APPENDIX 2
Information supplied by Greater Manchester
Police
(a) LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE
FROM MR DAVID WILMOT QPM, CHIEF CONSTABLE, GREATER MANCHESTER
POLICE
Thank you for your letter of 3 February 1998,
which I have now had an opportunity to consider.
As you would no doubt expect, I take very seriously
any allegations of improper behaviour by police officers. In common
with my colleagues in the Association of Chief Police Officers,
I agree that there should be thorough and efficient mechanisms
to deal with any such behaviour if it arises. You will be aware,
of course, of the views which have been expressed by ACPO about
these matters in recent months and the evidence which it has submitted.
That debate continues, but I trust that you accept my determination
to address any issues relating to the discipline regime, actual
or perceived.
As a Chief Constable with a statutory responsibility
for complaints and discipline, I can agree with your suggestion
that civil claims represent a mechanism for addressing alleged
improper behaviour, but impropriety must be primarily a matter
for a rigorous and fair complaints and discipline system. Civil
actions against the police are a private law remedy which is available
to any member of the public who has sufficient evidence to justify
such a course of action, but they are essentially money claims.
The motives for bringing such a claim, and the claimant's desired
ends, are not necessarily identical to those which apply in the
complaints process.
In the third paragraph of your letter you have
set out three specific matters which you believe to be of public
interest and I will try to respond to them in turn:
1. As I understand it, claims experience
is only one of the criteria which an insurer would take into account
in fixing the level of premium. In so far as this is an issue
of general application, I would have thought that an overview
of the national scene is unlikely to be affected in a material
way by one specific case to which a confidentiality clause happens
to apply. Indeed, the opposite could be said to be the casethere
are surely dangers in attempting to draw general conclusions from
a particular matter. The claim in question was covered by a policy
of insurance but, since 1992, Greater Manchester Police has borne
most of its own risk.
2. As far as I am aware, it is entirely
usual for a contract of insurance to contain a clause which gives
the insurer ultimate control of any claim and of any proceedings
which are then commenced. This may, as you say, be an issue in
some quarters but it is a matter of law to which we submit when
the policy is put into effect. In that respect, the insurance
position in relation to the police is no different from other
insured individuals or bodies.
I should also add that there are many factors
which influence the settlement of a civil claim. When the test
of liability is based upon the balance of probabilities, it is
important to consider carefully the risks of litigation and assess
the prospects of success. It is also important to weigh the cost
of litigation against the benefits to be derived from contesting
an action, even if one were ultimately to be successful. Cost
is not limited to direct expenditure, and the indirect cost of
police resources for civil trials (usually with a Jury and therefore
lengthy) are considerable. Sometimes the conclusion is that those
resources can be put to better use. In addition, any Chief Constable
will take into account the morale of officers and the need to
maintain public confidence.
However, whenever a claimant decides that what
he or she really wants is a monetary remedy then these issues
have to be faced. Civil actions of the type to which we are referring
are claims for compensation and the civil Courts will rarely (if
ever) be in a position to determine the truth in absolute terms.
In that context, and bearing in mind that public bodies need to
demonstrate commercial awareness, it seems to me that settlements
without any admission of liability are understandable and acceptable.
3. I must point out immediately that the
settlement of the Kevin Taylor civil action did not relate to
the Stalker inquiry. Mr Taylor's arrest and prosecution arose
from an allegation of fraud, to which Mr Stalker had no relevance
whatsoever. It is a fact that Mr Taylor (amongst others) tried
to portray a sinister connection between these two matters, but
no such speculation has ever been substantiated despite all that
has been said on the subject. I concede that there was a lot of
interest shown in the affairs surrounding Mr Stalker, but I do
not believe that it constitutes a public interest principle which
should affect the decision of the parties to keep confidential
the settlement terms in the Kevin Taylor civil action.
The desire to keep confidential the details
of a particular settlement should in no way be interpreted as
an unwillingness to accept the concept of greater openness in
public affairs. Even public bodies (though here there was also
the involvement of an insurance company) are entitled to exercise
some discretion in deciding what should properly be in the public
domain. Most of the details of this case have already been open
to public scrutiny in one way or another. I should also point
out my accountability to the Police Authority for Greater Manchester
who, through a special committee, were kept advised of the proceedings.
Your Committee will no doubt have received a substantial volume
of evidence and submissions and I wonder if the final few details
of one extraordinary case can reasonably be said to be likely
to influence materially the important deliberations which you
are carrying out.
As a matter of principle, I do have difficulty
with the concept of a broad generalisation that it is "proper"
for the terms of a settlement to be made public. There is in my
opinion a public interest in maintaining the right of freely contracting
parties, acting in a lawful manner and in good faith, to have
the integrity of their agreements preserved. Thank you for setting
out in detail the reasons for your request, but I have to say
that I am not persuaded that I should depart from an important
point of principle. I trust that by setting out my own views in
some detail you will feel able to accept what I see as the substantial
reasons for my stance.
David Wilmot QPM DL BSc
Chief Constable
11 February 1998
(b) FURTHER LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE COMMITTEE FROM MR DAVID WILMOT, CHIEF CONSTABLE, GREATER
MANCHESTER POLICE
I am replying to your letter of 11 May 1998,
and specifically with reference to your request for additional
information concerning the origins of the confidentiality clause
in the Schedule to the Settlement of the civil action by Kevin
Taylor against the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
and others.
In my previous letter to you dated 11 February
1998, and in all previous correspondence on this matter with the
Home Office officials, we have made it clear that the confidentiality
clause was an integral part of the agreement to settle the action,
at no time implying that it ". . . rests on a clause in the
insurance contract" as in your Clerk's letter of 24 April
1998.
I am advised by the solicitor who acted for
me in this case that the initiative to include a clause requiring
confidentiality came from Greater Manchester Police, but it was
certainly not made a condition precedent of the settlement terms.
It was put to Kevin Taylor's representatives as one of the settlement
terms and it was agreed by them without further discussion. In
light of the tremendous press attention the case was attracting,
and our inability to have matters tested in open court because
of commercial considerations, it was considered desirable to bring
the whole matter to a final conclusion and avoid further uninformed
speculation.
David Wilmot QPM DL BSc
Chief Constable
18 May 1998
(c) FURTHER
LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE FROM MR DAVID WILMOT QPM,
CHIEF CONSTABLE, GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE
I refer to my appearance before the Home Affairs
Select Committee on Tuesday of this week and its request for the
global sum of money paid in what is known as "the Taylor
case".
As suggested by you, I have taken further legal
advice from my solicitors, who are of the opinion that the disclosure
by me of this sum of money would appear to be a pragmatic solution
which should allow the Committee to make constructive progress.
The legal advice states to me that it is important
that, in disclosing any information to the Committee, it should
be made clear that it is being done on the basis that:
(a) it is in response to requests from that
Committee;
(b) it is for the information and purposes
only of that Select Committee;
(c) the Chief Constable has tried to maintain
the integrity of the confidentiality clause;
(d) the disclosure is on the terms of the
privilege which the Chief Constable can claim as a result of giving
evidence before such a Committee.
In adding together the global sum for damages
and for costs of all the parties, ie Taylor, Britton, Bowley and
McCann and Greater Manchester Police, my legal advisers calculate
the figure to be £10,593,573.90. I also enclose, as promised,
a table showing the global settlement figures for claims against
Greater Manchester Police in the year indicated.
I trust that this information is in accord with
the Committee's wishes and enables you to progress your enquiry.
David Wilmot QPM DL BSc
Chief Constable
2 July 1998
GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE
PUBLIC LIABILITY
CLAIMS
Payments including damages and costs made
in the financial years 1993-94 to 1997-98
Financial Year<ntTotal Payments £
| 1993-1994 | 305,019
| |
| 1994-1995 | 2,070,014
| |
| 1995-1996 | 5,723,901
| |
| 1996-1997 | 1,289,567
| |
| 1997-1998 | 2,009,565
| |
(d) STATISTICS PROVIDED BY GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE
Analysis of claims made by members of the public, divided
into the years in which the incident, relevant to the claim, occurred.
| Year Incident Occurred
|
Types of Claim/Torts | 1993-94
| 1994-95 | 1995-96 | 1996-97
| 1997-98 | Total |
| No.% | No.%
| No.% | No.% |
No.% | No.% |
(A) Assault | 4217 |
3415 | 5324 | 3829
| 1031 | 17721 |
(B) Claims with multiple torts which include an element of assault
| 7530 | 5525 | 6228
| 2821 | 413 |
22426 |
(C) Negligence
| 177
| 2411 | 157 | 129
| 516 | 738 |
(D) Claims of false imprisonment and unlawful arrest which may include other torts, but exclude assault
| 5823 | 7936 | 7433.5
| 4131 | 1031 | 26231
|
(E) Property damage
| 208
| 94 | 63 |
97 | 26 | 465
|
(F) Vehicle damage
| 3112
| 73 | 10.5
| 11 | 13 |
415 |
(G) Other claims which include a variety of minor matters
| 83 | 136 |
94 | 22 | 00
| 324 |
Total | 251100 | 221100
| 220100 | 131100 | 32100
| 855100 |
Figures Extracted as at 1 April 1998
|