Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-
179)
TUESDAY 30 JUNE 1998
COUNCILLOR STEPHEN
MURPHY AND
MR DAVID
WILMOT
160. Why was it that you were not certain as
to what the level of the cover was?
(Councillor Murphy) Because there was an argument
going on with the insurers and our legal people as to what policy
this case should have actually been fought under.
161. Can I take you then more to the facts of
the general principle of the case. You wrote to the Chairman of
the Committee in February and you said this: "Whilst the
Chief Constable and the insurers briefed the Authority as a matter
of courtesy on the progress of the case, the eventual settlement
did not require the Authority's formal approval."
(Councillor Murphy) That is correct.
162. May I put it to you, Councillor, that suggests
that you were not really involved in this at all, it was merely
just on an ad hoc basis, a casual relationship, and really it
was all down to the Chief Constable, it was his bailiwick, his
problem, and just as a matter of courtesy he kept you informed.
Whereas you have been telling us today during these proceedings
this morning that you had to decide whether to pursue this case
or not.
(Councillor Murphy) We, as the police authority, had
to decide whether we were going to take this case any further.
If the insurers, as they were telling us quite openly, were not
prepared to go beyond the maximum they felt the cover was there
for, the £6 million, we then had to make a decision as members
of the police authority as to whether we wanted to pursue the
case in open court ourselves and take on board the liability ourselves.
163. So you and your sub-committee were intimately
involved in this issue?
(Councillor Murphy) Me and my sub-committee were involved
in lengthy discussions over a long period of time with the insurers
whilst this case was being prepared and then whilst this case
was being delivered and started to be delivered in the courts.
We were kept updated with those insurers as to the implications,
the consequences. We were kept clearly in the picture as to what
kind of case they had and at no stage when I sat down with the
insurers did they give me any indication that there was not a
case to answer. That was why we were making the decisions that
we were doing at the time.
164. Who took the decision eventually not to
proceed?
(Councillor Murphy) Not to go any further with the
case?
165. Yes.
(Councillor Murphy) The insurers had already made
the decision that they were effectively going to settle.
166. And you just kind of rubber-stamped it?
(Councillor Murphy) No, we did not. We
then sat down and discussed the implications of that happening
and the implications of us taking that case to the end. Having
faced the consequences that the plain and simple fact was if we
took the case to the end and won there was nowhere we could claim
our costs from we then had to make a conscious decision as to
whether we were prepared to take four, five, six, ten, who knows,
how many millions of pounds out of the police budget to actually
fund an individual case. We had to make an economic decision that
we were not prepared to do that because that would have had a
serious detrimental effect on the way that Greater Manchester
would have been policed. I know for a fact that the Chief Constable
would have been very concerned if we had been going down that
route. 167. In other words, you did feel that you had a responsibility,
a stewardship, for the public funds because if you disagreed with
the insurance company and you had continued to urge the Chief
Constable to continue with the action there would have been public
money at stake.
(Councillor Murphy) Exactly, that is what I have said.
168. So you accept that. If you accept that
you are the interface between the public and the police whose
job it is to carry out their day to day responsibilities without
interference from the politicians, it seems curious that you did
have this highly developed sense of concern about the public funds
involved had you gone on but you did not feel that it was right
that you should have been informed exactly how much was at stake.
I find it very difficult to accept, Councillor, that you did not
know and it was not discussed at your committee as to what the
level of settlement might be because otherwise how could you determine
whether it was right to proceed or not?
(Councillor Murphy) Within a high and a low figure
I knew what it was. I knew what the maximum was and I knew what
the minimum was. Somewhere in between was a figure that was settled
at.
169. The maximum figure, was that acceptable
to you?
(Councillor Murphy) No figure was acceptable. It was
a figure that in the end had to be something that we agreed to
make sure that we saved further public money.
170. Do you not think that—
(Councillor Murphy) If we were going to stand and
argue that no settlement should be made the only alternative that
we had as a police authority was then to run the case in the hope
if we ran the case our legal position on the insurance was correct.
That was another case we would have had to have fought with the
insurers and, like anything, they would have fought that to the
death as well. If we had gone down the route we could have ended
up going down the route of fighting the case to the end and winning,
paying all of the costs whatever mega amounts they might have
been and arguing with the insurers and fighting another case with
the insurers and losing that with the consequences of picking
up the costs of that case. That is what we were actually looking
at. It may have been that we were looking at not a figure of five,
six, ten million pounds but we could have been looking at a figure
of 15 or 20 million pounds at the end of the day. We did not know.
That was the difficulty that we have when we are talking with
legal people. They will tell you that you have got the strongest
case in the world but at the end of the day they still get paid.
171. Can I just put one last question. Can I
just put it to you then that you really have got the worst of
both worlds in this and it might have been better if you had come
clean upfront about this in the first place. What advice would
you give to other authorities faced with the same set of circumstances?
(Councillor Murphy) I think other authorities at the
end of the day will make their own decisions on these issues.
They will judge what they feel is the right thing to do at the
time. That is one of the difficulties you have got with any of
these cases, you never really know what you will do at the time
and people will always criticise you. At the end of the day we
thought we had done the best that we could for the public purse.
We did think that the thing had gone by the way but, as I said,
you decided to raise it again.
Mr Singh: That is at the end of the day, not
at the beginning of the day.
Mr Linton
172. Just a few points of clarification. You
said that since 1992 you carried most of your own insurance risk
or substantially more?
(Councillor Murphy) No, we do not carry most of our
own insurance risk, we carry an amount of our own insurance risk.
The majority is carried through the insurance.
173. To the extent that you are now carrying
more of your insurance risk, you were making the point that is
saving you money. Would you say it has also meant that you have
been able to pursue more actions?
(Mr Wilmot) Yes, because we have had greater control
over the decision making process. Sometimes you get sued for what
is a significant amount to the individual concerned but in terms
of our total budget is negligible, an amount of £15 or £20
for damage to a door on an entry that the officers ought not to
have made or have made but are still being sued then the insurance
company will settle that. On a commercial basis quite often it
is not worth paying a legal individual to fight it.
174. In other words the insurance companies
were backing off cases that you were able to carry through?
(Mr Wilmot) Yes, and in some cases where before we
did not have the final say on whether the strength of our case
was such that it should be pursued—it is very similar to
industrial tribunals as well—it costs an awful amount of
money before a tribunal even sits. As soon as you get a summons
on a civil action, depending on what it is, you can expend on
hidden costs really because you have to divert staff from their
normal duty, to start to prepare papers to give to your legal
people to tell you whether you fight the case or you do not.
175. Would you say to some extent you have been
able to call the bluff of potential plaintiffs in a way insurance
companies have not been able to?
(Mr Wilmot) I do not think it is a question of calling
anyone's bluff. What we have tried to do, as a force, is where
we have made a mistake to admit that straight away to avoid legal
action. If, for example—it may sound a bit trite but it
is part of our way of saying sorry—if we have accidentally
entered someone's house when it should have been the house next
door, if there has been a break we try to get that repaired and
maybe a bunch of flowers to the individual concerned and an apology
from us. That is good common public policy. All the time what
we are trying to do—not just myself but the colleagues in
the rest of the United Kingdom—is trying to reduce the incidents
in the first place because prevention is better than cure. But
where we are clearly at fault: one of the cases where the plaintiff
put a confidentiality clause in, we admitted fairly promptly that
there was a liability and paid money into court. So we do all
that to try to keep the costs of the litigation down. We have
reviewed our administration. We have talked with the clerks, the
Police Authority, and altered our legal advice system internally
within the force all with a view to stream-lining civil actions
and claims against Greater Manchester Police and, therefore, reducing
the amount of public money that is being spent. So it is prevention,
trying to stop the actions that lead to the actions in the first
place, and then a whole series of administration.
176. Have you been able to reduce the number
of claims? Can you give us an estimate of the number of claims
you have settled?
(Mr Wilmot) I can. The number is very difficult.
177. Can you break it down into where you have
admitted liability and where you have not?
(Mr Wilmot) It is very difficult because, as you are
well aware, a plaintiff has six years in which to register a particular
case. However, I notice that the most common claims against us,
31 per cent of our totals are claims of false imprisonment and
unlawful arrest, which may include torts but exclude assault.
The next highest are claims with multiple torts, which include
an element of assault. This is 26 per cent. 21 per cent are assaults.
178. This is out of a total figure of how much?
(Mr Wilmot) 21 per cent. I am talking for the years
1993 to 1998, 177 actions for assault. 224 actions for multiple
torts, which include an element of assault. 73 actions for negligence.
262 claims of false imprisonment and unlawful arrest. 46 for property
damage. 41 for vehicle damage and 32 for other claims.
179. These are not broken down by year? These
are over a five-year period?
(Mr Wilmot) They are broken down by year. I can leave
this copy for you.
Chairman: Leave it with the Clerk, thank you.
| 
