Minutes

Minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 22 November 2007 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Len Duvall (Chair),
• Reshard Auladin (Deputy Chair)
• Cindy Butts (Deputy Chair)
• Tony Arbour
• Jennette Arnold
• Richard Barnes
• Faith Boardman
• Dee Doocey
• Nicky Gavron
• Toby Harris
• Peter Herbert
• Kirsten Hearn
• Damian Hockney
• Elizabeth Howlett
• Jenny Jones
• Joanne McCartney
• Karim Murji
• Bob Neill
• Aneeta Prem
• John Roberts
• Richard Sumray
• Graham Tope
• Rachel Whittake

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
•  David Riddle (Deputy Chief Executive and Solicitor to the Authority)
• Ken Hunt (Treasurer)
• Nick Baker (Head of Committee Services)

MPS officers

• Sir Ian Blair (Commissioner)
• Paul Stephenson (Deputy Commissioner)
• AC John Yates
• Commander Moir Stewart

56. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

No apologies for absence were received.

57. Declarations of interest

(Agenda item 2)

No declarations were made.

58. STANDING ORDER 2.3.2

(Agenda item 3)

The Chair welcomed members to the meeting and reminded them that in accordance with the Authority’s Standing Order 2.3.2 he had called this extraordinary meeting following receipt of a written request signed by Tony Arbour, Richard Barnes and Elizabeth Howlett, ‘as a matter of urgency to discuss the implications of the of the guilty verdict in the health and safety trial of The Crown Vs the Office of the Commissioner’.

He confirmed that this would be the only item of business.

The Chair then proposed that members consider the papers and background information that had been circulated to them prior to the meeting. In doing so, he proposed that the Authority note the letter from the Chair of the London Assembly and motion passed at the London Assembly meeting on 7 November 2007, receive the memorandum from the Solicitor to the Authority and the MPS report that provided an update since the health and safety trial. He then proposed that following consideration of these he would allow debate and with the agreement of members suspend standing orders to receive any motions that may be submitted. The Chair also indicated that member may need to consider excluding the press and public from part or all of the discussion.

In relation to the papers and background information that had been circulated the Chair drew attention to a letter to him from a member of the Authority, which had been circulated to all members for information. The Chair wished to refute some of the comments made in the letter, particularly those that intimated that the Authority had not followed due process.

The Chair asked David Riddle, Solicitor to the Authority, to outline his memorandum circulated to members. David Riddle informed members that his memorandum was provided to members by way of background for the discussion at this meeting and provided details on the verdict and sentence of the health and safety prosecution, including extracts from transcript of the verdict and further proceeding consequent on the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. In particular, the memorandum outlined the action taken by the MPA’s Professional Standards Committee Cases Sub-Committee under delegated authority in relation to disciplinary matters arising from the reports published by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and also for information outlined the procedure for the removal from office of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

In presenting the memorandum, the Solicitor to the Authority, stated that it was not usual practice for the Authority to announce the decisions of the MPA’s Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee, which has delegated responsibilities from the Authority to consider matters of misconduct involving ACPO ranks including the Commissioner. However, given the intense public interest surrounding the recent health and safety trial and the publication of Stockwell 1 and full publication of Stockwell 2, it was decided to include reference to decisions made by the Sub-Committee in an MPA statement following the publication of Stockwell 1. He apologised that not all members of the Authority had been given prior notice before the release of the MPA statement.

The Chair added that the draft terms of reference of the MPA review into Stockwell would be circulated to members and submitted to the Co-ordination and Policing Committee for approval.

The Chair invited AC John Yates to provide members with details of the background to the trial; issues from the trial and operational impact.

AC Yates informed members that the MPS had been summonsed for failing to discharge a duty under Section 3 of the Health and Safety Act 1974 in relation to the circumstances leading up to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell underground station in July 2005. He added that the prosecution alleged 19 failings by the MPS and that the MPS had pleaded not guilty. He informed members that at the trail the defence strategy had been to disprove all 19 failings and he confirmed that the defence had been given instructions not to portray Jean Charles de Menezes in a negative light. AC Yates confirmed that the MPS on 2 November 2007 had been found guilty of failing to discharge a duty under Section 3 of the Health and Safety Act 1974 and added that the jury forewoman stated that they ‘attach no personal culpability to Commander Dick’. The Judge had stated, amongst other things, that this was ‘an isolated breach brought about by extraordinary circumstances’ and that the MPS has a good safe record. The Judge also stated that he was not naming any individuals as having failed and identified a number of officers involved in the case who had behaved with exemplary bravery. AC Yates confirmed that the MPS were fined £175,000 with £385,000 costs.

Arising from the trial and following counsel’s opinion a decision had been taken not to appeal the findings of guilt. AC Yates agreed that a full transcript of counsel’s opinion would be made available to members

The Chair invited comments from members.

Several members expressed concerns about references made at the trial to the character of Jean Charles de Menezes, particularly to his immigration status, references to traces of cocaine found in body and the manipulation of pictures of him and a suspected terrorist. Members asked for details relating to the supervision of the presentation of the case and for details on the length of time it had taken to inform the family of Mr de Menezes death.

Members asked for more information regarding the current position on operational policing following the guilty verdict. While Members generally agreed that the prosecution under health and safety legislation was inappropriate, they wanted explanation why the MPS had decided not to appeal the guilty verdict.

In response, AC Yates informed members that Mr de Menezes’ immigration status and details of cocaine traces found in his body had been introduced by the prosecution, and only referred to by the defence in the summing up and not in an aggressive manner or as a slur on Mr de Menezes character. In relation to the pictures of Mr de Menezes and the suspected terrorist this comparison was done to show how difficult identification was for the officers, but he added that the Judge had instructed the jury to ignore any suggestion that this evidence had been manipulated. He added that an experienced legal team had supervised the presentation of the case. Arising from this the Chair suggested that there needed to be a review of this issue and the development by the MPS of a ‘client and QC’ protocol.

AC Yates confirmed that he had travelled to Brazil to meet the family of Jean Charles de Menezes four or five days after his death and that the family had been told of his death as soon as practical after the shooting and well before he arrived in Brazil.

In relation to the operational impact following the trail, AC Yates confirmed that an Operational Impact Reference Group had been established. Its continuing role was to consider ‘the operational implications to the MPS and national policing and the broader policing family on a finding of guilt under Section 3 of the Health and Safety Act 1974 in relation to the Stockwell incident’. In addition, further work was being undertaken to ensure that existing and future operational procedures fully consider and incorporate safety management, with the aim of identifying current MPS policy regarding safety systems and how these are interpreted into Standard Operation Procedures by business groups and how they are applied in practice by operational command units.

AC Yates confirmed that the Association of Chief Police Officers was also considering the operational implications of the ruling at a national level and that a paper would be submitted to the National Policing Board, chaired by the Home Secretary in the near future. In response to members, AC Yates agreed to share the submission with the Authority, through the Chair, as a matter of urgency and prior to its submission to the National Policing Board.

AC Yates agreed with members view that this case was not appropriately considered under health and safety legislation. He added that a decision had been take not to appeal against the finding of guilt as the MPS had considered the importance of not delaying or impacting on the Inquest and the subsequent impact on the de Menezes’ family an appeal could have.

The Chair, with agreement of members, suggested that the Authority’s scrutiny needed to consider the question of prosecutions under health and safety legislation and the impact of this verdict.

Members sought clarification that at the London Assembly meeting on 7 November 2007 it was stated that the Mayor’s office had received a call at 3.00 pm on 22 July 2007 from the MPS informing him that the person shot at Stockwell underground was not a terrorist but an innocent man and that some members of the Assembly knew the name of the caller.

In response, it was noted that those remarks had been now been withdrawn.

Members asked how the MPS were attempting to restore community confidence following this incident, particularly following the issues of Jean Charles de Menezes character and behaviour being used in court and the reconciling of officers’ log books. An analogy was used which referred to the transparent and open approach used by the MPS with relatives and the community following the death of Stephen Lawrence. Members suggested that this or a similar approach needed to be considered by the MPS. Some members also drew attention to work with communities already being undertaken in Lambeth and suggested that this could be used in this instance. Members felt that at the Inquest, if the MPS were as transparent and open as possible this could help in restoring community confidence.

Sir Ian Blair agreed with members that in order to restore community confidence it would be appropriate for the MPS, with the Authority, to engage in a similar approach to that used following the death of Stephen Lawrence, but he suggested that this should take place following the conclusion of the Inquest which was due in 2008.

He outlined the difficulties faced by officers in relation to the reconciling of log books and confirmed that discussion on this issue were taking place between ACPO and the Home Office. Some members suggested that there was scope for the MPS to take a lead on this issue and produce guidance to officers or as part of the training process to improve or stop this practice.

Some members raised concerns relating to the publication of reports at the time of the health and safety trial of possible new evidence regarding the Stephen Lawrence case and felt that this may have been done to detract from the reporting of the outcome of the trial. There was also concern that some form of racial profiling by the MPS may have occurred and may have led to errors.

The Chair agreed that profiling questions should be considered as part of the Authority’s review.

The Deputy Commissioner said that any leak causes offence to victims and professional officers and this leak would huge cause offence to the Lawrence family and that was regrettable. Any suggestion that it had been leaked by the MPS to deflect criticism from the Commissioner was absolutely wrong. There is no evidence of that, the MPS did not do that and the MPS would not do that. In relation to the reconciling of Officer’s notes, the Deputy stated that the system for witnesses and officers could appear unequal but any system must be one designed to produce the truth for court. To the suggestion the MPS take a lead on this matter, he agreed that there was possible scope for this and a paper could be brought back before the Committee representing expert views. The Deputy Commissioner stated that he had concerns regarding aspects of current disciplinary procedures, but added that a considerable amount of work was underway arising from the ‘Taylor Review’ and its recommendations, to create a 21st century discipline process. With regard to the H&S judgement and how it may change the way the MPS manages risk, a great deal of work was being done and would be brought back to the Committee as a report.

The Chair thanked members for the views and in summing up, with the agreement of members that the Authority, agreed to receive reports to future meetings on risk issues and the possibility of the MPS leading on developing protocols on reconciling of log books.

As part of the review he added that consideration was needed regarding appropriate legislation of such cases and that the review should develop a mission statement on new ways of working about being open and transparent. The review needed to also to include issues about identification.

It was also agreed that the MPS should develop protocols on ‘client and QC’ relationships. The Chair also asked that the MPS forward to the Authority, before submitting to the National Policing Board the response on the operational implications of the ruling at a national level.

He added that without wishing to prejudice the Inquest, it was his intention to hold the Authority’s Review on Stockwell as soon as possible and for it not to be a prolonged process.

The Chair now asked members to consider if the press and public should be excluded from the meeting, as it was likely that issues arising could refer to an individual who is technically an employee of the Authority.

Some members suggested that the issue of debate was of confidence and not employment and referred to the memorandum of the Solicitor of the Authority, which outlined the procedure for the removal of office of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

The Chair put the following resolution to the Authority and called for a vote to exclude the press and public.

‘to exclude the press and public from the meeting during remaining of the meeting as it was likely to disclose exempt information as described in Schedule 12(a) (para 1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended)’.

Three members voted for the resolution and 20 against. It was therefore agreed not to exclude the press and public from the remainder of the meeting.

In order to receive any motions from members the Chair sought agreement that Standing Order be suspended. Members agreed that Standing Orders be suspended.

Richard Barnes proposed and Bob Neill seconded a motion to the Authority that ‘This Authority has no confidence in the Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair’.

In proposing the motion Richard Barnes stated that having read the Judge’s comments following the health and safety trail and the IPCC reports Stockwell 1 and 2 and taking account of these, he had come to the conclusion that there were catastrophic failings during July 2005 which related to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. In noting the Judge’s comments that there were a number of corporate failings which contributed and culminated in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, he felt the only way that the body corporate, when so criticised, can take full responsibility and expedite that responsibility is when the head of that body corporate acknowledges and take responsibility for them. He added that the acknowledgment and responsibility for the MPS lies with the Commissioner and the MPA has the responsibility to hold him to account and should exercise that responsibility. He stated that the IPCC believe that the preparations for the events of July 2005 were flawed and the execution of those plans lead to a catastrophic failing. He could therefore only draw one conclusion that the Commissioner should take the responsibility for failings and resign. He added that as the Commissioner had clearly indicated that is not his intention the Authority must live up to its responsibilities and express the view that its has no confidence.

The Chair invited other members to comment on the proposed motion:

Several members spoke in favour of the motion. They supported the comments made by Richard Barnes and added that it was regrettable that they had had to reach this conclusion, but they felt that following the IPCC reports on Stockwell and the eroding of confidence from Londoners in his leadership, the Commissioner should consider his position. They added that he was in danger of ‘becoming the story’, which was detracting from the work of the Service.

A number of members spoke against the motion. In opposing the motion those members suggested that the Commissioner should not take personal responsibility for the shooting at Stockwell and that he should remain in post to ensure the MPS could learn form the incident and ensure that it did not happen again.

They added that the Commissioner should remain in post to pursue the improvements in making London safer and drew attention to such areas under his stewardship that had contributed to this including safer neighbourhood policing, improved policing performance, as well as his work on areas around diversity.

Some members felt that there was unnecessary political and media pressure for the Commissioner to resign and if the motion was agreed this would set an unsatisfactory precedent.

The Chair thanked members for their comments. He stated that all members were conscious that the discussion at the meeting was against a background of a major tragedy for an individual and his family and for policing in general. He was glad that the debate had taken place in public and therefore those reporting on the meeting could not give a wrong impression. He added that it also indicated the MPA’s determination not minimise the issues around Stockwell and to ensure that the MPS learnt the lessons of that incident. He stressed the need for members to be clear about the implications of the health and safety trial and the likelihood that there would be further trials in the future.

He accepted that there will be times when the Commissioner must be held to account, but he did not know of any other public official that had had to face the degree of questioning that the Commissioner had recently faced and he suggested that there was an issue of dignity arising from the loss of a life, but there had to be the same for those trying to right a wrong. He stated that if there was good reason for no confidence in the Commissioner then he would support the motion. However, he felt that there was none and he therefore could not support it. In reaching this decision he stated that he had come to this view under no political pressure. In reaching the decision he had undertook a series of reality checks on the issue and looked at the facts. He felt that there was no evidence that the reforms being undertaken by the MPS were being hindered by the Commissioner’s stewardship and that there was also no evidence that the performance of the MPS had been affected.

In response to some media reports, the Chair stated that he had always taken his role with the MPA seriously and he refuted suggestion that he was in the pocket of the Commissioner or vice versa and emphasised that he had and would continue to hold people rigorously to account.

Following members’ comment regarding the debate and motion by the London Assembly, He felt that it was right that the Assembly took interest in issues relating to Stockwell, but he stipulated that it was the MPA that made decisions on holding the Commissioner to account. He also confirmed that in relation to statements he had released relating to Stockwell these had been agreed with other members prior to their release.

The Chair invited the Commissioner to comment. The Commissioner requested that his personal expressions of sorrow for the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes be put on record. In reference to a recent newspaper article, which stated he was a man without honour, he wished to respond and stated that he was a man of honour. He also drew members’ attention to the comments made by the judge at the trial, which had stated that the shooting at Stockwell had been an isolated breach under extraordinary circumstances and no individual was culpable. He welcomed the motion in order that both he and the MPS can move on and added that since the trial the MPS were working hard to ensure that a similar event did not occur again.

Following the debate on the motion, and with agreement of members, the Chair invited members to vote by recorded vote.

The following members voted ‘for’ the motion: Tony Arbour, Richard Barnes, Dee Doocey, Damian Hockney, Elizabeth Howlett, Bob Neill and Graham Tope

The following members voted against the motion: Jennette Arnold, Reshard Auladin, Faith Boardman, Cindy Butts, Len Duvall, Nicky Gavron, Toby Harris, Kirsten Hearn, Jenny Jones, Karim Murji, Joanne McCartney, Aneeta Prem, John Roberts, Richard Sumray and Rachel Whittaker.

Peter Herbert abstained.

RESOLVED - With 15 members against the motion, 7 in favour and 1 abstention the motion was lost.

A motion was proposed by Jenny Jones and seconded by Cindy Butts. Amendments were proposed by Peter Herbert and Cindy Butts, resulting in the following motion

This Authority calls for the following actions to be undertaken by the Metropolitan Police Service within the next 6 months and believes that the existing Metropolitan Police Service Senior Management Team is best placed to deliver these actions:

• This MPS will continue to work to ensure that those IPCC recommendations for which is has direct responsibility are fully implemented.
• The MPS will seek to develop an appropriate framework for managing risk in response to the health and safety trial ruling
• The MPS will show evidence of detailed contingency planning for a wide range of terrorist scenarios.
• Building on the initial work undertaken by the MPA, the MPS will create an opportunity for wider public debate to ensure community confidence about the efficacy of Kratos and related counter terrorism tactics.
• The MPS will demonstrate to the public that they have listened and learned from the tragic shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.

RESOLVED - Following a show of hands and a majority of members in favour that the motion be agreed.

The meeting closed at 1.40 p.m.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback