Home Affairs CommitteeSupplementary written evidence submitted by Ian Johnston QPM, Gwent Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC 15a)

LETTER FROM IAN JOHNSTON QPM, POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR GWENT,
TO THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, 3 JULY 2013

Thank you for inviting me to give evidence before your Committee yesterday.

Before addressing the issue of legal fees, I wish to make a few important points.

Agreement

First, having reviewed a note of Mrs Napier’s evidence, I am glad that Mrs Napier was able to confirm that the following suggestions made by some politicians are untrue:

that Mrs Napier received a “payoff”: she did not; and

that Mrs Napier was “gagged” or forced to sign a confidentiality agreement: she was not.

Bullying

Second, I was shocked to hear that Mrs Napier had accused me of bullying her.

I most certainly did not tell Mrs Napier that I would “humiliate and dismiss” her if she did not retire. The very opposite is true. My script for the conversation with Mrs Napier on 23 May 2013, which I read verbatim, records that I said: “My intention is not to humiliate or upset you but we need to be clear I do want you to retire in the next month.” I provided Mrs Napier with the script the following day at her request and I also provided it to the Committee along with my letter dated 14 June 2013.

Between my taking office and Mrs Napier’s retirement, Mrs Napier never once raised a concern with me that I was bullying her or treating her in a manner that she found unacceptable. I can state categorically that I did not bully Mrs Napier.

Reasons for giving Mrs Napier the Opportunity to Retire

As I explained, I did not give Mrs Napier the option to retire because of a clash of personalities or because I thought she did not agree with the concept of PCCs. It was because she was positively hostile to the office of PCC and frustrated my abilities to exercise the statutory responsibilities that the people of Gwent have entrusted in me. On 23 May 2013 I explained to Mrs Napier that:

(a)In my judgement you have lost the confidence of the public of Gwent and of your officers and staff;

(b)I find your managerial style to be unacceptably dismissive, abrupt and unhelpful;

(c)You have failed appropriately to manage external and internal relations;

(d)You are deeply hostile to the very concept of the office of PCC.

These concerns developed and intensified over my first few months as PCC and came to a head in April 2013 when UNISON informed me that they were considering lodging a formal complaint against the Chief Constable.

Legal Fees

I apologise that I did not have the precise figure for legal fees at my fingertips yesterday. This was not a question that I had been pre-warned about by the Committee. As promised, the figures are set out below.

It must be understood that it was entirely necessary for me to obtain legal advice in relation to this matter, principally because:

Regardless of the context, I was dealing with the departure of a senior public servant paid over £130,000 per annum + benefits;

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is a new and complex piece of legislation, the relevant parts of which have yet to be interpreted by the senior courts.

It would have been foolish of me or anyone in my position to have proceeded without legal advice. Indeed, I note that Mrs Napier too had the benefit of legal advice (Kingsley Napley). Acting without legal advice could have exposed my office and therefore the people of Gwent to a claim for judicial review and/or damages. You will recall that Mrs Napier’s evidence was that she should have been paid more on her departure, something that my lawyers ensured did not happen.

I asked my Chief Executive to find the best qualified lawyers for a reasonable cost. She sought recommendations and engaged the QC with the best reputation nationally in the field of police law who appeared successfully in both the recent Avon & Somerset and Lincolnshire PCC cases, together with a junior barrister. My Chief Executive decided to save costs by not engaging the services of a solicitor’s firm also.

The QC’s fees were £400 per hour and the junior barrister’s fees were £175 per hour (both plus VAT). I was told that the barristers in question advise Chief Constables and PCCs across the country and that their rates were reasonable for the work in question. I had and have no reason to doubt that.

The legal work was in three phases:

(1)Advising on my options and the process to adopt prior to 23 May 2013;

(2)Negotiating with Mrs Napier’s solicitors thereafter until 7 June 2013;

(3)Advising on response to Home Affairs Committee’s letter dated 12 June 2013.

The global figure to date is £16,522.50.1

I understand that Mrs Napier/CPOSA’s legal fees at Stage 2 were significant.

Involving the PCP

As I explained, Mrs Napier chose to retire before I commenced the process under Schedule 8 Part 2 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. I would have commenced that process had Mrs Napier not retired. The PCP would have been fully involved in that process (as would HMIC and Mrs Napier herself, since their involvement is enshrined in legislation).

The legislation is not unclear on the point at which the PCP becomes involved. It sets out a prescribed role for the PCP and their role is to become involved at a certain stage after the process begins. The process did not begin in this case. I am confident that the legal advice I received on this point is correct and I note that Mrs Napier’s lawyers at no stage questioned my approach with regard to involving the PCP.

Further Evidence

You also asked me to provide evidence of the following:

The occasions on which I expressed my concerns over Mrs Napier’s performance;

My concerns over Mrs Napier’s approach to recording crime/crime statistics.

I will endeavour to provide this information within 14 days.

Yours sincerely

 

Ian Johnston QPM
Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent