Complaints management information

Report: 5
Date: 17 October 2002
By: Commissioner

Summary

That members are asked to note the report.

A. Recommendations

1. members are asked to note the terms of reference for the Professional Standards Committee;
2. members are asked to agree the proposals for regular reports to be received by the Committee;
3. members are asked to comment upon the suggested areas of future work for Committee;
4. members are asked to consider setting up a sub committee to receive regular reports on complaints, allegations and reports concerning Association of Chief Police Officer (ACPO) rank police officers; and
5. members are asked to comment upon the proposal that the suspensions working group reports to this Committee.

B. Supporting information

1. The summary of Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) performance indicators is attached at Appendix 1 and focuses on timeliness, quality and outcomes.

2. The diversity information is attached at Appendix 2.

Key performance indicators

3. This report focuses on the key changes or exceptions within the data as the nature of the data means that emerging trends are slow to change.

4. The data provided in appendices is initially collated for the production of the DPS Monthly Management Report (MMR) which is an agenda item at the monthly DPS senior management meetings. Due to the timings dictated by the MPS & MPA secretariats for the preparation of the paperwork for the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee the data can appear dated by the time it is discussed.

Complaints reduction

Public complaints (BVPI 21) – row 1 Appendix 1

5. The monthly target for 2002/03 is 412. With the exception of April 2002, where 429 allegations were recorded, the figures continue to demonstrate a reduction in the number of public complaints. The low figures recorded in August 2002 may be attributable to the holiday period.

Public complaints Finalised – row 9 Appendix 1

6. There were fewer allegations finalised in August 2002 (143) than in earlier months. Comparison with data for August 2001 also shows a similarly low figure when compared with proceeding and subsequent months. This is likely to be attributable to annual leave taken by DPS staff over this period.

Timeliness – rows 10/11 Appendix 1

7. There has been a slight increase in the number of cases over 120 days in the last two months. This may, in part, reflect the low number of allegations finalised over the same period. August sees a rise in the total number of cases over 120 days, which is a reversal of recent months. A separate report has been commissioned to explore timeliness issues within the whole of the investigative and misconduct process.

CPS decisions – row 14 Appendix 1

8. The number of days taken by the CPS to reach a decision has been rising steadily from an average 53 days in March 2002 to 63 days in August 2002 an increase of 16%. The Internal Investigations Command is tracking individual cases and contact has been made with the CPS to chase decisions, particularly in some of the older cases. Staff changes and resourcing issues within the CPS appear to be at the root of the problem. There has been dialogue with the CPS management and assurances have been given that timeliness will improve in the near future.

9. Under sec 73-75 of the Police Act 1996 there is a duty on DPS to send cases to the CPS where a criminal offence may have been committed, even where it is clear no charges would be likely. The requirement to send all files has been discussed in the learning lab and challenged with the Home Office. Although there is benefit in maintaining public confidence by sending files to the CPS for an independent decision, excessive delay erodes confidence in the police complaints system. The impact of the requirements of sections 73-75 may benefit from a further review if the timeliness of CPS decision making continues to decline.

PCA decisions – row 15 Appendix 1

10. The number of days taken by the PCA to reach their decisions has also increased in regard to both investigative and dispensation decisions. The most marked increase is with investigative decisions where they have increased from an average of 57 days in March 2002 to 66 days in August 2002 an increase of 14%. The increase in time taken by the PCA extends the overall time taken to reach a resolution of a complaint for both the complainant and the officer concerned.

11. The PCA have been predicting a decrease in performance against timeliness for two reasons: –

1. the impact of R v Green which delayed the issuing of the final certificate of satisfaction in investigations and created a backlog of cases, and
2. the difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff in light of uncertainty in the transitional arrangements to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Diversity Information

Suspended officers – row 7 Appendix 1

12. The figures illustrate the number of officers suspended in each period. The lower figures recorded in 2001/02 and the rolling 12-months are indicative of the success DPS strategy to reduce the number of officers suspended by considering other options such as the restriction of duties. At the end of July 2002 there were 43 officers under suspension, which has risen again slightly in August.

Misconduct decisions – rows 12/13 Appendix 1

13. Due to difficulties arranging hearings during the annual leave period, no misconduct hearings were held in August, hence the average figure of zero. In July, however, the trend of reducing the number of days between decision and hearing continued with a drop to 230 days.

14. The percentage of misconduct decisions made within 20 days continues to exceed the 85% target. In both July and August, the target was not achieved for despatch of papers. In both months the totals were small at only four cases. 2 cases each month missed the target for a variety of reasons producing a low percentage figure.

C. Equality and diversity implications

The data provided in Appendix 2 outlines the equality and diversity issues related to the work of the Directorate of Professional Standards. As mentioned in previous reports this data has been subject to separate analysis to ascertain the actual areas of disproportionality as opposed to the apparent levels. Following meeting with the Independent Advisory Group (IAG) further work is underway to look at the work of Employment Tribunals and Grievances with a view to addressing disproportionality in these areas.

D. Financial implications

There are no additional financial implications directly associated with the contents of this report.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author: Michael Clark and Chris Bourlet, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback