Metropolitan Police Authority: Dismissal of MPS Commander

23/10
31 March 2010

James Cleverly, Vice Chair of the Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee, who chaired the meeting on 31 March 2010, said:

“The MPA’s Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee met today to consider the Tribunal’s report in Commander Dizaei’s case. The Tribunal hearing took place on Friday 26 March 2010.

“The Sub-committee has recorded the Tribunal’s finding that Commander Dizaei failed to meet the appropriate standard of conduct. He was in breach of Code 8 of the Code of Conduct because he was convicted of two serious criminal offences.

“The Tribunal recommended that the only appropriate sanction was dismissal from the service.

“The Sub-committee has accepted the Tribunal’s recommendation and has today dismissed Commander Dizaei from the Metropolitan Police Service with immediate effect.

“As far as the Authority is concerned this is the end of the matter.

“Commander Dizaei has the right to appeal against the MPA’s decision to a Police Appeals Tribunal.”

Reshard Auladin, Vice Chair of the MPA and Chair of the Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee, added:

“Integrity in the Met is non negotiable.  The Authority is responsible both for senior officer discipline and police pension forfeiture. We take these responsibilities extremely seriously and discharge our duties meticulously and with the utmost probity.

“This case was investigated when extremely serious allegations were made about a senior Met officer’s conduct.  The original complaint against Commander Dizaei came from a member of the public, and the public have every right to expect that a complaint about a senior police officer will be investigated fairly and without prejudice. We must make it quite clear to both the public and our employees that systems are in place in the Met to deal with corruption.

“The vast majority of police officers are hard working, dedicated and carry out their duties with the utmost integrity.  We must ensure that the minority of officers who are corrupt are dealt with effectively to maintain public confidence in the police service.

“The MPA has at all times moved swiftly but fairly to deal with this case, in accordance with the relevant police regulations and processes as dictated by the Home Office. It is now our job to help restore public confidence in senior police leaders.”

Background timeline 

• 14 March 2008: Ali Dizaei appointed an MPS Commander
• 18 September 2008: Commander Dizaei suspended
  After considering allegations concerning Commander Dizaei, and after lengthy and careful deliberations, the MPA Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee unanimously decided to suspend him.
• 21 May 2009: Commander Dizaei charged by the Crown Prosecution Service
  The MPA was informed by the Crown Prosecution Service of its decision to proceed against Commander Dizaei with charges of misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice in relation to events that took place on Friday 18 July 2008.
• 8 February 2010: Commander Dizaei found guilty on both charges
  On 8 February 2010, Commander  Dizaei was found guilty at Southwark Crown Court of misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice, following an independent investigation conducted IPCC.
• 10 February 2010: IPCC sends its report to the MPA
  The Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee set in train the appropriate course of actions.
  Following the court case and guilty verdict, the case was fast tracked by the Authority as a ‘Special Case’, in accordance with Regulation 45 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004, in order for the process to be progressed rapidly.
• 19 February 2010: MPA appoints Tribunal
  The MPA appointed a Tribunal to hear the case of Commander Dizaei.
• 26 March 2010:  Tribunal Hearing
  Commander Dizaei’s hearing before the Tribunal took place on Friday 26 March 2010.
• 31 March 2010: Dismissal of Metropolitan Police Service Commander
  MPA Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee met to consider the Tribunal’s report and accepted recommended  sanction to dismiss Commander Dizaei from the MPS.

Notes to Editors

1. Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004

This case was considered by the MPA in accordance with the provisions of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004, as the matter was first brought to the MPA’s attention before 1 December 2008. The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 apply to complaints and allegations of misconduct against senior officers in the MPS which have come to the attention of the MPA since 1 December 2008.

2. Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee (PSCSC)

Membership of the Sub-committee:

• Reshard Auladin (Chair)
• Christopher Boothman
• Valarie Brasse
• James Cleverly  (Vice Chair)
• Joanne McCartney
• Richard Tracey
• Tony Arbour

Following the guilty verdict of the court on 8 February 2010 and having received the report on the case from the IPCC, the PSCSC certified it as a ‘Special Case’ in accordance with Reg. 45 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004. This required the MPA to:

• refer the case to a hearing; and
• inform the IPCC that this is the action it proposed  taking.

3.  Reg. 45 of Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004

This is where a report, complaint or allegations indicates that the conduct of the officer concerned is of a serious nature and that an imprisonable offence may have been committed by the officer concerned; and

• the conduct is such that, were the case to be referred to a hearing and the tribunal hearing the case were to find that the conduct failed to meet the appropriate standard, they would in the opinion of the MPA be likely to impose the sanction of dismissal from the force; and
• the report, complaint or allegation is supported by written statements, documents or other material which is, in the opinion of the MPA, sufficient without further evidence to establish on the balance of probabilities that the conduct of the officer concerned did not meet the appropriate standard; and
• the MPA is of the opinion that it is in the public interest for the officer concerned to cease to be a member of a police force without delay.

4. The Tribunal

The Tribunal is an individual from a list provided by the Lord Chancellor, who is selected and appointed by the Authority. The hearing was conducted by a Tribunal in accordance with Reg 20 of the Police (Conduct)  Regulations 2004. The Authority was also required to appoint one or more assessors to assist the Tribunal on police matters.

An assessor is an individual who is, or has been, a chief officer of police, but cannot be:

• an HMIC officer;
• an officer with whom the officer who is subject to the Tribunal has served; or
• a member of the Authority or any local authority that appoint members to the Authority.

This is the first time the MPA has instigated this procedure.

5. Tribunal procedure

The Tribunal does not announce a final verdict.

The Tribunal submits a report to the MPA and a copy is submitted to officer concerned setting out the Tribunal’s conclusions on:

• whether the conduct of the officer concerned met the appropriate standard;
• if the conduct of the officer concerned did NOT meet the appropriate standard, the Tribunal’s recommendation on sanction;
• any other matter arising from the hearing which the Tribunal wants to bring to the attention of the MPA.

6. The MPA on receipt of the Tribunal’s report decides:

Whether to dismiss the case or

• to record a finding that the conduct of the officer concerned failed to meet the appropriate standard but to take no further action; or
• to record a finding that the conduct of the officer concerned failed to meet the appropriate standard and impose a sanction.

The sanctions available under Regulation 35 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004 are:

• Reprimand;
• Fine;
• Requirement to resign from the force;
• Dismissal from the force.

7. Police pensions

Any decision the MPA makes in respect of pension forfeiture is governed by the Police Pensions Regulations 1987.

Under these Regulations the MPA can only consider forfeiture of an officer’s pension in certain circumstances.  These circumstances are where the officer has been convicted of:

1. Treason; or
2. Offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911-1939 for which he has been sentenced to a term (or terms) of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
3. A criminal offence which was committed in connection with service.

If an officer is convicted of an offence as described at (1) or (2) above, the decision whether or not to forfeit the officer’s pension rests with the MPA alone.  If an officer is convicted of an offence as described at (3) above, the MPA must first apply to the Secretary of State for a certificate of forfeiture.  The Secretary of State will only issue a certificate of forfeiture if the criminal offence committed in connection with service was deemed to have been gravely injurious to the interests of the state or to be liable to lead to a serious loss of confidence in the public service. If the Secretary of State issues a certificate of forfeiture the MPA can determine the extent of forfeiture and whether it is to be permanent or temporary.

Strategic and Operational Policing Committee report (5/11/09) on police pensions can be found at www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/sop/2009/091105/14 

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback