MPA Stockwell Scrutiny 2009

Report: 10
Date: 5 November 2009
By: Chief Executive

Summary

The report outlines the activity of the Stockwell Panel since February 2009. It makes recommendations on how the MPA should continue to monitor the action plan in place to address the recommendations. It also highlights a number of key concerns arising out of the HMIC Stockwell Inspection published in June 2009.

A. Recommendation

That members agree that the Stockwell Panel be wound up and that this Committee commissions reports on a quarterly basis on the progress being made in implementing the action plan.

B. Supporting information

1. At Co-ordination and Policing Committee in December 2007, Members agreed the terms of reference for a scrutiny of how the MPS have responded to the learning out of the tragic death of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell underground station on 22 July 2005. The decision to undertake the scrutiny followed the publication of two reports into the shooting by the Independent Complaints Commission (IPCC) and a guilty verdict as a result of the prosecution of the MPS under Health and Safety legislation.

2. The Panel, consisting of Dee Doocey, Faith Boardman, Jennette Arnold and chaired by Len Duvall, took oral evidence from senior MPS and MPA officers and key partners including the IPPC and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). They also undertook a comprehensive review of documentation provided by the MPS to evidence the changes that have been put in place since 2005. However, in the early stages of the review, we did not have access to some of the key documentation, nor were we able to interview some of the key witnesses, including the team who had provided the armed response on the day. In addition, the panel’s lines of questioning were severely restricted by a number of pending legal actions.

3. The purpose of the scrutiny was to reassure the MPA and Londoners that the MPS had responded appropriately to the lessons learnt as result of the various investigations into the tragedy so that the sequence of events that led to the shooting does not reoccur. In general, the Panel concluded that progress has been good, although there was still work to be done. That said, there were gaps in the Panel’s knowledge of what happened and therefore they would need to revisit the issue, with HMIC assistance, following the Coroner’s Inquest.

HMIC Inspection

4. The Panel published its report in July 2008. A key recommendation was to commission HMIC to review progress against the recommendations they had previously made and in light of any new information arising out of the Coroner’s Inquest. They duly did this in January 2009 and their final report was published in June 2009.

5. The Stockwell Scrutiny Panel met on 29 June 2009 to consider the findings of the HMIC report and the MPS response. At that time Panel members raised some significant concerns about both reports, and reported those concerns to this committee on 9 July 2009. Following that meeting the Panel met with Assistant Commissioner John Yates and Commander Jerry Savill to discuss the MPS response to the inspection report. A further meeting was held with Commander Savill to go through the MPS action plan in detail.

6. The Panel is now satisfied that the MPS has provided a clear, prioritised action plan that identifies who is responsible for implementing key actions, timescales for delivery, interdependencies and milestones. This should be achievable within the 12 month period identified provided that there are no delays, and the internal professional differences are resolved. However, the panel recommends that the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee revisits this issue, in order to be sure that this has happened. It should be noted that the panel does not assume that full implementation will ensure this tragic incident could not be repeated, but believes the likelihood of such a reoccurrence would be minimised.

7. The Panel agrees that successful implementation needs to be driven from a central point, to ensure that activity being led within the various business groups is complementary and focusing on the key issues identified as requiring action. The Panel is therefore pleased that the Commissioner has launched a non-departmental approach led by the Deputy Commissioner (although the Panel is disappointed that the programme board is not chaired by the Deputy). The panel believes that valuable time has been lost as this approach was not adopted earlier.

8. It was clear from the inspection report and from the discussions the Panel had with the MPS earlier this year that full agreement across all business groups on the direction of travel had not been achieved. When it reported in July, the Panel was particularly concerned about the extent to which Specialist Crime Directorate were engaged with the Extreme Threat Cadre proposals. The Panel notes the progress that has been made in this area, but remains very concerned that a satisfactory resolution has yet to be found. There is a risk that the full expertise of the organisation is not fully exploited in such circumstances and the lessons arising out of Stockwell are not learnt across the whole MPS. The chair of the Panel has written to the Commissioner to this effect. This letter will be shared with Members of the police authority. The Strategic and Operational Policing Committee should re-examine this issue in 12 months to ensure that it is being fully implemented.

9. The Panel recognises that successful implementation will require considerable effort and the consequences of failure are wide-ranging. For that reason the Panel recommends that SOP receives quarterly reports outlining progress and that the Chair, Vice Chair and the Chair of this committee receive copies of the briefing that is provided for the Commissioner and Deputy Commission on a monthly basis. It is up to those members to decide whether it is appropriate to share this information with other members of the MPA.

10. At the meeting with AC Yates and Commander Savill, the Panel also discussed the progress against the recommendations made in the MPA Stockwell Scrutiny. The MPS has provided an update of progress in their concurrent report on this agenda. The Panel is disappointed at the progress being made on their recommendations 19-22 on how officers write up their notes after an incident (laid out below for ease of reference). The panel acknowledges there are sensitivities in implementing these recommendations, but agrees with senior officers who have told the panel that implementation would protect their officers. The panel believes it would be wrong for the service to maintain a position whereby the public may interpret delay as unwillingness to ensuring processes are as transparent as possible. The panel therefore reiterates its belief that recommendations 19-22, should be implemented by the Commissioner without further delay. The panel asks this committee monitor the situation to ensure this happens.

Recommendations:

11. 19) that the practice of allowing officers to confer in the preparation of their notes is discontinued and procedures put in place to facilitate genuinely independent recollections. The MPS should review the provisions of the Met Standard Operating Procedure for use of firearms, and ACPO should review the Firearms Manual to reflect this change.

(20) that in the meantime whilst the review is underway, current practice should be amended so that the exercise is captured on video and audio tape. Safeguards should be put in place to ensure no inappropriate use of the material in subsequent investigations.

(21) that MPS in conjunction with HMIC and MPA should move forward to change its own procedures in the event that ACPO decides not to make a change.

(22) that the MPS engage with the Police Federation during the process and if necessary move gradually but firmly over a period of time from the present practice to a more transparent practice.  

C. Race and equality impact

The learning from Stockwell, and the work the MPS has done since, has all taken into account the need to enhance confidence of diverse communities across London.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications arising out of this report.

E. Legal implications

None given.

F. Background papers

• Terms of Reference Stockwell Scrutiny – MPA COP December 2007
• MPA Scrutiny Report July 2008
• IPPC reports Stockwell 1 and 2
• HMIC Inspections
• MPA and MPS reports to SOP July 2009

G. Contact details

Report author: Siobhan Coldwell (Head of Oversight and Review, MPA)

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback