised ‘in view of the serious nature of the failings’.

7. The MPS response accepts the broad thrust of the IPCC criticisms and focuses on the beneficial impact of the Crisis Management Team and Knowledge Management Centre, instituted post Stockwell and tested in other recent incidents. As the response sets out, the Knowledge Management Centre has been reviewed by HMIC, who gave an overall favourable assessment. It is, however, clear, from reading the full HMIC review at Appendix 2, that the HMIC findings are in respect of work in progress: HMIC makes several suggestions in that assessment for further action to consolidate the KMC, warns of the risk of ‘mission drift’ and highlights the importance of clarity around ‘interdependencies’ including the need to recognise the Counter Terrorism command as ‘an important partner’. The HMIC paper identifies the scope for a wider review and more extensive scrutiny on customers’ perspectives and information control.

8. Without in any way detracting from the improvements in the management of critical briefings that the KMC has clearly already achieved members may feel that a further review, as advocated by HMIC, should be carried out within, say, the next 12 months and reported to the Authority.

9. In the meantime, the Authority may wish to consider whether the MPS response is sufficient or whether to refer it, together with members’ views, for further discussion between the Authority, HMIC and the Home Office, with a view to developing a coordinated assessment whether any further action is needed, to fulfil the IPCC recommendation to the three bodies.

10. IPCC recommendation 2 invites the MPA to recognise that issues identified by MPS Operation Erini are fully addressed and that systems are implemented to prevent a recurrence.

11. The MPS response relates in part to the separate criticism by IPCC that Operation Erini presented a delay to the IPCC investigation. This response is helpful but it does not address all the ‘issues identified’ by Operation Erini as set out in para 26.1 of the IPCC Report on page 107. Many of those in fact relate to Stockwell 1. It is apparent that the Crisis Management Team and Knowledge Management Centre will address the post incident issues. There will be an opportunity to discuss some of the wider issues once the legal proceedings over the shooting are concluded. Members may wish to ask the Commissioner to clarify how the range of issues will be addressed fully.

12. IPCC recommendation 3 urges the Commissioner to set out to his personal staff his expectations in relation to keeping him informed. IPCC recommendation 4 calls for the MPS Senior Management Team to have clarity as to the responsibility for keeping the Commissioner informed of critical matters. The MPS response explains new working arrangements in the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner’s offices and refers to the reliance that will be placed on the Knowledge Management Centre. The response states that the Crisis Management Team model ‘more clearly defines the role of each member of the Management Board and their responsibility for communicating with their colleagues’. Members may feel that in the interests of proper accountability, these definitions of roles and responsibilities should be published to the Authority, HMIC and the Home Office.

13. IPCC recommendation 5 calls for a review of the purpose of CRA briefings including the potential for the MPS to be compromised. The response addresses this. A leading member of the CRA has written to the Chair of the Authority, on behalf of the CRA, stating that a further review is unnecessary, that there is an enduring relationship between the MPS and the CRA which has flourished for over 60 years, that the MPS has always treated the CRA members as trusted and knowledgeable reporters, and that regular briefings have meant the public are better informed. He points out that other police forces and organisations – including the IPCC itself – have briefed the CRA for much the same reasons.

14. IPCC recommendation 6 calls for appropriate minuting of strategic meetings to discuss critical incidents. The MPS response outlines how this will be addressed.

C. Race and equality impact

There are no direct implications arising from this report. The MPS response to the IPCC Report addresses equalities questions.

D. Financial implications

Section ‘D’ of the MPS Response deals with this.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Catherine Crawford and David Riddle, MPA

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback