Dip sampling of closed MPS complaints / misconduct cases

Report: 13
Date: 5 November 2009
By: Chief Executive

Summary

The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) has a statutory duty to maintain an efficient and effective police force. This includes a duty to keep itself informed about the handling of complaints and misconduct cases by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The MPA is expected to comply with this duty by ‘dip sampling’ closed MPS complaints and misconduct cases.

Prior to 2005, the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee (PSCC) would undertake ad hoc dip sampling of closed MPS complaint cases. On 8 September 2005, Members of the PSCC agreed a protocol for MPA officers to follow in order to undertake a more structured review of MPS closed complaint files. The outcome of each review would be reported at the meetings of the PSCC. It was further agreed that the dip sampling protocol would be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it remained fit for purpose.

A review of the dip sampling process has recently been conducted and this report sets out the new draft protocol for dip sampling MPS closed complaints and misconduct cases by the MPA. The new draft protocol was provisionally approved by the Professional Standards Cases Sub Committee at its meeting on 12 October 2009. It will now be subjected to a Race Equality Impact Assessment and final review by the PSCSC to finalise it.

A. Recommendation

That

1. members note the new draft protocol for dip sampling cases;
2. note the progress which has been made in respect of the MPA’s dip sampling of closed complaints and misconduct cases; and
3. decide whether to receive a report on dip sampling of closed complaints and misconduct cases on a quarterly or six monthly basis.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The MPA has a statutory duty under s77 of the Police Act 1996 and s15 of the Police Reform Act 2002, to keep itself informed about the handling of complaints and misconduct matters by the MPS.

2. The Association of Police Authorities’ (APA) guidance “Oversight and scrutiny of professional standards matters – The role of police authorities” and “Dip-sampling of completed complaints files – Guidance for Police Authorities” provides guidelines for Police Authorities to meet the statutory requirements in relation to dip sampling. The APA guidelines cover the following issues:

• Why Police Authorities should dip sample completed complaints files
• Who should conduct dip-sampling
• Which files should be reviewed – including the proportion of files and representation of files
• When should files be reviewed
• What should it involved
• What to look for
• What to do with the information
• Reporting the outcomes of the dip sampling

3. The protocol for dip sampling MPS closed complaints and misconduct cases was recently reviewed by the Professional Standards Unit and a new draft dip sampling protocol (“draft protocol”) has been prepared in accordance with the APA guidance. At its meeting on 12 October 2009, the Professional Standards Cases Sub Committee (“PSCSC”) reviewed and approved in principle the draft protocol (Appendix 1). The draft protocol has also been discussed with and approved in principle by the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS).

Key features of the draft protocol

4. Under the draft protocol, each year the MPA will dip sample approximately 2% of all MPS complaints and misconduct files, by reviewing an average of 12 closed case files each month. In addition, the MPA will dip sample approximately 5% of all MPS direction and control complaints.

5. Members of the PSCSC will pick a ‘theme’ for review each month. The theme will identify the specific type of case files to be reviewed that month and will be selected based on a combination of any of the following criteria:

• Type of case (i.e. Public Complaint / Misconduct / Direction & Control)
• Category of allegation (i.e. from the 25 different categories of allegation listed from A to Y in the IPCC Statutory Guidance)
• Outcome (i.e. Withdrawn / Substantiated / Dispensation / Local Resolution etc.)
• Geographical location (of the incident, complainant or the subject officer(s))
• OCU or BOCU

6. Once the theme has been selected, the Professional Standards Unit will obtain a list of all closed case files from the last six months to match the theme selected. From that list, officers from the Professional Standards Unit will then select and request from DPS 12 case files for review that month. DPS are to provide the 12 case files identified within 7 working days. All case files are to be provided to the MPA without being reviewed by DPS.

7. Officers from the Professional Standards Unit will review the case files against the checklist which is to be agreed with DPS and Members of the PSCSC. The completed checklist and comments on each case, together with the case files will be made available for review by Members of the PSCSC, who will have an opportunity to make their own comments. Any questions on particular cases will then be provided to DPS and the response considered.

8. The draft protocol will next be subject to an Equality and Diversity Impact Assessment. The final draft will then be provided to DPS and the PSCSC for approval.

9. The IPCC has previously offered to provide training on how to carry out dip sampling. Once the protocol has been finalised by the PSCSC the IPCC and the APA will be asked to review the protocol and where possible, to provide officers within the Professional Standards Unit and Members of the PSCS with training on how to conduct dip sampling. In particular, training will be sought for new staff in the Professional Standards Unit and Members of the PSCSC who have not previously been involved in carrying out dip sampling on behalf of the MPA.

10. In addition, the Deputy Chief Executive has written to Greater Manchester Police Authority to request a meeting in order to compare current experience of dip sampling and in particular to share learning and best practice.

Preliminary dip sampling exercise

11. Whilst the draft protocol is being finalised, in order to comply with the MPA’s ongoing statutory duties, a preliminary dip sampling exercise has been carried out by the Professional Standards Unit. This preliminary dip sampling exercise has been conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the draft protocol.

12. DPS were asked to provide a list of all complaints and misconduct cases closed during the months of May, June and July 2009. From that list the ‘theme’ selected for review was Public Complaints containing an allegation of a Breach of Code A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”) (stop and search). Having identified all closed cases which met these criteria, eleven case files were selected to include a range of case outcomes.

Issues arising from preliminary dip sampling exercise

13. Officers from the Professional Standards Unit are currently working with officers from DPS to clarify points which have arisen in the course of the dip sampling exercise. The outcome of which will feed back into the draft protocol and to Members of the PSCSC.

14. On the whole, the case files reviewed were of a satisfactory standard. It was noted that the majority of case files reviewed included a range of other allegations along with the a Breach of Code A, for example, an allegation of Incivility, impoliteness, intolerance or an allegation of mishandling of property. Further work is currently being undertaken to analyse the way each separate allegation is dealt with and the outcome reached.

15. The IPCC encourages the use of Local Resolution to address public complaints and the files reviewed demonstrate a good use of the Local Resolution process. The complainant needs to provide their consent to the Local Resolution process. The review has identified some questions in relation to how the complainants consent is obtained and formally recorded. Some files had no signed consent from the complainant. Further discussion is to take place with DPS in relation to the recording of consent to Local Resolution. In addition, there are some further questions as to how telephone conversations and meeting attendances with the complainant are recorded on the files.

16. Of the eleven files reviewed, only one had been subject to appeal to the IPCC and the complainants appeal was not upheld.

17. Further analysis is currently underway into the timeliness of complaints being resolved, in accordance with the IPCC Statutory Guidance. Of the eleven cases reviewed matters took between 25 days and eight months to complete. This analysis will include closer examination of the timescales when the cases are transferred out to Borough to deal with.

18. Members are asked to decide whether they would wish to receive a report on dip sampling on a quarterly or six monthly basis.

Statistical analysis of MPS complaints and misconduct cases

19. Officers from the Professional Standards Unit have also met with the Head of the Planning and Performance Unit and the Planning and Performance Analyst to discuss ways of conducting statistical analysis of the complaints and misconduct data which can be provided by DPS and which is currently provided to Members on a six monthly basis. A further meeting has been scheduled for November 2009. The analysis of the statistics will be used to assist Members of the PSCSC in identifying ‘themes’ for review.

C. Race and equality impact

The principal purpose of the dip sampling process is to provide the MPA with some assurance that the MPS complaints and misconduct cases are handled properly, in a fair, proportionate and timely manner.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications arising from this report.

E. Legal implications

None given.

F. Background papers

• Oversight and scrutiny of professional standards matters – the role of police authorities, Association of Police Authorities, May 2007
• Dip-sampling of completed complaints files – Guidance for Police Authorities, Association of Police Authorities.
• Making the new police complaints system work better – Statutory Guidance, Independent Police Complaints Commission
• Code A – Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Code of Practice for the exercise by: Police Officers of statutory powers of stop and search; Police Officers and Police Staff of requirements to record public encounters)

G. Contact details

Report author: Michael Clark, Higher Performance Analyst, Directorate of Professional Standards and Clive Chalk, A/Detective Chief Superintendent, Directorate of Professional Standards

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Draft dip sampling protocol

Introduction

Police Authorities have a statutory duty to maintain an efficient and effective police force , and this includes a duty to keep themselves informed about the handling of complaints and misconduct matters by that police force .

The Association of Police Authorities has prepared guidance (“the Guidance”) which sets out best practice for Authorities on how to fulfil this duty . The Guidance sets out that Authorities have both a duty to oversee ongoing complaints and a duty to “dip sample” closed complaint and misconduct files. It also provides detailed guidance on the dip sampling of completed complaints files . This Protocol relates only to the latter obligation to dip sample closed complaint and misconduct files and does not cover the duty to oversee ongoing complaints.

Purpose

The volume of files makes it impractical for authorities to oversee every complaint and misconduct file. Dip sampling allows authorities to monitor files and fulfil its oversight responsibility. The purpose of dip sampling is not to review the conclusion reached in individual cases. A general review of compliance with procedure and approaches taken can help to ensure public confidence in the complaints management process. Dip sampling should also be an occasion to identify learning and other issues for discussion with the MPS.

Procedure

1. Number or proportion of files to be reviewed

1.1. DPS have confirmed that there were 1239 conduct allegations and 11173 public complaint allegations in 2008. The conduct allegations amounted to 937 conduct cases and the complaint allegations amounted to 6381 complaints cases as cases can constitute more than one allegation. For example, a person may allege that they were pushed by an officer and that the officer was rude to them. This would be recorded as two separate allegations forming one complaint case.

1.2. Approximately 2% of these files will be reviewed annually by the Authority. The Authority believes that this is justifiably representative of the total given the large number of complaints received by the MPS annually.

1.3. The Authority will also dip sample complaints relating to direction and control . There were 42 cases containing 49 allegations in 2008. At least 5% of these files should be reviewed annually.

1.4. These percentages will be reviewed annually to ensure that they remain justifiably representative of all the complaints.

2. Frequency of reviews

2.1. The criterion or criteria for the selection of files will be chosen by Members at each meeting of the PSCSC in accordance with paragraph 4 below. The results of the review will be presented at a subsequent meeting of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee.

2.2. The different categories of files, discussed in 4 below, will be reviewed at different frequencies having regard to the factors listed in 4.4. Files will be selected alternately on the basis of the type of complaint or type of resolution, and the Borough or particular area.

3. Access to files

3.1. The Authority will have free access to all files, including covert investigations.

3.2. The officers undertaking the review will have access to Tribune, the DPS case management system.

3.3. MPS will not review a file before providing it to the Authority. The file should be provided in the exact form it was in when closed. To limit opportunity for any review, MPS will be asked to provide the file within 7 working days.

4. Selection of files and type of files to be reviewed

4.1. The Authority will have complete freedom to choose the files to review from the totality of completed complaints files.

4.2. The Authority will request complaints files which have been completed in the previous 6 months.

4.3. The Authority will ensure that the categories and types of complaints being reviewed are representative of the total.

4.4. In so doing, it will have regard to:

1. the categories of complaints (e.g. locally resolved, substantiated, unsubstantiated, discontinued/dispensed and withdrawn);
2. the types of complaints (e.g. incivility, excessive force, appearance, stop and search);
3. established trends or current areas of concern;
4. the fact that fewer cases investigated/managed by the IPCC need be dip sampled; and
5. any particular areas, geographic or functional units or outcomes (e.g. substantiated, or resolved by dispensation) that are of higher or lower concern that there may have been.

4.5. The DPS Tribune system can be interrogated so as to provide statistics demonstrating the categories and types of complaints both as a whole and by borough. Similarly, it can be used to identify trends.

4.6. Members will be presented with these statistics. On review of the statistics, Members will be asked to specify the criterion or criteria for the next batch of files that they wish to have dip sampled.

4.7. Authority staff will then use Tribune to pick a random sample of files according to the criterion or criteria specified by Members.

5. Checks to be performed on the files

5.1. The Guidance attaches a sample checklist for the review of completed complaints files but specifies that the Authority should develop its own checklist in line with its own circumstances and extant policies.

5.2. This checklist will be developed by Authority staff in co-operation with DPS and presented to Members for their comments and approval.

6. Who will be involved in the review and their roles

6.1. The review of the files will be undertaken by Authority staff according to the checklist for review of completed complaints files once developed.

6.2. The results of the review will be presented to Members for their consideration and comments.

6.3. Prior to each meeting, the files will be made available at the Authority’s offices for Members’ review. When possible, Members are encouraged to review files prior to receiving the report.

6.4. Training will be sought from the IPCC for the Authority staff who will be undertaking the review and for Members who request such training.

6.5. The file reviewer should not contact the Investigating Officer directly and DPS will not be involved in the review of the file, other than to provide further information where necessary.

6.6. Where further information is required, this will be requested using a formal information request. A log of information requests will be kept so as to ensure that responses are received to all questions.

7. Arrangements for recording the review

7.1. 7.1 A record of the inspection will be kept on the attached form. A copy of the form will be kept by the Authority, with the original being permanently attached to the file itself

8. Procedures for considering the results of the review

8.1. A quarterly report on the results of the dip sampling will be prepared and presented to the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee.

8.2. The report will:

1. be a record of the dip sampling completed during the relevant period;
2. identify any areas of best practice highlighted by the reviews carried out;
3. identify any concerns; and
4. identify opportunities for learning or improvement.

8.3. Once approved by the Members, the report will be forwarded to DPS.

8.4. DPS will prepare a six monthly report setting out how it has implemented proposed changes and taken account of the Authority’s comments.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback