Report from Sub-committees of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee

Report: 5
Date: 17 March 2011
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report contains a summary of reports received by the Sub-committees of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee.

A. Recommendation

That

1. Members receive this report.

B. Supporting information

1. At each meeting of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee Members will receive a report on its sub committees instead of the minutes. Part 1 minutes will be available on the website, and exempt part 2 minutes are available to Members only, upon request.

2. This report covers the following meetings:

• Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee on 20 December 2010 (paragraph 3).
• Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee on 17 January 2011 (paragraph 4).
• Olympic and Paralympic Sub-committee on 20 January 2011 (paragraph 5).
• Olympic and Paralympic Sub-committee on 3 February 2011(paragraph 6).

3. Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee on 20 December 2010

Members present: Reshard Auladin, James Cleverly, Chris Boothman, Valerie Brasse and Joanne McCartney.

Update on dip sampling of closed complaints and conduct matters

The Chair noted that officers had collated Members responses and passed these to the MPS. MPA officers had met with the Director of Professional Standards to discuss the findings. He informed Members that much of the apparent incomplete file management was potentially derived from the use of the electronic TRIBUNE system as opposed to paper recording. Officers informed Members that TRIBUNE log data would be available to them in the future.

Mark Simmons suggested that Members may wish to concentrate their next dip sampling on one BSU per quarter, in order that they could compare practice in each of these. Members agreed that the draft checklist should be amended to include a file reference number for each case - enabling a more fruitful dialogue with the MPS in relation to the underlying rationale for the decision taken.

Members queried the impact of the dip sampling process of the MPA on complainants’ complaints. For example, what were the outcomes if the dip sampling provided negative comments, and in particular how would this impact on any DPA/ FOI request? The Chair asked officers to consider this and report back to the Sub Committee.

4. Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee on 17 January 2011

Members present: Reshard Auladin, James Cleverly, Chris Boothman, Valerie Brasse, Tony Arbour and Joanne McCartney.

Update on dip sampling of closed complaints and conduct matters

The Chair informed the Sub Committee that his understanding was that the MPA had a responsibility for ‘quality assurance’ of complaints handling and, whilst passing judgement on procedural matters, they should be cautious in disagreeing with the determinations themselves. They should not behave as an appeals body.

A member cautioned that it would be equally wrong to not note error in a decision considered to be unbalanced, unfair, or disproportionate. A number of Members expressed the view that the question regarding these three elements (contained in the checklist) should potentially be revisited after legal advice is sought - as it would be ultra vires for the Sub Committee to look at these.

MPA officers noted that as part of the protocol on dip sampling, they meet the Director of the DPS shortly before each meeting where dip sampling of files are discussed and it is there that such issues can be raised, as well as when the Director of DPS attends the Sub-committee meeting.

The Chair noted that given divergence of opinion between Members the best course of action would be to await IPCC and legal advice on the role of the MPA – and whether it encompasses making a determination as to whether the decision was fair, reasonable and proportionate.

5. Olympic and Paralympic Sub-committee on 20 January 2011

Members present: Dee Doocey, Jennette Arnold, Chris Boothman, Kirsten Hearn, Toby Harris and Victoria Borwick.

Business case: Operational logistics infrastructure (Muster, Brief and Deployment Centres)

Members approved a business case setting out the requirement for the provision of three strategically located centres wherein to muster, brief and deploy officers, and associated facilities and a range of operational support activity.

6. Olympic and Paralympic Sub-committee on 3 February 2011

Members present: Dee Doocey, Jennette Arnold, Chris Boothman, Kirsten Hearn, Toby Harris and Victoria Borwick.

Business case: Operational logistics infrastructure (Catering)

Members approved, subject to a number of amendments being made, a business case setting out the proposals for delivering catering services to the 280,000 officers routinely deployed for 12 hour shifts during the 64 day period of the Games, in accordance with the ‘Guidance on the Police National Mobilisation Plan’.

Minutes

7. Copies of non-exempt reports and minutes from the Authority and its committees can be viewed on the MPA website at www.map.gov.uk, or obtained from MPA committee staff:

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equalities Impact

1. There are no race and diversity impact issues directly arising from this report. Race and diversity impact is a standing item on reports submitted to committees and Sub-committees.

Met Forward Implications

2. There are no implications directly arising from this report.

Financial Implications

3. There are no implications directly arising from this report.

Legal Implications

4. There are no implications directly arising from this report.

Environmental Implications

5. There are no implications directly arising from this report.

Risk Implications

6. There are no implications directly arising from this report.

D. Background papers

None

D. Contact details

Report author: Thomas Foot, MPA

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback