Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee held on 28 June 2010 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Tony Arbour
• Reshard Auladin
• James Cleverly
• Chris Boothman
• Valerie Brasse
• Joanne McCartney

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
• Jane Harwood (Deputy Chief Executive)
• Helen Sargeant (MPA Solicitor)
• Kalyanee Mendelsohn (Professional Standards Officer for item 5)
• Julliett Fearon-Knott (Equalities officer for items 5 &6)
• Chris Benson (Committee Services).

Also attending: Deborah Glass Deputy Chair Independent Police Complaints Commission.

1. Appointment of chair

Reshard Auladin was nominated and appointed Chair for the meeting.

2. Communications

2.1 Chris Boothman apologised for leaving early.

3. Declarations of interests

3.1 None were received.

4. Minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2010

(Agenda item 4)

4.1 The minutes of the meetings held on 19 April 2010 were approved as correct records.

Resolved - that the minutes of the meetings held on 19 April 2010 be approved as a correct record.

5. Role of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and the Dip sampling of complaints

(Agenda item 5)

5.1 The Chair introduced the item and said that by way of background that the Professional Standards Committee used to deal with professional standards work and now this had been subsumed into the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee. The Chair stated that Deborah Glass, Deputy Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) or another representative used to attend. The Chair said that he would like to re-start their attendance in the new professional standards committee structure. The Chair then introduced Deborah Glass to the Sub-committee.

5.2 Deborah Glass advised that she welcomed the opportunity to address the Sub-committee and to receive feedback from Members as to how they saw the interaction with the IPCC going forward.

5.3 Deborah Glass then read to her power point presentation to the Sub- Committee. In terms of national figures, she stated that half were locally resolved, and the IPCC were involved in a relatively small number. She reminded the Sub-committee that the IPCC would be involved in the appeal stage from a local resolution, local investigation and supervised investigation. The IPCC was in effect the safety net, and received over 5000 appeals in 2009-10.

5.4 Deborah Glass then discussed the IPCC’s involvement as far as the MPS were concerned. She stressed that the key thing was managing expectations of the process. She explained many are referred as the IPCC have told the MPS that they must refer these. This would be where the complaint involved section 44 stop and search, taser, G20. This allows the IPCC to have an overview. Deborah Glass said there were also others where they had to be referred, for example, death and serious injury. In 2009/10 there were 771 referrals in total, of which 33 were independent

5.5 The Sub-committee asked to be reported to SOP in terms of the themed referrals the:

1.  number of referred cases
2.  number of non recorded allegations that resulted in dispensation

5.6 The Sub-committee was informed that there was a trend of an increase in independent investigations whilst the number of managed investigations was decreasing, and this was something that they were encouraging. Deborah Glass said that as stated before, the IPCC were keen to supervise on thematic issues such as G20.

5.7 Deborah Glass clarified that the IPCC counted the number of complaints, not incidents, therefore there could be a number of supervised cases about the same incident.

5.8 In terms of appealing where issues were dealt with at a local level, it was noted that the highest number of appeals was always against non- recording. The appeals against local resolution was always the smallest number. This correlated with the pattern nationally.

5.9 Deborah Glass noted that the MPS gave to areas to handle locally. The Chair noted that DPS had spent some considerable time training boroughs to deal with at a local level. Valerie Brass noted that the percentage of appeals against non-recording seemed high. Deborah Glass said that she expected matters to be recorded rather than non- recorded.

5.10 Deborah Glass and the Sub-committee discussed the legislation which does not allow a non-recording even if the complaint appears vexatious or an abuse of the system. The correct legal approach was to record and then apply for a dispensation. Deborah Glass said that she was keen for the system to be changed, with a request for dispensation to be a ground for non-recording.

5.11 The trends showed that there was a decrease in local resolution and an increase in matters being investigated. This needed to be compared to the high number of appeals against investigated complaints. The IPCC wanted to promote and support a system to encourage the use of local resolution whenever possible. Deborah Glass said that this could be an area that could be dip sampled, ie. The theme of locally resolved complaints, and those investigated by the borough rather than central DPS, to look into whether people are happy with the outcome.

5.12 The Sub-committee were reminded of the revised IPCC Statutory Guidance. Deborah Glass said that following the issuing of this guidance, she considered that there should be more upholding of complaints. If there is a legitimate grievance then the complaint should be upheld.

5.13 Deborah Glass then discussed the performance framework and indicators. She explained that these were being worked on nationally. This was temporarily on hold until the forces create new systems to be able to provide this information. This should enable the IPCC to provide national statistics. This was a work in progress.

5.14 Deborah Glass then advised on what the MPS should be looking for in terms of the MPS system. Firstly she said it was about access to the complaints system. To look at the handling by the local boroughs – does that make the system more successful? She also advised the MPA to compare investigations and local resolutions, was the response a proportionate response to the complaint? Finally she advised the MPA to look at any appeal to the IPCC and if it was upheld and the reasons for this.

5.15 The Chair on behalf of the Sub-committee thanked Deborah Glass for attending the meeting. Her attendance marked a renewed relationship between the IPCC and MPA and it was agreed to invite the IPCC to attend meetings of the Sub-committee on a quarterly basis.

6. Dip sampling

6.1 The Sub-committee were advised that the dip sampling of closed complaints by the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) would be carried out by members of the MPA’s Professional Standards Unit. The 10 to 12 files to be dip sampled were to be selected at random and brought to the MPA at Dean Farrer Street for inspection.

6.2 It was agreed that DPS at the MPS should be invited to report to this Sub-committee on their own quality assurance processes, so that we were not duplicating.

6.3 It was noted that the Professional Standards Unit had received training from the IPCC on the dip sampling process.

6.4 It was agreed for this first dip sampling process for officers to review a random selection of 10 closed files and to undertake a general file review. This would be reported to the next Sub-committee meeting. At that meeting Members would consider any themes/ areas that they would like to be reviewed for the next round of dip sampling.

7. Exclusion of press and public

(Agenda item 6)

7.1. A resolution was put to exclude the press and public from the meeting during the remaining agenda item as it would be likely to disclose exempt information as described in Part 1, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Resolved – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the remaining agenda items.

8. Summary of exempt items

(a) Police Pensions Regulations 1987 – Application for a Certificate of Forfeiture.

(b) Police Pensions Regulations 1987 – Application for Forfeiture.

(c) MPA Professional Standards Unit Update.

(d) Minutes of the meeting held 19 April 2010

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback