Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee held on 7 March 2011 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

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

MPA officers

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

MPS officers

• Carl Bussey (DPS)

83. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

83.1 Apologies were received from Chris Boothman and Tony Arbour.

84. Declaration of interests

(Agenda item 2)

84.1 None were recorded.

85. Minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2011

(Agenda item 3)

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

Resolved – that the minutes of the meeting of 17 January 2011 (part 1) be agreed.

86. IPCC presentation

(Agenda item 4)

86.1 The Chair introduced Deborah Glass, noting that she will be presenting her annual report to SOPC at its meeting of 14 July 2011.

86.2 Deborah Glass thanked the Chair, and confirmed that she would be presenting a full report to SOPC which will comment on MPS performance across a range of complaints sets. She suggested that the theme of the present discussion be the potential impacts of the Police Reform Bill on complaint handling. The Sub-committee agreed.

86.3 Deborah Glass began by noting that the IPCC had a number of aspirations for the Bill and had made submissions to the Home Office to this affect. Their hope was for a streamlining of complaints, removing some of the bureaucracy around dispensation, for instance. She stated that whilst this was not the central intention of the Bill, it does contain a number of provisions which have been positively received by the IPCC – the definition of complaints has been broadened, specific reference is now made to quality of service complaints, and the process of dispensation will be streamlined.

86.4 However, a number of the submissions of the IPCC have not been picked up within the Bill. They had proposed, for instance, that ‘less serious’ allegations be delegated to PCCs for handling – seemingly consistent with their projected role in scrutiny and public confidence. Instead, this power has been given to Chief Constables (and the MPS Commissioner). The IPCC position is that this, in effect, nullifies the right to appeal to an independent body.

86.5 Deborah Glass went on to state that whilst this is not entirely satisfactory that this appeal to the Chief Constable will not be unfettered as it has been agreed that regulations will define the threshold of allegations considered ‘less serious’ and may also give the IPCC the power to call in decisions on a force-by-force basis or thematically.

86.6 The Sub-committee was informed that Schedule 14, Section 7 gives local policing bodies the power to direct the chief officer to comply with the provisions in the Bill relating to complaints. It was submitted that a scrutiny function may be read in from this.

86.7 The Chair noted that he also had concerns that the increased complaints handling powers of chief officers would prove a retrograde step – given that they will then be responsible for hiring, investigating and deciding complaints against officers, these provisions could negatively impact upon perceptions of fairness. He noted that the MPA have also discussed this with the Home Office to little avail.

86.8 A member raised concerns that whilst the Bill is nominally concerned with stripping bureaucracy from the system, it may in fact create more as the chief officer will require an additional secretariat to discharge these new duties – as the DPS could not. He noted that whilst governance bodies have a strong disincentive to become bloated, the service does not to the same degree. A further level of bureaucracy is likely in that those unhappy with the determination of the chief officer will then have recourse to the complaints process of the local policing body (e.g. MOPC) – by making a complaint against the commissioner. They raised concerns that the more convoluted that the process becomes, the more likely complainants are to ‘give up’ without resolving their issues.

86.9 Members sought clarification regarding Deborah Glass’ understanding of Schedule 14, Section 7, asking whether she anticipated whether this gave the MOPC a power to look at individual cases or whether this amounted to an additional appeal. She confirmed that she perceived this as a way in to the complaints process, entitling a degree of scrutiny.

86.10 Jane Harwood, Deputy Chief Executive of the MPA, informed members that her understanding was that the Home Office will not move on the basic principle of complaints being handled by chief officers. However, she agreed that there may be a potential for the MOPC (and local policing bodies) to have sight (or twin-track) all ACPO level complaints. Catherine Crawford, Chief Executive of the MPA, agreed that the MPA would be pushing for provisions to this affect to be included in any memorandum of understanding.

86.11 Carl Bussey added that the MPS are determined that the creation of an extra level of bureaucracy be avoided and noted that he will be aware of the ACPO view on these proposals shortly.

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

(Agenda item 5)

87.1 The Chair noted that it was suggested at the previous Sub-committee meeting that a view be sought from Deborah Glass regarding the remit of MPA dip-sampling. He reaffirmed his understanding that the MPA may look to the process – that it is robust and being followed - but not second-guess the decision made in each case.

87.2 Deborah Glass responded that dip-sampling is part of the MPA’s scrutiny function, and that it is not for them to remake the decision. Rather members should be asking themselves, are the DPS doing all that one would expect them do in order to ensure public confidence and good decision-making. She noted that any observations made on the individual handling of complaints – as opposed to the policy and process - would carry the same weight as if made by a member of the public.

87.3 She went on to agree with members that if a public access request was made, the comments of MPA members would be available to the complainant and could be cited in an appeal to the IPCC (and then in judicial review).

87.4 Members agreed that the dip-sampling template should be amended to include a ‘learning lessons’ section, to be heeded by the MPS. They also suggested that the process should enable members and the DPS to identify investigating officers of whom recurrent worries are expressed.

87.5 Members noted that the MPA process sits on top of the MPS’s own processes for identifying learning from complaints and they agreed that a process for reporting on this to the MPA should be developed so that their own work can be contextualised.

Resolved ACCORDINGLY

88. Exclusion of press and public

(Agenda item 6)

88.1 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

89. Urgent items

(Agenda item 7)

89.1 No items were received.

90. Police Regulations 2003 - Business Interests Appeal

(Agenda item 8)

90.1 Members determined a business interests appeal.

91. Police Regulations 2003 - Business Interests Appeal

(Agenda item 9)

91.1 Members determined a business interests appeal.

92. Police Pensions Regulations 1987 – Application for Forfeiture

(Agenda item 10)

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

93. Police Pensions Regulations 1987 – Application for Forfeiture

(Agenda item 11)

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

94. Pension Forfeiture update

(Agenda item 12)

94.1 Members received an update regarding the forfeiture of a former officer’s pension.

95. Police Reform Act 2002 - ACPO conduct/complaint

(Agenda item 13)

95.1 Members considered an allegation against an ACPO rank officer.

96. Police Reform Act 2002 - ACPO conduct/complaint

(Agenda item 14)

96.1 Members considered an allegation against an ACPO rank officer.

97. Police Reform Act 2002 - ACPO conduct/complaint

(Agenda item 15)

97.1 Members considered an allegation against an ACPO rank officer.

98. Police Reform Act 2002 - ACPO conduct/complaint

(Agenda item 16)

98.1 Members considered an allegation against an ACPO rank officer.

99. Police Reform Act 2002 - ACPO conduct/complaint

(Agenda item 17)

99.1 Members considered an allegation against an ACPO rank officer.

100. MPA Professional Standards Unit update

(Agenda item 18)

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

101. Minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2011 (Part 2)

(Agenda item 19)

101.1 The minutes of the abovementioned meetings were approved as a correct record, subject to one amendment being noted in the minutes.

Resolved – that the minutes of the meetings of 17 January 2011 (part 2) be agreed.

The meeting closed at 12.50pm

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback