Report
1. In March of this year we considered the actions
of Sussex Police in relation to their issuing of a Police Information
Notice (PIN) to Tim Loughton, the Member for East Worthing and
Shoreham.[1] We considered
whether their actions and the issuing of that PIN to Mr Loughton
was a breach of parliamentary privilege. We concluded that:
We accept that Sussex
Police did not intend to commit a contempt. Indeed they did not
consider the matter at all until far too late. While they have
refused to consider that their actions in sending the PIN were
in themselves inappropriate, they have apologised if they committed
a contempt and asked for advice. They have clearly made a serious
mistake, and have acknowledged as much. By the time this Report
is published the two principal officers will have retired.
Under the circumstances
we consider it would be appropriate for the PIN issued to Mr Loughton
to be withdrawn. This is of course a matter for Sussex Police.
We are not qualified to judge whether it would be appropriate
for the police to issue a further PIN in relation to the other
behaviour referred to, although we note it would presumably be
based on the actions of unknown persons and on letters which they
themselves have said they do not suggest were sent by Mr Loughton.
Sussex Police should inform the Committee of the decision that
they make and the reason for it. We will not consider this matter
closed until they do so.[2]
2. Giles York, the Temporary Chief Constable of Sussex
Police, informed us in March 2014 that the force "accept[ed]
the findings of the report in full" and had withdrawn the
PINs from Mr Loughton, and from the other parties involved in
the dispute. In addition, he told us that "in order to learn
from this incident" Sussex Police had "commissioned
a review of their policy relating to Police Information Notices."[3]
We are grateful for the seriousness with which Sussex Police addressed
this matter and for the apology which they have offered to this
Committee.[4]
3. In June 2014 Sussex Police sent us a copy of their
Review of Police Information Notices (PIN).[5]
That review specifically examined the:
background of the PIN Notice, its application
in accordance with the "ACPO Guidance Practice Advice on
Investigating Stalking and Harassment 2009" and determines
the level of training, knowledge and understanding amongst Sussex
Police officers when issuing Police Information Notices.[6]
The review concluded that "Sussex Police appears
to have a balanced approach to issuing PINs that mostly meets
ACPO guidance. There are clear areas of improvement".[7]
While it did not look at the specific case we had considered,
the review sought to evaluate Sussex Police's general policy in
relation to PINs and the associated flaws which had come to light
in the course of our inquiry.
4. We
are satisfied with the way in which Sussex Police, under Mr York's
leadership, have sought to address the problems which we raised.
We see no need for further action in this case.
1 Committee of Privileges, First Report of Session
2013-14, Actions of Sussex Police, HC 1021 Back
2
Committee of Privileges, First Report of Session 2013-14, Actions
of Sussex Police, HC 1021, paras 36-37 Back
3
Letter from temporary Chief Constable Giles York to Kevin Barron,
Chair of the Committee of Privileges, dated 14 March 2014 Back
4
Letter from temporary Chief Constable Giles York to Kevin Barron,
Chair of the Committee of Privileges, dated 14 March 2014 Back
5
Sussex Police, Stalking and Harassment: Review of Police Information
Notices (PIN), April 2014 Back
6
Sussex Police review dated April 2014, p 4 Back
7
Sussex Police review dated April 2014, p 23 Back
|
