Sanction guidelines

Report: 7
Date: 6 May 04
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report explains the difficulties experienced in demonstrating consistent, proportionate and satisfactory sanctions across the many misconduct hearings and reviews conducted annually in the MPS. The report describes proposals to provide guidance to achieve clarity and fairness in the imposition of sanctions and a more standardised approach to misconduct issues, whilst recognizing the individual circumstances of each case.

A. Recommendations

That members are asked to endorse the guidelines attached at Appendix 1 and to evaluate them 6 months after implementation.

B. Supporting information

1. The MPS processes a large number of misconduct hearings annually, with the capability of three cases being heard simultaneously. In the twelve months from September 2001 there were 133 hearings involving 156 officers. Under the regulations the adjudicating panel comprises of the Presiding Officer (ACPO officer) supported by two assessors either two superintendents or, as of the 1st April, in some cases a person appointed by the police authority. To spread this workload the Directorate of Professional Standards has arranged for most superintendents and chief superintendents to sit on the panels with more than 160 officers now familiarized in their responsibilities. This has the benefit of reducing the individual commitment, especially in the longer cases, but leads to varied-decision making.

2. Boards have two matters to consider, whether or not the officer is guilty of the discipline offence alleged and, if guilty, what penalty to impose.

3. One of the most contentious matters that boards have to deal with is a breach of code 8. This is where an officer has been found guilty in the criminal courts of an offence of drink driving. Although each case is to be judged on its own merits, there are inevitably comparisons between cases and the sanctions imposed. In the twelve months preceding August 2002 there were 19 hearings for drink/drive convictions and the sanctions ranged from reprimand to dismissal from the service. In August 2001, the Home Office issued Annex N to the Police (Conduct) Regulation 1999 that stated ordinarily officers should expect to lose their job, but this is rarely imposed (Appendix 2). In January 2003, a specific notice was issued reinforcing the seriousconsequences officers can expect if convicted of drink-related driving offences (Appendix 3). Apparent inconsistencies in penalty are at the root of internal upset and are often cited in reviews and appeals.

4. Following the initial hearing an officer can have the finding and sanction reviewed by one of the four Assistant Commissioners (AC). This is not a rehearing, rather an ‘opportunity to rectify clear errors or inconsistencies in process or determination by the earlier hearing.’ The review should revolve around the report prepared by the Presiding Officer at the conclusion of the original hearing. This outlines the factors that led to the finding and sanction. The process is less burdensome than the appeal procedure under the 1985 Regulations. The success rate of officers at reviews is high (4 out of 5 reviews sought in drink/drive cases). Again without guidance to assist in maintaining consistency, there is an element of a lottery in the process.

5. A recent revision to the AC’s review has been the attendance of the presenting officer from the original hearing, where a personal hearing is requested. This helps the reviewing officer when considering aspects of the case and avoids unnecessary delays when seeking details from the original hearing.

Proposals

6. To address some of these issues it is proposed to introduce the following:

• Sanction guidelines for misconduct hearings;
• Revised Presiding Officer’s Account.

7. Three specific codes have been considered (1 - Honest & Integrity, 3 – Politeness & Tolerance and 4 – Use of Force and Abuse of Authority) together with notes of general application. There have been extensive attempts at consultation since October 2002, with the Federation closing the door, ‘Whilst not wishing to appear negative the Federation would not support the introduction of sanction Guidelines’, and the Superintendent’s Association, ‘ … are fine, as far as they go.’ As the guidelines have developed legal advice has been sought on no fewer than six occasions and three drafts have been sent out to staff associations for comment. Ultimately the guide we now produce aims to support the panel and ACs in maintaining consistency and fairness in the determination of sanctions whilst taking account of the individual circumstances of each case and of the officer concerned.

8. As the AC is not in possession of transcripts of the original hearing it is important the there is a full explanation of the original panel’s reasoning as to how they have come to their decisions. For this reason an enhanced form will be introduced (Appendix 4).

9. Officers may only seek an appeal before a Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT) where the officer has been dismissed from the service, required to resign or reduced in rank. The factors that contributed to the outcomes at both the hearing and the review will be readily available should there been a need to examine them. When the MPA endorse these new Guidelines, the PAT will be able to apply them to their deliberations. This will ensure that consistency and fairness is maintained to the end of the process.

C. Equality and diversity implications

The prime consideration in this report has been the issue of fairness and equality in relation to complainants, officers concerned and witnesses. A number of misconduct investigations specifically involve matters of race, gender or other diversity issues and it is essential that these be dealt with fairly, whilst recognizing that the outcomes of such cases can affect the way staff and the public views the MPS. The MPS wants all staff to feel valued and supported in reporting wrongdoing and assisting investigations. It is vital that the processes are seen to be consistent and fair. To that end, these new arrangements and guidelines should help remove any possible suggestion of prejudice to any particular group as there will be a template of expectation that each penalty can be measured against.

D. Financial implications

1. Where sanctions are found to be based on sound grounds and can be supported by the facts of a case there is less likelihood that the outcome will be overturned. This will result in fewer officers being removed from office and on review or appeal returning to the service and receiving back pay. In effect the guidelines should help boards reach fair balanced and proportionate decisions about the appropriate penalty in each case.

2. The Authority will need to take a view on the financial implications arising from the introduction of Regulation 19(5) Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004 (copy at Appendix5). This applies to misconduct hearings where the MPA have a responsibility to provide and finance an independent assessor. There may also be a financial implication arising from any training requirements the MPA may determine appropriate for assessors or officers.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author: Detective Chief Superintendent Phil Flower, Directorate of Professional Standards, 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