Case management protocol update

Report: 7
Date: 13 September 2007
By: Chief Executive

Summary

The purpose of the report is to provide Members with an update on the operation of the Case Management Protocol.

The Protocol, which was formally agreed in September 2005, reflects a recommendation of the Morris Inquiry. It applies to ‘live’ investigations undertaken by the Metropolitan Police Service (‘MPS’) in to public complaints or other allegations of misconduct against police officers and police staff. Its purpose is to enable the MPA’s Professional Standards and Complaints Committee to scrutinise cases, which have exceeded the target time frame for completion and to place a requirement on the MPS to justify time taken to conduct an investigation and, if appropriate, to give reasons for the need for a continued investigation.

A. Recommendations

That

1. members receive the report and note the findings; and
2. decide whether to invite the Director of HR to consult with the Directorate of Professional Standards and bring back proposals for more effective management of public complaints and police staff discipline cases.

B. Supporting information

1. The Morris Inquiry recommended that a new model of case management be put in place to ensure more rigorous and independent oversight of case management and the complaints’ investigations process in the MPS. The protocol was established in September 2005. It was agreed that the protocol should apply to the investigation of complaints or other allegations of misconduct against police officers or police staff. In order to enable the MPA to fulfil its monitoring role, the Directorate of Professional Standards (‘DPS’) agreed to supply the MPA’s Chief Executive with a list of all current investigations.

2. Provision to the MPA of Investigating Officer Workload Analysis reports (‘IOWA’) continues. The report provides details of the number of ‘live’ investigations for all DPS units and the Police Staff Discipline Unit (HR Practice Support Team)

3. When the IOWA report was received on 17 August 2007, there was a total of 216 public complaints which had exceeded the 120 days age profile and a further 139 cases which were over 240 days old.

4. As at 17 August 2007, the MPS total for live misconduct investigations over 120 days old amounted to 52 with a further 22 investigations exceeding 240 days old.

5. The table below provides a breakdown of the number of ‘live’ public complaints and conduct investigations currently being dealt with by DPS Investigations Command excluding Specialist Investigations [1] and Intelligence Command.

6. IC North East continues to have the highest number of ‘live’ public complaints and conduct investigations, which have exceeded the 120 days’ age profile. The difference is however marginal with the North East’s performance data showing a marked improvement. With the exception of IC South West, three of the regions now appear to be performing similarly.

7. IC South West is the strongest performing borough support unit. The unit has responsibility for complaints and internal investigations relating to the following boroughs: Kingston, Heathrow, Hounslow, Richmond, Wimbledon, Wandsworth, Sutton, Westminster, Kensington, Chelsea, Fulham, Hammersmith and Paddington. There are only two investigations within the unit which have exceeded the 120 days’ age profile, one of which is an IPCC managed investigation and the other an internal investigation which due to the nature of the allegations has required sensitive handling. The latter investigation is, however, on the verge of completion.

8. Whilst the MPA has not had an opportunity to make any comparisons between the working practices of the units across the four regions, it is evident that IC South West has a strong performance -oriented culture.

9. All ‘live’ cases within IC South West are the subject of monthly review. Each team of investigators, of which there are four, is highly accountable for their performance. The head of complaints investigations, a Detective Chief Inspector meets regularly with the individual Inspectors, who head up the four teams, to review performance. In preparation for that meeting, each Inspector meets with their team members to ensure that actions from previous performance reviews have been completed, to identify any outstanding actions and to set target dates for completion of investigations. The details of case reviews in respect of all investigations over 40 days old, or in respect of those cases, which are considered to be ‘high risk’, are recorded in a template report. This activity enables managers to closely monitor the progress of investigations.

10. IC South West also ensures that all Personal Development Reviews for officers and staff include performance objectives relating to the timeliness of complaints handling. Commendations have on occasion also been awarded as an acknowledgment of outstanding team performance.

11. In addition, IC South West has established a strong working relationship with its boroughs and has invested time in training officers on borough to handle complaints at a local level. This activity is in anticipation of the Taylor reforms and has already resulted in improvements to local complaints handling.

10. Members should note that Tribune (an electronic system which provides a statutory register of public complaints, conduct matters, investigations and misconduct hearings) is now being used by all Investigating Officers within IC North West as a means of creating comprehensive electronic complaints files, which are capable of direct access and review by the MPA. This feature is not yet available in IC South West or IC South East but has recently been extended to one team of Investigators within IC North East. A further upgrade of Tribune should enable Investigating Officers in all regions to electronically record and monitor complaints handling activity. When fully operational, this method of recording complaints and conduct investigations will provide a superior system to that in use by other forces, the system will therefore be of national significance and will hopefully inform the way other forces manage information relevant to public complaints and conduct investigations.

Investigation of public complaints and conduct matters against police staff

11. Although, the Case Management Protocol has been operative since September 2005, its focus has been upon investigations conducted by DPS. The Practice Support Team (PST), which sits within the MPS HR Directorate, has responsibility for the recording and monitoring of public complaints and conduct matters relating to police staff. The investigation of complaints against police staff is a devolved function, responsibility for which falls to local OCU managers. PST and OCU managers have not previously been required by the MPA to justify time taken to conduct investigations.

12. In the absence of such scrutiny, PST has not yet ensured that its case management data is reliable. There is a marked difference between the quality of complaints management information provided by DPS in respect of public complaints investigations and that produced by PST. Similarly, the time taken to complete investigations in to complaints against police staff is in excess of any investigation into police officer conduct.

13. As at 17 August 2007, PST was responsible for 132 of the 216 public complaints (as referred to at paragraph 3 above), which have exceeded the 120 days threshold for completion. This amounts to 87% of cases, which PST is responsible for monitoring.

14. PST was also responsible for a further 103 public complaints which are over 240 days old, 43 of which are of low-level complexity involving single allegations of ‘incivility’. 

15. The MPA’s Professional Standards Officer has reviewed a random sample of public complaints currently under investigation. The oldest case for which PST has responsibility is shown on IOWA as being 1126 days old. The complaint concerns an allegation against a named operator who was allegedly rude to the caller. The complaint was received in July 2004, it was immediately recorded and an investigating officer appointed. No further activity is recorded.

16. Members should note that PST consists of a head of unit, eight advisers to advise on police staff discipline and Fairness at Work issues, two support staff (Band D) plus one newly appointed agency worker. It is the support staff and agency worker who have responsibility for recording and monitoring public complaints against police staff; this however is an adjunct to the team’s core functions. The resources in this team appear to be stretched to capacity. This is impacting on the ability to maintain case management records and ensure that OCU managers resolve public complaints and conduct investigations in a timely manner. This appears to be a long-standing problem.

17. The MPA has been advised that a practice support manager within the unit has recently been tasked to look at the complaints process with a view to chasing up OCUs in respect of all outstanding complaints. The unit intends to complete this exercise in September 2007 with a view to closing all 2004 cases and updating case management records accordingly.

18. Taking account of the Taylor programme, Members may consider it appropriate to invite the Director of HR to consult with DPS and bring back proposals for more effective management of public complaints and police staff discipline cases.

Response to MPA’s request for further information in respect of ‘live’ investigations

19. In addition to reviewing performance data and complaints management information, the MPA has also requested further details from DPS in respect of five ‘live’ complaints investigations with age profiles varying between 214 and 158 days. The following reasons have been provided for why the investigations have exceeded the target time frame for completion:

• As a consequence of arranging misconduct interviews for numerous officers who are the subject of the complaint which involves numerous allegations;
• Due to the need to undertake a thorough investigation in order to provide the complainant with detailed reasons for the conclusions reached (this was in respect of a particularly sensitive case involving a fatality which although received ‘out of time’, the MPS determined should be investigated due to exceptional circumstances);
• Due to the need to make numerous enquiries of various agencies i.e. Social Services, hospital staff and the necessity to review tape summaries of substantial interviews with suspected officers;
• Because of competing workloads and restricted resources. In one case, the Investigating Officer commented as follows “It would be fair to say that the complaint has taken too long to investigate and in an ideal world the investigation team would have had a smaller workload and more resources in order to progress the investigation”;
• The complaint was passed to DPS for investigation following a failed attempt to resolve the complaint informally on borough, this impacted on the actual time taken to deal with the complaint;
• The investigation originally focused on an investigation of criminal matters, which morphed in to a misconduct investigation after the CPS confirmed that the criminal allegations were incapable of proof to the required standard.
• Failure on the part of the complainant to respond to DPS’s enquiries in a timely manner.

20. The Case Management Protocol places a requirement on Investigating Officers to provide reasons to support the continuance of an investigation, which has exceeded the target time frame for completion and to provide the MPA with an estimated completion date. In relation to the complaints investigations that were selected for scrutiny by the MPA on this occasion, the individual complaints have now been finalised or are in the process of being finalised with the only action outstanding being the preparation of the final report. As there are no investigative avenues awaiting completion, further scrutiny by PSCC Members is not required.

C. Race and equality impact

1. The purpose of the Protocol is to ensure that individuals who are the subject of complaints investigations are treated in an equitable and proportionate matter. The Protocol reflects a recommendation of the Morris Inquiry.

2. An initial Race Equalities Impact Assessment has been conducted to ensure that the Protocol promotes equalities and does not disadvantage any of the equality target groups. The results have established that a high adverse/negative impact does not exist for any equality group.

D. Financial implications

In order to limit the overall cost of introducing and administering the procedure, the Case Management Protocol needs have been built around the MPS’s existing management information. Although the arrangement increases time spent by Members and MPA officers in undertaking their oversight role, the cost of administering the procedure is capable of being met from the existing budget.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Claire L Lister, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback