Leadership and standards in the police: follow-up

We find it extraordinary that any witness, let alone a Chief Constable, should seek to correct the evidence given by another, particularly when that witness is a sworn officer, and given the nature of the investigation on which this inquiry focuses.

We are appalled at the assertion that DS Hinton misled this Committee because of his belief that he could face a misconduct panel. All evidence given to select committees should be provided honestly and not be affected by forethoughts of any future outcome. It is an indictment of the quality of evidence provided by DS Hinton that, when specifically asked if the reference to “this woman that the Conservative Party have” was about the Home Secretary, he suggested that it was “a typo, to be perfectly honest” This can only be characterised as mendacious when subsequently he has informed us in a letter that he accepts that the woman referred to in this sentence must be the Home Secretary. No discourtesy or lack of respect was intended in referring to her in this way. I offer an unqualified apology to her through your Committee if the transcript appears to suggest either. Having listened to the recording—I do not claim to have a positive memory of the precise circumstances over a year later—my interpretation is that I was somewhat uncertain in what I was seeking to say at this point, and appear to have failed to bring immediately to mind the Home Secretary’s name. It is a serious matter to mislead a Committee of this House and DS Hinton will be recalled to the Committee to apologise for this. If he fails to apologise, that would constitute a prima facie contempt of the House. We are referring DS Hinton to the IPCC.

Sergeant Jones failed to give a full account of his disciplinary record when asked. It is a serious matter to mislead a Committee of this House and Sergeant Jones will be recalled to the Committee to apologise for this. If he fails to apologise, that would constitute a prima facie contempt of the House. We are referring Sergeant Jones to the IPCC. As regards Inspector MacKaill, we have yet to receive further details on his disciplinary record. If he has also failed to provide a full account, he too will be recalled to the Committee.

We note that this case is another serious, high-profile example in which the IPCC has been unable, due to resource constraints, to conduct a managed or independent investigation in a timely manner, relying instead on a supervised investigation by one of the forces concerned. We urge the Government to ensure that the resourcing for the IPCC is robust and enables it to, in real terms, take on more independent investigations. We were glad to hear the Home Secretary’s commitment in a speech at the College of Policing to this. In this case, we consider the IPCC should ideally 14 Leadership and standards in the police: follow–up have conducted an independent investigation but this does not excuse either the conduct of the officers or the failure of the three forces to undertake the complaint investigation properly or in accordance with the applicable law.

We also recommend that the public interest test used by the IPCC in allocating resources includes a reference to cases where the wider reputation of the police service is at stake.

The law is clear on the relative roles and responsibilities of the IPCC and forces in supervised investigations, and on the procedure for submitting reports to the IPCC and to Appropriate Authorities. However, given the difficulties which have arisen in this case we believe clearer guidance for Chief Constables should be produced to avoid a repeat of the current situation.

This is extremely serious. If ACC Cann sought to change the conclusions of the report prior to its being signed off by the IPCC, this is both unacceptable and unlawful.

At the time of the report from DI Smith and CI Reakes-Williams being submitted improperly to the Appropriate Authority without conclusions, a briefing meeting was held. It was attended by DI Smith, CI Reakes-Williams, Penny Fishwick (Head of Legal for West Mercia Police), and Deputy Chief Constables Chesterman (West Mercia Police) and Brunton (Warwickshire Police), the other two Appropriate Authorities. In this meeting, CI Reakes-Williams discussed his conclusions and noted his difference in opinion to DI Smith. We believe this meeting was most irregular. It is astonishing that despite having a legal adviser present and it being a significant meeting to the process, there were no formal minutes and only minimal notes recorded, and that the legal adviser considered it appropriate that such a meeting should take place at all. We have since received a copy of the notes taken at this meeting. The evidence confirms that, considering the huge public and press interest in this matter and the rank of the officers involved, the record of such a crucial meeting is largely devoid of content.

We recommend that guidance be given by the Home Office to Police Forces about the need for correct and comprehensive note-taking of meetings that have a material impact on a complaint investigation or conclusion.

We welcome the apology to Andrew Mitchell made by Chief Constable Shaw (West Mercia Police), Chief Constable Parker (Warwickshire Police) and Chief Constable Sims (West Midlands) before us and we note that all three Chief Constables recognised the damage done to the Police service as a result of the events following the 12 October meeting. We agree. We also believe, however, that these apologies have been unnecessarily delayed and should have been given earlier and not just because the Chief Constables had been brought before a Select Committee of the House. We regret this absence of leadership at a critical time which could have, if exercised earlier, prevented reputational damage to the police service.

We consider that the opinion of the IPCC, the procedural irregularities discovered in the process and the apologies given by the Chief Constables leads to the clear view Leadership and standards in the police: follow–up 15 that the conclusions of the investigation should be redetermined immediately. We also consider that due to the wider implications of the case on the public’s trust in the police the redetermination should be done as quickly as possible. As a first option we see no logical reason why that this cannot be performed by the Chief Constables themselves, in order to expedite the process. Despite the Chief Constables' involvement as the Heads of the Forces involved, we believe it would be proper for them to take on this role as they were not the Appropriate Authority when the decision was originally made in August 2013. At the time this responsibility had been delegated to their Deputy or Assistant Chief Constables.

We note that in their evidence before us only Chief Constable Shaw has decided to redetermine the conclusion to the investigation and Chief Constables Sims and Parker are satisfied with the assurance, given retrospectively by the forces’ Appropriate Authorities, that the procedural error had no material effect on their conclusions and would not change the decision. We find this differentiation in conclusions baffling. The ‘second best’ scenario is one provided by the decision of Chief Constable David Shaw to refer the investigation of Inspector Ken MacKaill to an unconnected Chief Constable nominated by HMIC. Though, it does not fulfil the pace of redetermination required at this point, and we believe involving a further party is unnecessary, the decision does at least mean that the conclusion will be reassessed. We hope that this will bring full and proper closure to this case and urges the selected Chief Constable to conduct his review as quickly as possible.

We consider that Chief Constable Chris Sims has made the wrong decision in choosing to let the matter rest. The West Midlands Appropriate Authority, Assistant Chief Constable Cann, did not attend the high-level briefing meeting held on the 1 August 2013. Instead, ACC Cann came to his conclusion based on the investigation report, without the opinion of the investigating officer CI Reakes-Williams, which is required by law, and the second-hand verbal briefing of the officer who attended the meeting on the 1 August 2013 on his behalf. We believe this to be unsatisfactory, unlawful and in need of review.

We also believe that Chief Constable Parker has taken the wrong decision in not redetermining the conclusions of the investigation relating to DS Hinton. Not only does this stem from our summation of the deficiencies in the process of the original determination, noted above, but also the letter of 28 October 2013 from CC Parker. In the letter, it appears CC Parker is offering excuses for, and explanations of, the evidence given by other witnesses, including DS Hinton a member of his force. The letter includes an assertion from the Chief Constable Parker that he could provide a better explanation than the one given in evidence before us by DS Hinton, due to him “knowing DS Hinton as I do.” This does not give the public confidence that the Warwickshire Police service is acting in an impartial manner. We are further concerned that CC Parker’s decision not to redetermine whether or not DS Hinton had a case to answer is based on the assertion by DCC Brunton on reviewing the available evidence whilst he was abroad on annual leave. Whilst we understand the need for a decision to be made prior to the Chief Constable appearing to give evidence on this matter, we would suggest that once again, the manner in which this 16 Leadership and standards in the police: follow–up decision was taken was irregular and not fitting to the seriousness of the case.

We consider that the evidence of the IPCC, who would have concluded that there was a case to answer for gross misconduct, the consistently held opinion of the investigating officer that the officers may have a case to answer for misconduct, the apologies issued by the Chief Constables, and the procedural irregularities with the investigation report itself, lead any fair minded individual to the conclusion that the officers involved have a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct.

It is clear that the Region 3 anti-cuts campaign had, in the view of the leadership of the Police Federation of England and Wales, overstepped the mark, straying into territory which was both highly politicised and personalised. When the behaviour of the three Region 3 representatives and their PR adviser, Jon Gaunt, is seen in the context of this campaign, it is not surprising that some should reach the conclusion that they might have regarded the resignation of a Cabinet Minister as a desirable outcome.

It is right that forces and the Police Federation work together to ensure that facilities agreements allow for a degree of challenge by the force for Federation expenditure or activity which seems on the face of it to be inconsistent with Federation’s legitimate functions.

We welcome the news that those contracted by police forces to carry out work on their behalf will be covered by the new Code of Ethics. We understand the College’s reasoning in not seeking to apply the Code to contractors working on behalf of the Federation—there is the risk that attempting to over-extend its reach could undermine the value of the Code—but we recommend that the College give further consideration to whether or not a requirement could be placed on those working for the Federation to ensure that a reference to the Code is included in commercial contracts with those carrying out work on its behalf. Some of the criticism in this affair can be directed towards the publicity campaign orchestrated by Jon Gaunt and yet it is the reputation of the police and Police Federation which has been damaged. A requirement that the Police Federation sub-contractors abide by the Code of Ethics would reduce the possibility of such a damaging situation recurring in the future.