Formation of Directorate of Professional Standards Review Unit

Report: 7
Date: 10 February 2005
By: Commissioner

Summary

The Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) Review Unit was formed on 18 October 2004. It is based at Jubilee House, Putney and reports directly to the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, DPS, who sponsors its workload.

It has an overall aim: To increase confidence in the integrity and ability of DPS investigations.

A. Recommendations

That Members note the report.

B. Supporting information

Summary

1. The Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) Review Unit was formed on 18 October 2004. It is based at Jubilee House, Putney and reports directly to the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (DAC) DPS who sponsors its workload.

2. It has an overall aim: To increase confidence in the integrity and ability of DPS investigations.

3. Underlying this aim is the notion of endorsing proportionality within DPS work as described in Recommendation 1 of the Virdi Inquiry report. [1] It reads: ‘Regulations, particularly in regard to discipline should be interpreted with common sense and reasonableness in an attempt to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and unjustified cost both financially and in personal terms.’

Staff levels

4. The unit comprises one full time member of staff, a detective chief inspector, recently transferred in from the MPS Diversity Directorate.

5. The unit has a remit to bring in specialists from other MPS departments (subject to agreed protocols) or even to employ external expertise to participate in the review process. A budget has been allocated for this purpose

Murder review model

6. The unit is currently modelled on the MPS Murder Review Group (MRG), a review department created in 1999 following the publication of ACPO guidelines on this subject.

7. The function of the MRG is to review the progress of undetected murder investigations and, periodically, to conduct thematic inspections addressing specific issues.

8. The DPS review unit will, initially, mirror their terms of reference in recognition of the value that the murder review process has brought to investigative activity. A DPS review template, based on the Murder review model, has been prepared to ensure minimum standards are achieved.

DPS specific

9. However, there is scope for enlargement of these core terms of reference to make the process more specific to a DPS need.

Early intervention

10. For example, the review unit will explore early intervention tactics to create ways of both delivering support to and challenging DPS investigations throughout their lifespan.

11. This may take the form of mutually agreed interventions at key moments in an investigation where the senior investigating officers (SIO) and members of their investigation teams will meet with the review unit to identify risks and make progress more effective.

12. Subjects for examination during this intervention process, some based on the good practice findings of the Operation Lancet report, [2] will include:

• Proportionality
  Are the investigative tactics proportionate to the original intelligence;
• Cost
  Has the likely cost of the investigation been balanced against the likely outcomes;
• Expectations
• Has a threshold of satisfaction by individual stakeholders been set that is now putting unrealistic and unintended pressures on the stakeholders;
• Leadership
  Are all risks being managed at appropriate levels within the DPS hierarchy; and
• Obstructions
  Are there blockages to effective investigation.

13. Through an early intervention approach the MPS can be alerted to highly sensitive cases when more options to resolve them are available

Review outcomes

14. Review reports will, where appropriate, make recommendations in the following categories;

• Service recommendations
• DPS recommendations
• Borough recommendations
• Considerations – These can apply to DPS or borough officers and deal with matters that fall short of recommendation status.

Good practice

15. Good practice that is disclosed during reviews will be absorbed into the existing DPS systems for retaining its corporate memory [3] or referred to other commands, as appropriate.

DAC presentation

16. Completed reviews will be submitted directly to the DAC DPS to consider their findings or else accompanied by a presentation by the SIO and review officer.

Performance indicators (PI’s)

17. PIs will be set for the unit. These are likely to be quantitative at first and will be prepared in support of the DPS Business Plan. Qualitative PIs are being researched. Draft PIs for inclusion in the Business Plan will be:

• Percentage of reviews completed to satisfaction of sponsor; and
• Percentage of review recommendations implemented.

Other Considerations

18. The review process will be subject to numerous legislative and procedural requirements. They include:

• Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996;
• The Freedom Of Information Act 2000; and
• MPS policy on disclosing internal documents.

19. These requirements touch on the issue of confidence in the impartiality of the review process and how its products are delivered, particularly when exemptions from disclosure are applied to review reports.

20. The review unit will operate within what is legally necessary but will look for opportunities to promote the MPS values of being open and honest and treating people fairly as a way of demonstrating that the DPS review process is independent and even-handed.

C. Race and equality impact

The primary aim of the review unit is to increase confidence in the integrity and ability of DPS investigations. This will, where necessary, include examination of how DPS complies with its obligations to promote race equality and equality of opportunity

D. Financial implications

1. Costs in bold have already been incurred. The remaining costs have been identified but to date have not been incurred.

2. The projected spend is subject to the type of demands placed on the unit in the coming year.

Staff

• DCI: £71,535 
• Band D (Office manager):   £29,158
• Band E (Office support):   £25,017
• Total Staffing Cost:   £125,710

Contractual Budget

3. Review consultants in the fields of independent advice, forensic management, information sharing, financial investigation and communications/cell site will at some time need to be accounted for. A contractual budget of approximately £50K has been set aside (but not used to date).

• Contractual Budget: £50,000

Accommodation/Furnishings

4. Furnished accommodation at Jubilee House, Putney has been secured.

• Accommodation and Furnishings Nil

IT Support

5. The three members of the unit will require access to both External Aware Terminals and Internal Secure ACC Systems – Clue 2.

6. The level of use required of a photocopier is also likely to necessitate a secure unit within the Review Team’s Office.

7. The Head of Unit and deputy will require a mobile telephone to facilitate communications with DPS officers and contracted experts.

• Purchase Aware Terminals (X2): £2,000
• Aware Printer:  £281.50
• Maintenance Aware Terminals (X2): £2,000
• ACC Internal Terminals (X2): £2,000
• Internal Printer: £281.50
• Clue 2 Licences (X1) DCI: £3,000
• Clue 2 Licence (X1) Office manager: £3,000
• Annual photocopier lease: £500
• Annual mobile phone costs (X1): £128.16
• Annual mobile phone costs (X1): £128.16
• IPAQ for Head of Unit: £324
• Total IT costing: £13,643.32

Vehicles

The Head of Unit will need to travel to scenes and meet with contracted experts a vehicle will therefore be necessary to facilitate such travel.

• Annual Cost of Golf Lease Car: £2,880.20
• Petrol Cost (16,000 miles pa): £2,000
• Total Vehicle Costs: £4,880.20

Total costs

• Total Anticipated Annual Cost of Fully Equipped Review Unit: £179,233.52
• Current Cost: £74,663.16
• Underspend: £104,570.36

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author(s): DAC Stephen Roberts, Director of Professional Standards

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback