Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee held on 20 December 2010 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

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

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
• Helen Sargeant (Solicitor)
• Thomas Foot (Committee Officer)
• Kalyanee Mendelsohn (Professional Standards Officer)

MPS Officers

• Mark Simmons (Director of Professional Standards)

59. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

59.1 Apologies were received for Tony Arbour.

60. Declaration of interests

(Agenda item 2)

60.1 None were recorded.

61. Minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2010 and 15 November 2010

(Agenda item 3)

61.1 The minutes of the abovementioned meetings were approved as a correct record.

Resolved – that the minutes of the meetings of 18 October and 15 November 2010 (part 1) be agreed.

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

(Agenda item 4)

62.1 The Chair introduced this report, noting that officers had collated their responses and passed these to the DPS of the MPS in accordance with the protocol. MPA officers had met with the Director of Professional Standards on 17 December 2010 to discuss the findings.

62.2 A Member mentioned that there was an apparent incomplete file management as the file that they had dip-sampled seemed incomplete. whilst cautioning that Members still lacked the requisite familiarity with the DPS process to make accurate assessments as to the process. . The Chair informed the meeting that this had been discussed at the meeting of the 17 December and informed Members that much of the apparent incomplete file management was potentially derived from the use of the electronic TRIBUNE system as opposed to paper recording. Officers informed Members that TRIBUNE log data would be available to them in the future.

62.3 Mark Simmons suggested that Members may wish to concentrate their next dip sampling on one BSU per quarter, in order that they could compare practice in each of these. Members agreed to this suggestion and it was requested that some complaints derived in relation to specialist crime – within the remit of SCD units – be considered each time. Mark Simmons agreed to distribute a list of areas – e.g. sexual crime; TSG - covered by each DPS BSU.

62.4 A Member noted the two issues raised by colleagues in the report and queried whether it would be useful to be able to identify the file to which they referred. Members agreed that the draft checklist should be amended to include a file reference number for each case. The Chair noted that although it was not the role of the Sub Committee to decide on these cases, referencing in this way would enable a more fruitful dialogue with the MPS in relation to the underlying rationale for the decision taken.

62.5 A Member mentioned that the question in the draft checklist ‘was an accurate risk assessment made’ was very broad – e.g. includes risk to officers and complainant – and should be narrowed. Another Member noted that as well that “processes complied with” in the checklist was quite wide. Officers agreed to take these comments on board and provide the next meeting with an amended checklist.

62.6 Members queried the impact of the dip sampling process of the MPA on complainants complaints. For example, what were the outcomes if the dip sampling provided negative comments, and in particular how would this impact on any DPA/ FOI request? The Chair asked officers to consider this and report back to the Sub Committee.

62.7 Members noted that in the recent SOP report appended to this report, that of complaints recorded, the ethnicity of complainants has included: 15% black, 7% Asian; and 49% unknown. However, the equalities implications did not address this. Members agreed that the forthcoming DPS report (to the March meeting of SOP) should address this in its equalities implications.

Resolved accordingly

63. Exclusion of press and public

(Agenda item 5)

63.1 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

64. Urgent items

(Agenda item 6)

64.1 Members received an update on activity within the DPS from Mark Simmons.

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

(Agenda item 7)

65.1 Members considered an allegation against an ACPO rank officer.

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

(Agenda item 8)

66.1 Members considered an allegation against an ACPO rank officer.

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

(Agenda item 9)

67.1 Members considered an allegation against an ACPO rank officer

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

(Agenda item 10)

68.1 Members considered an allegation against an ACPO rank officer

69. Update on business interests

(Agenda item 11)

69.1 This report provided an update to Members in respect of the handling of business interests applications by the Metropolitan Police Service.

70. MPA Professional Standards Unit update

(Agenda item 12)

70.1 Members received and discussed an update on active cases within the MPA Professional Standards Unit.

71. Minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2010 and 15 November 2010 (Part 2)

(Agenda item 13)

71.1 The minutes of the abovementioned meetings were approved as a correct record.

Resolved – that the minutes of the meetings of 18 October and 15 November 2010 (part 2) be agreed.

The meeting closed at 11.10 am

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback