A: INTRODUCTION
The inquiry
1. "I honestly believe I command the
most honourable large city police service in the world. I believe
that the overwhelming majority of the 27,000 men and women in
the Met are honest, they are decent, they are brave ... However,
I do have a minority of officers who are corrupt, dishonest, unethical
... They commit crimes, they neutralise evidence in important
cases and they betray police operations and techniques to criminals.
These bad officers sap the morale of their honest colleagues
and they do immense damage to public confidence ... they are very
difficult to target and prosecute."
This is what Sir Paul Condon, the Metropolitan Police
Commissioner told us on December 4, 1997.[1]
He went on to describe how such officers by cynical manipulation
of the disciplinary process were often able to avoid being held
to account. His concern was shared by Mr Edward Crew, the Chief
Constable of the West Midlands police, and by others who were
witnesses, notably the Association of Chief Police Officers, the
Minister of State at the Home Office (Mr Michael), the Police
Complaints Authority and by lawyers representing people with complaints
against the police who had resorted to civil action.
2. Although most witnesses were at pains to emphasise
that only a small minority of officers were guilty of serious
misconduct-Sir Paul Condon spoke of perhaps between 100 and 250
such officers in the Met[2]-they
also made clear that the inability of existing complaints and
disciplinary procedures to deal effectively with wrongdoers tarnished
the reputation of the entire police service. It is, therefore,
in the interests of the overwhelming majority of honest police
officers-and the public as a whole-that this problem is robustly
addressed. That is the purpose of this report.
3. Changes to police disciplinary procedures have
been under formal reconsideration since the issue of a Consultation
Paper by the previous government in 1993.[3]
In order to complete our report in time to be able to affect
the new government's decisions on the outcome of the consultation,
we have conducted the inquiry relatively quickly. Nevertheless,
we have been able to take oral evidence not only from the Minister
of State at the Home Office (Mr Alun Michael MP) and the three
police associations for England and Wales,[4]
but also from the Police Complaints Authority, the human rights
association Liberty, the Police Action Lawyers Group,[5]
the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Metropolitan Police
Commissioner. We received valuable written evidence[6]
from a number of other bodies (including HM Chief Inspector of
Constabulary) and individuals. We are very grateful to all those
who contributed to the inquiry. We regret that we have not been
able in the time available to cover all the points which have
been raised, including some issues on which we specifically invited
evidence.[7]
4. We wish straightaway to emphasise our belief in
the honesty and integrity of the vast majority of police officers,
and our recognition of how difficult and challenging is the job
of police officer. Police officers are responsible for decisions
affecting the conduct of members of the public in ways that few
other job holders ever are. In the exercise of this responsibility
they face real and severe dangers-again, dangers which are not
faced in almost any other walk of life. These dangers have been
all too recently illustrated in the tragic death of PC Nina Mackay
in the course of her duties. We pay tribute to the way in which
the police carry out their tasks.
Existing disciplinary and complaints procedures
5. Police disciplinary procedures are described
in Part I of the Home Office Memorandum and are governed principally
by the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985, except for the procedures
relating to senior officers (officers above the rank of chief
superintendent).[8] The
main elements of the procedures are as follows.[9]
6. A disciplinary offence occurs if an officer commits
one of the offences listed in the Discipline Code (Schedule I
of the 1985 Regulations), although as the Home Office memorandum
says, "minor instances of poor performance and low level
discipline breaches are of course dealt with on a day to day basis
by supervisors by means of advice, warning or rebuke".[10]
Once information about a possible breach is received (from within
the force or from a complaint), the allegation is referred to
an investigating officer, who informs the subject of the accusation.
The accused officer may be suspended on full pay. During the
investigation the accused is not obliged to say anything, and
may be represented by a 'friend'. The investigating officer's
report is considered and, if it suggests that a criminal offence
has been committed, the evidence will be sent to the CPS who will
decide whether to prosecute in the normal way. If there is no
criminal prosecution, the chief officer or (normally) a deputy
will decide whether to establish a formal disciplinary hearing.
The accused may be legally represented at the hearing if it is
thought that the charge, if proved, is so serious that it would
justify one of the more serious penalties (dismissal, forced resignation,
reduction in rank). The hearing follows a broadly quasi-judicial
pattern and takes place before the chief constable or deputy;
the standard of proof applicable is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
If the charge is found proved, the officer conducting the hearing
will set a punishment; the officer can appeal to the chief constable
(if he or she had not chaired the hearing in the first place),
and then to the Home Secretary who will usually appoint a Tribunal
in cases where the more serious punishments have been imposed.
A punishment cannot be increased on appeal.
7. Police complaints procedures are described
in Part II of the Home Office Memorandum. They broadly consist
of additional stages and features to the disciplinary procedures.
On receipt of a complaint from the public the police are required
to "record" it.[11]
The matter may then be dealt with under the 'informal resolution'
procedure laid down by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
s. 85, under which an appointed officer and the complainant may
agree that a matter has been satisfactorily resolved without taking
the it through the full formal investigation and resolution procedure.
If it is not proceeded with in this way, then the police will
consider whether to refer it to the Police Complaints Authority
(PCA) for a decision as to whether the PCA will 'supervise' the
investigation. If the complaint concerns a death or serious injury
or a likely offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm
or corruption, then referral to the PCA is mandatory; the PCA
may also choose to call in a complaint not otherwise referred
to them. The police will then appoint an investigating officer
(IO); if the PCA has decided to supervise the case (which they
must do if it involves a death/serious injury) their approval
of the selection of investigating officer is needed. An investigation
then takes place in a similar way to non-complaint disciplinary
investigations.
8. On receipt of the investigating officer's report,
the chief constable will refer the matter to the CPS if a criminal
offence is suggested. If there is no criminal prosecution, the
chief officer will decide whether to establish a disciplinary
hearing. The PCA reviews all cases at this point (not just those
for which it has supervised the investigation). If the Authority
disagrees with a decision by the chief officer not to bring disciplinary
charges, then it may recommend that changes be brought;
if agreement is still not forthcoming, then it may direct
that charges be brought. If-by whatever route-disciplinary proceedings
are decided upon, then the procedures for the hearing and appeals
are the same as for non-complaint cases, except that if it is
a case where the Authority has directed that charges be
brought two PCA members (who have not hitherto been concerned
with the case) sit with the officer hearing the case.
9. Police authorities have a general interest in
the operation of the disciplinary and complaints procedures in
their force, under their general statutory duty to provide effective
policing. They are also, more specifically, charged with keeping
themselves informed about the workings of the complaints process
laid down in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, under
s. 95 of that Act. That section also places a similar duty on
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.
10. Since the launch of a Consultation paper in 1993,[12]
a debate has been taking place on reforms to the disciplinary
procedures. The principal aims of the proposals were to introduce
a system which would be more akin to normal employment law applicable
to employees in other fields. This included introducing a system
for dealing with poor performance or inefficiency (as opposed
to misconduct or an offence against the Discipline Code) . The
present Discipline Code would be replaced by a Code of Conduct,
so that charges would relate less specifically to whether precisely
defined events had taken place and were in breach of a disciplinary
rule and instead would relate more generally to whether the officer's
behaviour had fallen below required standards. Other significant
possible changes to the formal procedures including changes to
the 'right of silence' and to the burden of proof, and measures
to remove some of the causes for delay which currently exist.
Reforms were also proposed to the appeals process, involving
measures to speed up the process and to replace appeals to the
Home Secretary with a right of appeal to a Police Appeal Tribunal
(which would be restricted to cases where the more serous punishments
had been imposed). These proposals are set out in the Home Office
Memorandum.[13]
Current standards of behaviour in the police
11. Misbehaviour by police officers can range from
merely poor performance of their duties to extreme corruption.
Although there are current concerns about how poor performance
is dealt with, which we discuss later in this Report, it is obvious
that some officers will be weaker than others and the performance
of the weaker ones may be below required standards. But this
is the case in any large organisation and it is not the major
source of concern. Much more important is the extent to which
there is actual misconduct, in particular serious misconduct or
corruption. Clearly the current extent of misconduct is incapable
of precise measurement, but we consider it important to come to
some form of judgement if the significance of any weaknesses in
the disciplinary and complaints procedures is to be assessed.
12. Serious misconduct or corruption in the police
has been a major concern on various occasions in the past[14]
and it is tempting to argue that examples of problems given now
largely date from earlier periods and do not represent the current
situation. This was, broadly, the view put forward by the Police
Superintendents' Association who stated "Traditionally the
service has been free from widespread corruption and where corruption
has been found, e.g. in the 1970s, it has been effectively dealt
with."[15] But
some Chief Constables, as we have already noted above, have expressed
more concern. ACPO, in their written and oral evidence, spoke
of a "small minority" of corrupt officers.[16]
The thrust of ACPO's position was not that misconduct-at least
serious misconduct and corruption-was widespread but that they
were unable to deal with those officers who were guilty
of serious misconduct. This point was taken up by the Police
Federation, who suggested that individual ACPO officers were deliberately
exaggerating the extent of current misconduct so as to back up
their case for stronger disciplinary powers,[17]
and the Police Superintendents' Association took a similar view
of ACPO officers' claims.[18]
13. We have already quoted the tribute paid by Sir
Paul Condon to the vast majority of his officers, in his oral
evidence to the Committee, together with his reference to the
minority and what he considered to be his inability to deal with
them.[19] In terms of
the numbers involved he went on to say:
"If I were seeking to quantify it, I would say
it is less numerically than in the seventies. I do not believe
and I hope it is not as serious as Sir Robert Mark's nearly 500
officers who left the Met under a cloud. If you want a percentage
figure on it, I would hope and believe it is contained somewhere
between 0.5 per cent and one per cent. There is a spurious precision
to that but I would say somewhere between 100 officers and 250
officers would be the range in which we are operating. However
tiny that is in percentage terms, the damage they can do to the
reputation and the morale of the overwhelming majority of officers
is enormous."[20]
14. Some observers from outside the police service
suggested that the situation is worse than the picture painted
by the police. Much of this evidence concerns not so much widespread
serious corruption[21]
but, rather, widespread patterns of misconduct in individual areas
of police activity. Specific areas[22]
drawn to our particular attention were racial discrimination,
and excessive use of force in effecting arrests or keeping order
(often late at night where the subjects of the police action may
be influenced by alcohol or drugs and where there may be few witnesses)
leading in some tragic cases to deaths in police custody. There
were some suggestions that, whatever the actual level of misconduct,
it may be on a slightly rising trend. Sir Paul Condon, in his
written submission, stated that there were signs of a re-emerging
problem some two and a half years ago; and the Chairman of the
Police Complaints Authority suggested that in respect of serious
corruption "there is no doubt that we are on an upward cycle",[23]
although there is as yet no evidence of this in the number of
disciplinary proceedings completed.[24]
15. These views on the level and trends of police
misconduct are inevitably somewhat impressionistic. What perhaps
has changed, and changed for the better, is that there
is a higher level of overall recognition of the continuing importance
of dealing with these issues. This pressure comes in part from
within the police. For example, Sir Paul Condon in his written
evidence stated that "The nature of the problem is such that
tackling and preventing serious misconduct need to be a constant
part of police strategy. The system must allow for the effective
investigation and punishment of wrongdoers".[25]
The importance of stamping out corruption in the police as part
of the struggle against organised crime has also been noted.[26]
But pressure to raise standards comes also from outside the police.
A number of different witnesses[27]
observed that the public are nowadays more likely than in the
past to complain and there is arguably a greater recognition that
this applies as much to the police-or even more to the police[28]
-than to other areas of society. Overall, although we reiterate
that only a small minority of police officers is involved, we
conclude that there are current grounds for concern about the
behaviour of some police officers. This small minority is damaging
to the overwhelming majority who are honest. The importance of
dealing with the problem, if the confidence of the public in the
police is to be maintained, must be recognised.
1 Q
930. Back
2 Q
945. Back
3 Our
predecessor Committees have examined these issues a number of
times in the past; 4th Report 1981-82 HC 98; 4th Report 1987-88
HC 583; 5th Report 1988-89 HC 395; 4th Report 1991-92 HC 179;
oral evidence session 15 December 1995 HC 112. Back
4 Association
of Chief Police Officers; the Police Superintendents' Association;
the Police Federation; this report covers England and Wales only,
since policing in Scotland and Northern Ireland is not within
the responsibilities of the Home Secretary. Back
5 Together
with a representative from Birnberg & Co (Solicitors). Back
6 See
pp. lxvii and lxviii. Back
7 Among
the more important issues we have not covered are appeals procedures
(including the issue of whether appeal boards should be able to
increase punishments as well as reduce them), the detailed interrelationship
between criminal and disciplinary procedures, and treatment of
special constables. Back
8 All
the consideration of disciplinary report and complaints issues
in this report excludes the procedures relating to senior officers. Back
9 Some
of the provisions relating to the ranks of the investigating officer
or officers conducting the hearing are different in the Metropolitan
Police; some elements of the appeals process are also different. Back
10 Appendix
1Part I, para 5; the Discipline Code is printed at Annex A to
Part I of Appendix 1. Back
11 Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s. 85(1); problems which arise
over the meaning of "record" in this context are discussed
below (see para 47 ff.) Back
12 Review
of Police Discipline Procedures
Home Office Consultation Paper, 1993. Back
13 Appendix
1, Part I, paras 21-40 and Annex B. Back
14 Sir
Paul Condon spoke of significant corruption problems in the sixties
and early seventies (Appendix 9). Back
15 Appendix
4, para 1.1. Back
16 Q
2. Back
17 Appendix
5, section 1; editorial in Police, August 1997; see also
Appendix 7, section 6. Back
18 Appendix
4 para 1.7. Back
19 Q
930. Back
20 Q
945. Back
21 Though
Mr Martin Short, author of a number of books concerning police
corruption, was of the opinion that corruption in the Metropolitan
Police was not cyclical but was "chronic, endemic, indeed
systemic. All that is cyclical is its most virulent outbreaks"
(See List of Unprinted Memoranda). Back
22 See
Q 293 (Mr Cragg, Liberty), Commission for Racial Equality (Appendix
22). Other areas included sexist or homophobic attitudes in the
police, improper use of connections involving freemasonry, and
use of informers. Back
23 Q
368. Back
24 Police
Discipline and Complaints
Home Office Statistical Bulletin 21/97 Table 5. Back
25 Appendix
9. Back
26 Police
Review, article pp. 14-15
10 October 1997. Back
27 ACPO,
Q 2; PCA, Appendix 10 para 2; Mr Wadham, Q 268. Back
28 The
Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society, for example, observed
that "The police are unique because they are entitled to
use force to uphold the law. In addition severe consequences
can result for members of the public if evidence is fabricated.
In these circumstances it is essential that the public have confidence
that allegations of abuse are properly investigated and that when
substantiated appropriate action is taken" (Appendix 24,
para 2). Back
|