Restricted duties

Report: 8
Date: 13 September 2007
By: Assistant Commissioner Operational Services on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report explains the how current Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) concerning the suspension and restriction of police officers are implemented within the MPS and details the mechanism for reviewing restricted duties decisions. It informs on the proposed revisions being considered regarding the decision making process for suspensions & restrictions which aim to ensure a more unified approach across the Service. Data is provided which will assist the MPA in understanding the broader issues surrounding suspension & restrictions with regard to officer gender, service band, rank, nature of misconduct alleged, ethnicity etc.

A. Recommendations

That Members note the approach taken by the DPS in implementing the policy and consider the proposed approach to be adopted in making decisions as to when restrictions should be imposed. 

B. Supporting information

Suspension & restricted duties

1. Suspension from police duties is authorised under Regulation 4 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004. The conditions for suspending any police officer are confined to two specific reasons;

‘Where it appears to the appropriate authority, on receiving a report, complaint or allegation which indicates that the conduct of a police officer does not meet the appropriate standard, that the officer concerned ought to be suspended from his office as constable and (in the case of a member of a force) from membership of the force, the appropriate authority may, subject to the following provisions of this regulation, so suspend him.

The appropriate authority shall not so suspend a police officer unless it appears to it that either of the following conditions (“the suspension conditions”) is satisfied;

1. that the effective investigation of the matter may be prejudiced unless the officer concerned is so suspended;
2. that the public interest, having regard to the nature of the report, complaint or allegation, and any other relevant considerations, requires that he should be so suspended.”

2. The status of Restricted police duty is used where there is evidence that an officer has committed a less serious offence(s) or where an officer has made a momentary error of judgement resulting in the unintentional commission of a possible offence - including a serious offence. Restricted Police Duty does not, in legal terms, amount to suspension from duty, as defined by the regulations. The main distinction between suspension from duty and restricted duty is that a restricted officer retains retain their warrant card and both the powers and duties of a Constable. A suspended officer has neither of these privileges. The MPS Standard Operating Procedures provides full detail (see Appendix 1).

Current application of the SOP

3. The SOP is applied to each case where a decision to suspend or restrict is being considered. Currently there are 31 officers suspended. (As of 17.8.07) Wider use is now being made of the ability to restrict an officer's duty; currently there are 159 officers restricted. (As of 17.8.07) Where an Investigating Officer considers a misconduct allegation warrants suspension or restriction a report is submitted to the Commander DPS for consideration. The report includes the views of the officer’s OCU Commander.

4. The decision to suspend or restrict an officer is taken seriously and, wherever possible, a restriction on duty is the preferred option. It is recognised that suspension is not ideal. Despite welfare being maintained by the host OCU, an officer becomes separated from the MPS. In the majority of cases, officers return to full duty, even when a misconduct sanction is imposed. The process of rehabilitation to full duties is harder if an officer has been suspended for a lengthy period. Restricted officers are better placed for supervision & support and are available to provide a service, albeit limited. Restrictive duties are bespoke to the allegation and defined so as not to limit the officer’s duty more than absolutely necessary.

5. A further emendation has been made to Form 161 (Notice to Officer) to include the Director's rationale to either suspend or restrict, subject to the integrity of the investigation. Additionally the officer, either alone or with the assistance of his/her Federation representative can express a view in respect of a decision to suspend or restrict.

Reviewing of restricted duty decisions

6. The mechanism for reviewing restrictions replicates the process applied to suspensions. Guidance is set out in Section 3 of Home Office Circular 8/2007. This requires for a review of each case, at least once a month. Every month a report is submitted by the Investigating Officer for each suspended or restricted officer and the cases are personally reviewed by the Director or his deputy. The reviews have a clear audit trial and are available for inspection. Additionally a review is made in any case where there are significant developments; e.g. an officer being interviewed, charged or a CPS decision. An officer or Federation representative are able to make representation for consideration.

7. Additionally, since August, fortnightly case management meeting are held with the OCU Commander, specifically examining all suspension & restriction cases. This ensures these cases are being expedited and identifying delays and other issues.

Competency assessment before transferring officers to alternative posting

8. The transfer of officers from their own OCU is unusual. However, the very nature of restrictions will entail the officer being moved within the OCU from their usual duties. The Director's decision to restrict will state which duties are not considered suitable for the officer to perform. Typically, these will include avoiding contact with the public or working in a non-operational role (see Appendix 2 for full schedule of typical restrictions imposed). However, the responsibility to assign a specific role and the daily supervision remains with the host OCU Commander. It is recognised that restrictions inhibit the ability of an officer to occupy certain posts and the restrictions imposed will determine the potential tasks that are available. In the majority of cases, officers are employed on duties that do not require the execution of police powers.

Proposed revisions to implementation of restrictions

9. The appointment of a new command team with DPS and the anticipated introduction of new misconduct procedures in 2008 have afforded an opportunity to re-examine the current methodology of imposing restrictions. Whilst the current approach permits tailoring of each case, it can create a potential for disparity of treatment. It is recognised that suspension is not the only way to ensure that an investigation is not compromised or public interest undermined and it is possible to minimise the threat by imposing effective restrictions.

10. Research shows that most officers subjected to either a suspension or restriction are ultimately re-instated on full duties, typically after an absence of about six months. The number of officers either suspended or restricted amounts to a significant financial abstraction of resources. It is essential to ensure that only in the most serious cases will an officer be suspended. The proposal currently under development is based on a matrix scoring system. This will allow for a consistent approach to be taken by all senior personnel when identifying risks and the likelihood of those risks being realised.

11. Misconduct cases submitted for suspension/restriction fall within the following main categories:

• Criminality or misconduct in a police related death.
• Drink driving.
• Domestic violence.
• Inappropriate or discriminatory behaviour.
• Off duty public order.
• Computer misuse.

In each of these cases the principle risks and the significance of their impact is known from the outset. The variable in each case is the likelihood of the risk being realised. It will be the responsibility of the investigating officer to complete the matrix and show the likelihood of each risk being realised. The key risks are those that relate to: Public, MPS, Colleagues, Justice, Media and the Officer Subject of Report.

12. The impact and likelihood for each factor will be rated on a scale between 1 and 5. The total score for each risk is calculated by multiplying impact by likelihood. An available score is between 1 and 25. As a general guide, any single risk that totals 9 or more merits the application of a control measure known as a work-place restriction. It is the case that any single risk that totals 20 or more merits consideration of suspension. The proposed matrix is designed to provide an auditable structure in which to set the decision making process. It is recognised that it is not a precise science.

13. The matrix will enable the investigating officer to identify whether they should request a suspension or restriction. If the latter then suitable measures from a standardised list should be selected (see Appendix 2). The investigating officer may provide additional notes for the Commander’s consideration.

C. Race and equality impact

New measures have recently been introduced to assess whether the decision making is equitable. All suspension & restriction forms have been altered to provide data on an officer's declared ethnicity. This data has been available since May 2007 and additional research is required to ensure that our equality issues are being addressed.

D. Financial implications

None.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Hamish Campbell, Detective Chief Superintendent, MPS

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback