Assistant commissioner misconduct reviews

Report: 11
Date: 9 March 2006
By: Commissioner

Summary

Following concern expressed by Members about the variation of finding or sanction arising out of Assistant Commissioners (ACs) reviews the MPS was requested to explain the rationale behind these decisions. In advance of this request training has already been arranged for the ACs and the MPA were invited to attend to witness first hand the discussions and areas of doubt or difficulty.

Following this training the MPS have been asked to outline the legal advice given to ACs in that training session, and the agreed action plan put in place. The MPA’s Professional Standards and Complaints Committee (PSCC) will continue to monitor AC review decisions.

A. Recommendations

That report be received.

B. Supporting information

1. The MPS has, for the past two years been providing training for officers of ACPO rank who are required to sit as presiding officers on misconduct hearings and officers of superintending rank who also form part of the panel. This training, organised by the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) has been highly successful with positive reaction and a noticeable standardisation of practices across individual hearings. The training, delivered by counsel from the 5 Essex Court chambers, has been residential and of two days duration.

2. One area however, within which training had not been arranged, was for officers of AC rank who historically have been charged with hearing appeals against the findings or sanctions of misconduct hearings and, under the 2004 Police Regulations may now also hear ‘fast track’ cases which were hitherto the preserve of the Commissioner.

3. Since 1 January 2003 there have been 89 cases reviewed by ACs with a further 10 waiting for hearing dates. Of those 49 have resulted in no change to the finding or sanction. In 19 the sanction has been varied with an additional 4 resulting in not proven outcomes. The final 7 were not proven by virtue of a successful criminal appeal against finding.

4. Consistency is one of the most important goals when setting standards and, with four ACs hearing the appeals it is inevitable that individual interpretations of circumstance will come into play. This was of concern to the MPA. The time was right to extend the training for ACPO to the ACs and again, counsel from 5 Essex Court chambers were asked to develop a bespoke programme that could, on this occasion, be delivered in a single day.

5. This training was held on 3 February 2006, and was attended by three Acs, two ACs were on leave and unavailable to attend. In the afternoon the training session was joined by representatives from the MPA.

The training

6. A detailed training pack had been produced, but the day focused on those areas deemed most at issue by those present. Paragraphs 7-10 of this report summarises the actions requested to be taken forward but, the specific areas discussed in detail were:

• Guidance is just that – it cannot fetter the discretion of the individual within a particular case. It will, however, provide the parameters within which a normal case may be determined and thus set the standard.
• Each case has to be determined on the basis of a four fold test encompassing fairness; natural justice; objectivity and reasonableness with the ACs’ review correcting errors or perceived unfairness.
• An appeal should be concerned with the evidence which was presented to the original panel with due regard being given to the fact that live evidence will have been heard on that occasion.
• The ACs have the opportunity to have the DPS presenting officer present and may seek such clarification as they deem necessary about the conduct of the earlier hearing.
• The Presiding Officer’s accounts from the original hearing should be available and should be detailed with a full rationale for finding and sanction. The ACs noted that since the commencement of the DPS training this had markedly improved but that it could still be better.
• Detailed discussions were held on the meaning of Annex N of the Home Office guidance in relation to drink/drive and, in particular:
  • exceptional circumstance;
  • high level readings; and
  • character – and if it could be applicable.
• The balance of probability and the degree and cogency of evidence needed to cross the 50% threshold was also discussed.
• The lack of clear instructions to staff when joining the MPS was also highlighted particularly in regard to our expectation over drink/driving and domestic violence.

Summary

7. It was clear that the ACs and all present benefit from appreciating the differing views that were put forward. There was full agreement on the need for consistency but not for a rigid fetter.

8. DPS were asked:

• To draw up guidance to be agreed by the ACs in respect of Annex N and its interpretation. When agreed such guidance to be incorporated into a policy and routed through PSCC.
• To state to all MPS staff and new recruits the expectation that drink/drive will lead to dismissal. Domestic violence also to be included within that communication.
• To ensure presiding officers comments are available and complete.

9. All of the above actions have been commenced. Guidance to Annex N has been received from Counsel who presented the training and is now in the process of gaining agreement from the assistant commissioners.

10. At this time and since the training, there has been only one AC review. The review related to a drink/drive case and and confirmation was given that the sanction in this case was ‘required to resign’.

11. Acting Detective Chief Superintendent Campbell, who was present throughout the training day, is undertaking the work of collating the guidance and gaining agreement from the ACs. He will provide an opportunity for those ACs who did not attend the training to be personally briefed on the training day and the rationale behind the production of guidance. When agreement with the ACs is complete a personal briefing for the Deputy Commissioner will then be arranged.

C. Race and equality impact

Each case is determined upon its merits and this is a documented process. Policy within this area is monitored by DPS on a quarterly basis with the data submitted to the MPS Policy Clearing House for publication. Each policy has also been the subject of Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 compliance.

D. Financial implications

The financial implications where an officer is reinstated can be considerable particularly if that officer has been away from the MPS for some time having been dismissed. The cost to the organisation is not, however a consideration when determining each case as the four fold test set out above shows.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Andrew Campbell, Acting Detective Chief Superintendent, Operational Command Unit Commander Misconduct.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback