House of Commons - Home Affairs - Minutes of Evidence

Select Committee on Home Affairs Minutes of Evidence

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 case—there 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

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;

(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



© Parliamentary copyright 1998	Prepared 2 September 1998