Assistant Commissioner review decisions

Report: 8
Date: 09 Jun 05
By: Commissioner

Summary

The attached table (Appendix 1) details all cases, except Drink Drive which was dealt with in an earlier report, where the decision of a misconduct board has been the subject of an Assistant Commissioner’s Review. Some of these cases were thereafter subject to appeal at the Police Appeals Tribunal and information on these is included as well.

The data covers the period 1 January 2003 to 1 May 2005 and provides detail on a total of 48 cases.

A. Recommendations

That

1. Members note this report and identify those cases for which they would like more detailed information. This can then be provided in a report for the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee (PSCC) meeting scheduled for 8 September 2005.
2. Members note that arrangements are in hand for Management Board members to receive training on the new police misconduct regulations (2004), which were introduced as a result of the Police Reform Act 2002. This training will cover the expanded role of Assistant Commissioners’ (AC) in the misconduct process, in particular, their role in hearing ‘fast track’ cases under regulation 40 schedule 2.

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1. The attached table provides detail of all cases, except drink drive, where the convicted officer has requested a review by an Assistant Commissioner of the decision made by the misconduct board. The data covers the period 1 January 2003 to 1 May 2005.

2. During this period there was a total of 48 cases passed for an AC’s review. Of these 52% or, 25 cases, were upheld with no variation being made.

3. In 33% of the cases the AC varied the sanction imposed from that given by the original misconduct board. If an AC wishes to change the sanction it can only be to alter it to one more favourable to the officer. The regulations do not allow the AC to increase the penalty imposed.

4. The remaining 7 or 15% of cases are awaiting the AC’s decision.

5. 11 of the 48 cases have been subject to a subsequent appeal to the Police Appeals Tribunal (PAT) each of these having already been reviewed by an AC. On four occasions the AC’s decision was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. On only one occasion has the PAT varied the sanction imposed. Six cases are awaiting the decision of the PAT.

6. This information has been obtained from Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) computer records. For more detailed information individual files would have to be recovered and read in each case. It is recommended that members identify those cases where variations have occurred and additional information is required. This can then be researched and presented at the next PSCC.

C. Race and equality impact

The data available in this table does not provide sufficient detail to identify the ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation of the officers involved. Some of this information will not be available on DPS files. If further detail is required that can be researched and presented to members at the next PSCC.

D. Financial implications

There are limited financial implications associated with the training of Management Board Members as set out above. It is anticipated the training will cost approximately £8,000 for preparation and delivery by external lawyers.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Philip H Flower – Detective Chief Superintendent, Directorate 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