Minutes - draft

These minutes are draft and are to be agreed.

Minutes of the meeting of the Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee held on 18 October 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

• Jane Harwood (Deputy Chief Executive)
• Helen Sargeant (MPA Solicitor)
• Kalyanee Mendelsohn (Professional Standards Officer for item 5)
• Chris Benson (Committee Services).

Also in attendance: Commander Bob Simmons

36. Communications

(Agenda item 1)

36.1 None were received

37. Declarations of interests

(Agenda item 2)

37.1 Reshard Auladin advised the Sub-committee that he was conflicted out of the discussion regarding agenda item 13. Police Reform Act 2002 – consideration of police reform act issues in relation to an ACPO rank officer.

38. Minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2010

(Agenda item 3)

38.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2010 were approved as a correct record.

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2010 be approved as a correct record.

39. Update on dip sampling of closed complaints and conduct matters

(Agenda item 4)

39.1 Helen Sargeant (MPA Solicitor) introduced the report that provided an update as to the work of the Professional Standards Unit in moving forward the work on dip sampling of closed complaints and conduct files. This report was considered in conjunction with the following report

40. Directorate of Professional Standards dip sampling procedures.

(Agenda item 5)

40.1 Commander Mark Simmons (Department of Professional Standards) introduced the report that provided an outline of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) quality assurance processes, policies and protocols in relation to dealing with complaints and conduct matters against police; how any lessons learned are disseminated throughout the MPS; how any specifics of any training that MPS staff have received on these processes, policies and protocols and an update on the progress of professional development training of Professional Standards Champions. This item was considered in conjunction with agenda item 4.

40.2 The Sub-committee was concerned to note that the MPS did not carry out retrospective dip sampling of closed complaints. It was noted that the current process provided quality assurance throughout all stages of the complaints process with robust supervision at all stages of intervention. Cmdr Simmons advised that the DPS was changing its emphasis from the management of outputs to the management of outcomes.

40.3 Members were concerned that based upon previous discussions of this issue they had understood that the MPS dip sampled completed complaints. The MPA’s dip sampling was to provide a means of quality assuring that process and a check on compliance with the MPS own quality assurance regime.

40.4 It was noted that in the past members had reviewed completed case files, this was found to be time consuming and members had little concept of what they were looking for or what to do it they found something of concern. As a result very little, if any additional value was added. This process had gradually stopped due to the pressure on resources, including demands on the member’s time.

40.5 Cmdr Simmons did not consider the current system to be ideal; more could be done with additional resources. He advised the Sub-committee that dip sampling was not the only means to provide quality assurance.

40.6 It was noted that the MPA had a statutory duty to carry out this function. It could not be transferred elsewhere. Concerns were raised that the MPA was not complying this statutory duty. If it was unable to comply, it had the option to press for a change in legislation or take appropriate steps to mitigate the position.

40.7 It was recognised that the numbers of complaints received by the MPS was far greater than any other police authority, and it was impractical to adopt the procedures used by other Police Authorities.

40.8 In light of the Government’s decision to abolish police authorities, the Chair advised the Sub-committee to approve and implement the dip sampling process as set out in the reports and review the position within two to three months following confirmation of Government’s intention.

40.9 The Sub-committee agreed to approve the dip sampling protocol, and asked for following information:

1. how members raise and progress areas of concern.
2. how information will be fed back to members.

40.10 With regard to the transfer of files it was considered that 10 days was too long if the files were stored within New Scotland Yard. A period of ten days would be acceptable if the files had to be retrieved from storage outside of New Scotland Yard. Cdr Simmons confirmed that they were stored externally in archive.

40.11 It was noted that any reports on the outcome of dip sampling would be discussed in the public domain when possible, however it was recognised that some issues may have to be discussed on the exempt part of the agenda.

Resolved according

41. Case summaries

(Agenda item 6)

441.1 Kalyanee Mendelsohn (Professional Standards Officer) introduced a report that summarised the findings of two recent cases which were considered by the courts. These were:

1. The case of Jordan which concerned an application by the North Yorkshire Police Authority (“the NYPA”) for judicial review of the decision of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“the IPCC”) that the NYPA was required to record a complaint made against its Chief Constable.
2. The case of Jones which concerns an appeal against the decision of the Professional Standards Cases Sub-Committee to forfeit 50% of his pension permanently and 15% temporarily, for a period of five years.

41.2 Members commented that in light of the Judicial Review for officers, more complaints would be recorded, whereas previously they may not have been. Members considered that further to this, it may be more appropriate for many allegations to be considered under delegated authority rather than being presented to the Sub-Committee for decision.

Resolved To note the report.

42. Exclusion of press and public

(Agenda item 7)

4242.1 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.

Summary of exempt items

43. Police Regulations 2003 joint business interest appeal

To consider a joint business interest appeal.

44. Police Regulations 2003 business interest application

To consider what conditions, if any, would be appropriate to impose on a business interest.

45. Police Reform Act 2002 – allegations against an ACPO rank officer

To consider an allegation against an ACPO rank officer.

46. Police Reform Act 2002 – allegations against an ACPO rank officer

To consider an allegation against an ACPO rank officer

47. Police Reform Act 2002 – allegations against an ACPO rank officer

To consider an allegation against an ACPO rank officer

48. Police Reform Act 2002 – Consideration of Police Reform Act issues in relation to an ACPO rank officer

To consider Police Reform Act issues in relation to an ACPO rank officer.

49. Amex charge cards

To receive an oral update.

50. MPA Professional Standards Unit update

To receive an update on active cases within the MPA Professional Standards Unit.

51. Minutes of the meeting held 6 September 2010

The part 2 minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2010 were approved as a correct record.

Resolved that the part 2 minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2010 be approved as a correct record.

The meeting closed at 1:10pm

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback