Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee held on 17 January 2011 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

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

MPA officers

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

72. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

72.1 No apologies were received.

73. Declaration of interests

(Agenda item 2)

73.1 None were recorded.

74. Minutes of the meeting held on 20 December 2010

(Agenda item 3)

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

Resolved – that the minutes of the meeting of 20 December 2010 (part 1) be agreed.

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

(Agenda item 4)

75.1 Kalyanee Mendelsohn introduced the report, noting that the Sub-committee had previously asked that the checklist be amended. She has sought guidance from the DPS, in relation to the complaints processes within the MPS, to ensure that the new checklist will be suited to evaluating them. She told Members that a file reference and an ‘any other comments’ box had also been included.

75.2 Members raised concerns that if dip sampling was going ahead in the meantime (before the refresh of the checklist), the two criteria - ‘were processes complied with?’ and ‘was an accurate risk assessment made?’ - go to the heart of the process and should, therefore, continue in their current form. MPA officers confirmed that new files for dip sampling will be available during February and that these questions would be kept in until the amendments are made.

75.3 A member noted that she had previously queried whether the objections to MPS determinations of a complaint raised by Members during the dip sampling process would be available in subject access requests. MPA officers responded that they had sought guidance from the IPCC – who issue statutory guidance on monitoring police forces including dip sampling in relation to this – and are yet to hear back.

75.4 The Chair informed the Sub-committee that his understanding was that the MPA had a responsibility for ‘quality assurance’ of complaints handling and, whilst passing judgement on procedural matters, they should be cautious in disagreeing with the determinations themselves. They should not behave as an appeals body. This is particularly important given that Members have not, to date, received all of the information in relation to each complaint (often recorded on the TRIBUNE system).

75.5 A member cautioned that it would be equally wrong to not note error in a decision considered to be unbalanced, unfair, or disproportionate. A number of Members expressed the view that the question regarding these three elements (contained in the checklist) should potentially be revisited after legal advice is sought - as it would be ultra vires for the Sub-committee to look at these.

75.6 One member remarked that the case he had dip sampled pertained to a trivial complaint which had been escalated through a number of processes. He considered this to be evidence of a top-heavy approach to complaint handling. He asked whether the Sub-committee should rightfully flag such concerns. The Chair responded that whilst the MPA has done a lot of work on frivolous complaints it may in fact be more bureaucratic to forestall local investigation and resolution given the right of appeal to the IPCC – that would likely be exercised in that case. MPA officers noted that as part of the protocol on dip sampling, they met the Director of the DPS shortly before each meeting where dip sampling of files was discussed and it is there that such issues can be raised, as well as when the Director of DPS attends the Sub-Committee meeting.

75.7 A member noted that at the inception of the MPA dip sampling process, they had agreed that their statutory role would be to quality assure MPS processes. However, he also suggested that part of the role was to consider whether they would have reached the same decision as the reviewing officer given the process and the facts. Other members agreed that an unreasonable decision could be reached even if the process is followed.

75.8 The Chair noted that given divergence of opinion between Members the best course of action would be to await IPCC and legal advice on the role of the MPA – and whether it encompasses making a determination as to whether the decision was fair, reasonable and proportionate. Jane Harwood noted that Deborah Glass from the IPCC would be attending a forthcoming Sub-committee meeting and that officers would ensure that she was informed that Members would like a briefing on this from her, and they could discuss with her at the meeting.

Resolved accordingly

76. Exclusion of press and public

(Agenda item 5)

76.1 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

77. Urgent items

(Agenda item 6)

77.1 No items were received.

78. Police Pensions Regulations 1987 – Application for Forfeiture.

(Agenda item 7)

78.1 Members determined whether a former officer’s pension should be forfeit in whole or in part, permanently or temporarily, or at all.

79. Police Pensions Regulations 1987 – Application for Forfeiture.

(Agenda item 8)

79.1 Members determined whether a former officer’s pension should be forfeit in whole or in part, permanently or temporarily, or at all

80. Report on MPA requests to the IPCC for dispensation

(Agenda item 9)

80.1 Members received an update on requests for dispensation made to the IPCC and details of their responses.

81. MPA Professional Standards Unit update

(Agenda item 10)

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

82. Minutes of the meeting held on 20 December 2010 (Part 2)

(Agenda item 11)

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

Resolved – that the minutes of the meetings of 20 December 2010 (part 2) be agreed.

The meeting closed at 11.35 am

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback