Minutes - draft

These minutes are draft and are to be agreed.

Minutes of the meeting of the Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee held on 4 April 2011 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Reshard Auladin
• James Cleverly
• Valerie Brasse
• Chris Boothman
• 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)
• Ashleigh Freeman (Professional Standards Officer)

MPS officers

• Richard Heselden (DPS)

102. Apologies for absence

(Agenda item 1)

102.1 The Chair noted that James Cleverly had given notice that he would arrive fifteen minutes late.

103. Declaration of interests

(Agenda item 2)

103.1 None were recorded.

104. Minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2011

(Agenda item 3)

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

Resolved – that the minutes of the meeting of 7 March 2011 (part 1) be agreed.

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

(Agenda item 4)

105.1 Members asked for more detail as to what ‘learning the lessons’ in the draft checklist would include. Another Member suggested that a more appropriate title would be ‘wider issues identified’. MPA officers agreed to refine this category based on this and what had been said at previous meetings.

105.2 The Chair noted that Carl Bussey had previously undertaken to look at Members’ comments and provide a response. He mentioned that his comment had been that the absence of any decision-making or action log had rendered it difficult to see whether the decision was fair.

105.3 The MPS replied that they find this process useful as Members are providing an objective third-party perceptive on cases and the process DPS follows. They went on to say that Tribune was not a decision log, and that only major crimes would contain these, to ensure that investigations are cost-effective. However, he agreed that a third-party should be able to follow the rationale of each decision. In this instance, the MPS were of the view that the letter to the victim does go through the decision, but that they will look at Tribune to see if any adjusted can be made to make the process leading to decisions more transparent.

105.4 The Chair stated that the IPCC guidance outlines that the investigating officer should seek regular contact with a complainant. He also suggested that the cases should be presented in a more disciplined manner – as this may cause problems if an appeal is made to the IPCC. A Member suggested that a simple checklist (similar to the draft checklist appended to this report for Members) for supervisors may be of assistance.

105.5 Other Members agreed that they had found the files difficult to follow. One cited a case wherein there was clearly a history between the officer and the complainant and it felt as if the complaint was being unduly dismissed – although this was perhaps owing to this history and that the complaint had been previously made and settled. He noted that it is important to ensure that each complaint is investigated on its own merits, but suggested that it was hard to see on the evidence if this had been.

105.6 A Member suggested that it was important to see where this process fits within the broader quality assurance of the DPS. The MPS replied that they look at trends in reporting and that any officer can refer an issue to the organisational learning team. The Chair suggested that cross-sector quality assurance may add value and ensure consistency across the four business areas. A Member also suggested that the MPA keep a log of issues identified.

105.7 With regard to equality and diversity issues, the MPS informed Members that these are completed on a ‘back page’ to Tribune, and are contained on print-outs. They went on to say that internet complaints now have a mandatory diversity monitoring section (with a ‘prefer not to say’ field). This data is often incomplete as customer service officers shy away from asking sensitive questions. To combat this a ‘script’ on this has been devised.

105.8 Kalyanee Mendelsohn noted that she had distributed the wrong misconduct investigations guide, and informed Members that she will cut and paste the relevant sections to them shortly, and deposit the whole document in the MPA Members room.

105.9 Members agreed to consider South East complaints and alleged sexual offences next.

Resolved accordingly

106. Exclusion of press and public

(Agenda item 5)

106.1 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

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

(Agenda item 6)

107.1 Members considered an exempt appendix to agenda item 4.

108. Urgent items

(Agenda item 7)

108.1 Members considered an allegation against an officer of ACPO rank.

109. Police Pensions Regulations 1987 – Application for a certificate of forfeiture

(Agenda item 8)

109.1 Members determined whether an application to the Home Secretary for a certificate of forfeiture is warranted.

110. Pension forfeiture update

(Agenda item 9)

110.1 Members received an update on a pension forfeiture matter.

111. Pension forfeiture update

(Agenda item 10)

110.1 Members received an update on a pension forfeiture matter.

112. MPA Professional Standards Unit update

(Agenda item 11)

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

113. Minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2011 (Part 2)

(Agenda item 12)

113.1 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 7 March 2011 (part 2) be agreed.

The meeting closed at 11.00am

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback