Assistant Commissioner misconduct reviews

Report: 9
Date: 14 December 2006
By: T/AC Intelligence and Standards Command on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

On 9 March the PSCC were presented with a paper on the subject of training that had been delivered to officers of Assistant Commissioner rank who undertake appeal hearings.

The PSCC at that time asked for an update at a later meeting to monitor the effects of the training. As it has now been in place for 6 months and sufficient appeals have been undertaken, that update is now provided.

The monitoring will remain in place by the OCU Commander within DPS for Prevention and Organisational Learning.

A. Recommendations

That members note the summary of information contained in the report.

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1. This report is by way of an update from the report presented to the MPA in March 2006. At that time, the MPA made a number of requests, which were as follows. 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.

Work undertaken

2. The Assistant Commissioners were circulated a document encapsulating the training – in particular the concerns over Drink Drive and Annex N. Comments were invited and DPS offered to individually brief the ACs on the contents of the document and the nature of the discussions raised during the training. The key theme was consistency. All of the ACs read the document and there were no changes requested.

3. On 27 June, a finalised document was again circulated to ensure that DPS captured the experience of the ACs when undertaking reviews with the benefit of the guidance. No changes were requested. This document is available to members if required.

4. DPS have direct contact with all supervisors’ courses now run at Hendon and also an input into probationer training at a local level at each site around the MPS. It is clear that the re-stating of the expectation that drink drive will result in dismissal has impacted on officers and their Federation representatives. The ACs’ training has also been referred to during the actual reviews.

5. The accounts of presiding officers are now routinely available for the ACs when they undertake reviews. This issue was personally stressed by T/DCS Campbell at the last DPS training for Misconduct Board members held in May 2006 with the need for them to be clear and fully reasoned when completing the accounts.

Current position

6. In the 7 months prior to the training there were 20 Reviews. Of these, nine were varied either in terms of finding or sanction. This equates to a 45% variation rate. Five officers who had been forced to leave the service (three of which were for drink drive) were re-instated as a result.

7. Following the training, there have been 29 Reviews. Of these, there has been a variation in sanction or finding in only seven cases. This equates to a variation rate of 23%. This equates to a 22% reduction in variations from the pre training position – and is significant bearing in mind that the greater sample size.

8. Of the 7 cases where there has been a variation, two of these were minor, for example, a reprimand being replaced with a caution. Two were as a result of successful criminal appeals which means that in both occasions the offences for which officers had later been dismissed from the service (Code 8 conviction) no longer existed. As a result both officers were reinstated. In a further two cases the ACs found the case not proven and provided detailed accounts of why the evidence before them failed to satisfy the burden of proof required. In the seventh case an officer who had been required to resign following conviction for a Drink Driving offence had his sanction varied from required to resign to 13 days pay. The AC found exceptional circumstance applied but the written determination has yet to be received.

9. Whilst the numbers of reviews are small, there is a clear indication that the training and guidance provided has had a positive effect in obtaining consistency.

Training material

10. The PSCC report that was presented to the March meeting is attached at Appendix 1 for reference. The material, which was made available to the ACs at the training, was also supplied to the MPA representatives and is of considerable bulk. In the absence of a specific need, it has not been further copied.

11. The guidance provided as a result of the training has been agreed by the ACs and is readily available to DPS and officers subject of reviews.

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. It should be noted in this context that the cost of providing the training by an experienced Counsel was £1500.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Andrew Campbell, T/ Detective Chief Superintendent, OCU Commander – DPS Prevention and Organisation Learning, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

A report presented to the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee on 9 March 2006 titled 'Assistant Commissioner misconduct reviews' (Report 11)

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback