Update report regarding Peter Woodhams investigation

Report: 6
Date: 5 February 2009
By: Chief Executive

Summary

On 29 May 2008, at a meeting of the full Authority, the MPA Chair received representations from members of Peter Woodhams family concerning the standard of the police investigation and outcome of the police discipline procedure, in particular the outcome of the Review conducted by AC Ghaffur.

At that meeting, members supported the proposal from the Chair of the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee (PSCC) that at the next PSCC meeting, members receive a report on matters relating to the MPS investigation, officer disciplinary process and IPCC involvement.

As the PSCC ended in October 2008, the report now falls to be considered by members of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee (SOP).

The purpose of this report is to set out the background to the murder of Mr Woodhams in August 2006, including the serious assault on him in January 2006; the failings of the subsequent investigation; the discipline process that followed and the outcome of the misconduct hearing. This report is further to inform members of the updated position in terms of response to the concerns raised by the family of Mr Woodhams and their legal representative and the recommendations made by the IPCC.

A. Recommendation

That members note the contents of this report.

B. Supporting information

Background to the murder of Peter Woodhams

1. On 21 January 2006 Jane Bowden was driving her fiancé, Peter Woodhams, to their home in Tallis Close, London E16. They were close to their destination when they heard something hit the car. Mr Woodhams jumped out of the car to see what had happened. Miss Bowden could see a gang of youths standing on the corner and she saw Mr Woodhams turn towards the boys and the group run off. Mr Woodhams ran after them. Miss Bowden next saw Mr Woodhams after he had been stabbed. Due to the fact they were close to Tallis Road and at that stage it was not thought that the wound was very serious, Mr Woodhams tried to walk home. However, he collapsed in the road and an ambulance was called.

2. Uniform Response Team Officers attended the scene, rendered first aid and dealt with the initial scene management. One of the uniformed officers accompanied Mr Woodhams to hospital in the ambulance. Despite the attendance of both supervising uniform and CID officers at the scene, the police retrieved no clothing or other items.

3. Mr Woodhams was discharged from hospital just after midnight on 22 January 2006.

4. Mr Woodhams was later to say that it was two of the youths out of the original group who were responsible for his injury. He gave a description of a male who kicked him and a person with a grey top shouting “hold him, hold him, I am going to do him”. The man who had kicked him then hit him in the face. Both men then ran off. Mr Woodhams believed he would recognise both men again.

5. During the first weeks after the stabbing a number of telephone calls were received at Mr Woodhams home in Tallis Close and also at Miss Bowden’s mother’s home. Five named individuals were mentioned including the two already described above. (An anonymous list containing two names and three street names, was handed to police by Mr Woodhams).

6. Detective Constable Suett was appointed as investigating officer and on 31 January 2006 he sent a memo to the officer dealing with the Witness Album Delivery System asking for a viewing to be arranged. This resulted in Mr Woodhams viewing a number of images on 9 February 2006. It did not result in anybody being identified, neither did it contain the pictures of any of those who had been named in the numerous telephone calls nor those later charged with Mr Woodhams murder. Detective Sergeant Darren Case was supervising this investigation.

7. Tragically on 21 August 2006, Mr Woodhams was shot and subsequently died. Two men were subsequently arrested and charged, namely Bradley Tucker and James Taylor.

Subsequent investigation and discipline process

8. Following complaints from Miss Bowden and other members of both her and Mr Woodhams’ families, at the end of August 2006, the IPCC conducted an independent investigation. The allegations centred upon the failures of the investigation involving DC Suett and DS Case, into Mr Woodhams’ stabbing in January 2006.

9. The IPCC investigated the conduct of nine officers in total. The IPCC’s investigation concluded in April 2007, by which time, DC Suett had transferred to Derbyshire Constabulary. The IPCC investigation found a number of failures on his part.

10. DS Case was DC Suett’s line manager with overall responsibility for the supervision of his Team’s enquiries and crime reports. The investigation by the IPCC found that DS Case should also shoulder a degree of the blame for the poor investigation.

11. The Metropolitan Police on considering the IPCC’s report agreed the following disposal: four officers received a written warning for their failings; three officers received management advice and the two remaining officers, namely DS Case and DC Suett should face a misconduct hearing with full powers.

12. On 4 October 2007, DS Case and DC Suett attended a misconduct hearing before Commander Sawyer, Chief Superintendent Smethen from Derbyshire Constabulary and Roger Lucking the lay member whose attendance was required under Regulation 19 of The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004. Representatives of Mr Woodhams family were present at the hearing and following the agreement of DS Case and DC Suett, were also present when the sanction was delivered.

13. Both DS Case and DC Suett admitted a breach of the Code of Conduct in relation to Performance of Duties. The tribunal considered that in respect of both officers the failure was a gross neglect of duty and required them to resign with immediate effect.

Assistant Commissioner’s Review

14. Both officers subsequently requested a Chief Officers Review under Regulation 40 of The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004, (in the Metropolitan Police Service an Assistant Commissioner) against the sanction.

15. On 25 March 2008, Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur undertook the Review. The IPCC were represented at the Review and members of Mr Woodhams’ family were also present. Both the family and IPCC made submissions to Mr Ghaffur at the Review.

16. In respect of DC Suett, Mr Ghaffur concluded that he should remain accountable for his actions but that the original sanction imposed upon him was too severe in relation to his failings. He concluded that DC Suett’s failings were in relation to this particular investigation and not in regard to his ability to be a police officer. Mr Ghaffur did not consider that DC Suett’s re-instatement would create a loss of public confidence in the police service. As a consequence, Mr Ghaffur varied the sanction from a requirement to resign to a fine of 13 days pay.

17. In respect of DS Case, Mr Ghaffur similarly concluded that while he should remain accountable for his actions, the original sanction imposed on him was too severe. He concluded that DS Case’s failings in this particular case were in relation to supervision, not in regard to his ability to be a detective. Mr Ghaffur did not consider that DS Case’s re-instatement would create a loss of public confidence in the police service. As a consequence, Mr Ghaffur varied the sanction from a requirement to resign to a reduction in rank to Detective Constable.

Post appeal

18. The MPS regrets its failings in the initial investigation into the stabbing of Mr Woodhams. The Commissioner has offered his personal condolences to Mr Woodhams senior and to the rest of Mr Woodhams’ family and friends.

20. Members of the family were afforded an unprecedented level of access throughout the whole disciplinary process. They were given full access to the hearing, the officers gave their consent for the family members to be present during the sanction process and this was the first time that family members have been permitted to be present during an Chief Officers (Assistant Commissioners) Review. The family have been provided with a record of all the decision making documentation in this case and offered the opportunity to meet with Mr Ghaffur.

Meeting of the full Authority

21. In accordance with the MPA’s Standing Order 2.7, at a meeting on 29 May 2008, the Authority received a question from the father of Mr Woodhams concerning the determination of Assistant Commissioner Ghaffur, to vary the sanctions imposed on DS Case and DC Suett.

22. In addressing the full Authority, Mr Woodhams (senior) re-iterated his disappointment with Mr Ghaffur’s decision and invited the MPA to make interventions on behalf of the Woodhams’ family.

23. Following consideration of both written and oral representations, MPA members resolved that the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee (“PSCC”) should receive a report on the issues relating to the outcome of the investigation into allegations about the failures in the investigation of the serious assault of Mr Woodhams and the officer disciplinary process.

24. As was discussed and acknowledged by members of the full Authority, the MPA’s response to the outcome of Mr Ghaffur’s review was limited. This was because the MPA does not itself have the statutory remit to overturn the decision of an Assistant Commissioner’s Review.

Judicial Review

25. The IPCC obtained legal advice from Counsel as to the prospects of pursuing a claim for Judicial Review of Mr Ghaffur’s Review decision. Counsel’s opinion was that the IPCC did not have grounds to bring a Judicial Review. That advice remains the subject of legal professional privilege and is not therefore available to be shared with members. As a result of this advice, the IPCC decided it would not seek to challenge the outcome of Mr Ghaffur’s Review.

26. Mr Woodhams’ family are represented by Christian Khan Solicitors. On behalf of Mr Woodhams’ family, the Judicial Review process was initiated by Christian Khan in May 2008. In accordance with the Judicial Review pre-action protocol, a letter before claim was sent by Christian Khan, to the Director of Legal Services, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 28 May 2008.

27. On 12 June 2008, the MPS provided a response in accordance with the pre-action protocol. In summary, it was not accepted that there were any reviewable errors in Mr Ghaffur’s decision and any proposed claim for Judicial Review would be resisted.

28. On 27 June 2008, a claim for Judicial Review was issued in the Administrative Court, naming the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis as Defendant and AC Ghaffur, DC Suett, DS Case, the IPCC and the MPA as the five Interested Parties. In Judicial Review proceedings permission to apply for Judicial Review must first be granted by the Court. The application for permission to apply for Judicial Review was to be considered on the papers on or after 21 July 2008.

29. On 24 July 2008, permission to apply for Judicial Review was refused. On 29 July 2008, on behalf of Mr Woodhams’ family, Christian Khan issued a Notice of Renewal of claim for permission to apply for Judicial Review. The Renewal of Claim hearing was listed for 18 September 2008. It was suggested on behalf of the Woodhams family and agreed by the MPA that it would be appropriate to postpone members’ consideration of the report requested at the meeting of the full Authority, until after the Renewal of Claim hearing.

30. By Order dated 19 September 2008, the renewed application for permission to apply for Judicial Review was refused. There will therefore be no Judicial Review or further challenge to Mr Ghaffur’s Review decision.

New disciplinary process and update from MPS

31. The MPA has a statutory duty to maintain an efficient and effective police service. In his representations to the full Authority, Mr Woodhams (senior) reminded MPA members of the importance of fulfilling that responsibility.

32. In accordance with the members’ request, the MPA as asked the MPS to provide details of its organisational learning. The MPS will provide a separate update on the progress made against the IPCC recommendations and lessons learned.

33. Following the Taylor recommendations and the passing of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill of 2008, the new disciplinary process, which was introduced on 1 December 2008, has removed the right of appeal by way of Chief Officer (Assistant Commissioner) Review. Any appeal against a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct or the disciplinary action imposed as a consequence of such a finding must now be made to the Police Appeals Tribunal. With the abolition of the PSCC in October 2008, the MPA, via the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee, will continue to support the new disciplinary process.

34. Members of the Strategic and Operational Policies Committee are therefore encouraged to demonstrate their continuing commitment to monitor MPS compliance with recommendations made for organisational learning, whether made in the context of public complaints and conduct investigations or as a result of review and inspection.

C. Race and equality impact

Monitoring the MPS’ response to recommendations for organisational learning increases the lines of accountability to the MPA, which ultimately strengthens the MPA’s capacity to ensure that the MPS acts upon recommendations that contribute to improvements in operational policing to the benefit of London’s diverse communities.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications directly arising from this report.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Alix Rejman, Acting Professional Standards & Legal Officer, MPS

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback