Process for dealing with police pensions forfeitures (arrangements for the selection of individual cases)

Report: 5
Date: 26 May 2005
By: the Chief Executive & Clerk

Summary

Members of the Police Pension Forfeiture Sub-Committee have recently enquired as to the arrangements that are in place for identifying cases where an officer has committed a recordable offence in connection with his/her service as a member of a police force to ensure that the Sub-Committee is receiving and considering all cases in respect of which a police pension may be liable to forfeiture.

The purpose of this report is to inform the Sub-Committee of the current arrangements and to advise of a proposed amendment to those procedures.

The proposed amendment arises out of a recommendation made by the Chair of the Human Resources Committee that the current practice should be revised to ensure that the Sub-Committee is advised of all cases which the MPA receives notification of, including those cases where an officer has been convicted of a recordable offence, but whose pension is considered to be unsuitable for consideration for forfeiture, under the Police Pension Regulations 1987. This is in order to enable the Sub-Committee to satisfy itself that the selection of cases, for consideration of a request for a certificate of forfeiture, is appropriate.

A. Recommendations

That Members of the Police Pensions Forfeiture Sub-Committee:

1. note the current arrangements;
2. note the proposed amendment to the arrangements for reporting the selection of individual cases to the Sub-Committee;
3. determine the frequency of the presentation of information to the Sub-Committee.

B. Supporting information

1. Members will note that in relation to the selection of cases, the established practice is that the Directorate of Professional Standards will on a bi-monthly basis provide MPA officers with a list of officers convicted of recordable offences.

2. The format in which the information is presented to the MPA is as per the tables which appear as annexes 1a & 1b to this report.

3. The purpose of the list is to enable the MPA to satisfy itself that it is seeing all potential cases for which consideration of forfeiture may be appropriate and secondly to provide an opportunity to check on the progress of cases being submitted to the Authority. This is currently only seen by MPA officers.

4. Information about individual cases should be provided to the MPA within 28 days of the discipline hearing. Members of the Sub-Committee are advised that the MPS generally adhere to the time limit, although on occasion, there has been a delay in the MPS’ submission of information.

5. Members of the Sub-Committee are further advised that whilst MPA officers are notified of all police officers convicted of recordable offences, it is only in relation to those offences for which the officer has received a custodial sentence for an offence committed in connection with his or or her service, that the MPS provides a full report to the MPA. This applies to any and all custodial cases.

6. The MPS’s report incorporates information about the offence, judge's sentencing remarks, press and media coverage of the conviction, details of the officer’s service history etc. The Sub-Committee is provided with a copy of this report to assist in its determination as to whether to apply to the Home Secretary for a certificate of forfeiture and again when making a determination as to the extent of forfeiture.

7. Existing arrangements are therefore presently reliant upon MPA officers liaising with the MPS to ensure that all police officers who are convicted of recordable offences and receive custodial offences are reported to the Authority. This is achieved by way of obtaining the bi-monthly report and seeking supplementary information. This information is presently not relayed to the Sub-Committee where it is identified that the officer has been convicted of a recordable offence but has not received a custodial sentence.

8. The proposed change of practice would require MPA officers to report to the Sub-Committee on all cases which have been selected as falling within and out with the police pension forfeiture procedures. Members of the Sub-Committee will need to determined the frequency upon which reports are presented. Based upon discussions with the Chair of the Human Resources Committee, it is a recommendation of this report that at the next meeting of the Police Pension Forfeiture Sub-Committee details of cases notified to the MPA for the period May 2004 to April 2005 be provided to Members along with an explanation as to why certain cases have been excluded from the forfeiture procedures.

9. Should Members of the Sub-Committee determine that they would like to have sight of the bi-monthly report, they should also consider whether the report is, in its current format, (examples provided at annexes 1a and 1b) “fit for purpose” and determine the frequency upon which they would like to receive and consider this information; possibly twice a year.

C. Race and equality impact

There are no diversity and equality implications.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications involved in the proposed amendment to the current procedures.

E. Background papers

• Annex 1a: list of officers convicted of recordable offences 01.01.05 to 28.02.05
• Annex 1b: list of officers convicted of recordable offences 01.03.05 to 30.04.05

F. Contact details

Report authors: Claire L Lister

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback