Appendices

Appendix One – The Secretariat Team
Appendix Two – The Inquiry Process
Appendix Three – Terms of Reference and Commissioning Brief
Appendix Four – The Witnesses
Appendix Five – Abbreviations

Appendix One – The Secretariat Team

Amanda Kelly Secretary to the Inquiry
Graham Spencer Assistant Secretary
Martin Smith Clifford Chance LLP
Kaspar Nazeri Clifford Chance LLP
Selena Anderson
Helen Richards
Shakeela Aziz
Edward Smith

Clifford Chance LLP were Solicitors to the Inquiry. Michael Smyth was the partner-in-charge.

Other professional support was provided by:

Citigate Communications
Netfundi
The Work Foundation
Dennis McGookin
Bernard Postles, QPM
Dennis Roberts
Precision Creative Services
Amanda Kelly is an Associate of Solace Enterprises Ltd

Photo of the Inquiry team

Standing left to right: Shakeela Aziz, Edward Smith, Selena Anderson, Graham Spencer, Amanda Kelly, Helen Richards, Martin Smith, Kaspar Nazeri.
Seated left to right: Sir Anthony Burden, Sir William Morris, Anesta Weekes QC.

Appendix Two – The Inquiry Process

1. The Inquiry was established as an independent and impartial inquiry by the MPA, which set out its terms of reference. The Members of the Inquiry, Inquiry Secretary and Inquiry Solicitors were independent of the MPA, the MPS and all other organisations and individuals who were likely to wish to contribute to the Inquiry process.

2. The Secretary to the Inquiry invited written submissions from individuals and organisations which the Inquiry believed might be able to assist them in their task. The Inquiry also invited written submissions from any interested organisations, groups and individuals who believed they had relevant information falling within its terms of reference.

3. The Inquiry then considered the written submissions it had received, and invited the individuals and organisations that it believed could assist further to do so by giving oral evidence at a hearing.

4. The Inquiry received extensive written submissions and heard in total from 109 witnesses at its hearings, the first of which was held on 18 February 2004. Of these, Inquiry Members had further questions for 10 witnesses, who attended the Inquiry to give evidence a second time. Hearings were held in public, except in a small number of cases where the Inquiry was anxious to protect the identity of individuals. All questions were asked by Members of the Inquiry.

5. The Inquiry also held a forum for women in the MPS, attended by approximately 40 officers and staff.

6. Individual Inquiry Members visited 14 police stations in MPS borough operational command units, the Hendon Training Centre, New Scotland Yard and other central London MPS buildings. They spoke to groups of officers and members of staff working there.

7. In addition, the Inquiry spent a day with each of the Greater Manchester Police Service, the Merseyside Police Service and the West Midlands Police Service.

8. The Inquiry considered nine cases designated as ‘high profile cases’. In seven of these cases, the Inquiry was assisted by reports prepared by two former senior police officers, Dennis McGookin and Bernard Postles, and an experienced human resources practitioner, Dennis Roberts.

9. The Inquiry published all the submissions it received on its website, together with transcripts of its hearings and notes of its visits to police stations and other police services. The evidence and submissions were redacted where appropriate to prevent the identification of individuals.

10. The Inquiry’s last hearing was held on 6 July 2004. After that date, the Inquiry was engaged in considering the material before it and drafting its report. By mid-September 2004, the Inquiry had completed an initial draft of its report. Extracts of this draft were provided to any person or organisation who might feel that they were criticised in them. They were provided with an opportunity to respond in writing. The last of these responses were provided in October 2004. The Inquiry considered these responses carefully and made whatever changes the Inquiry felt were necessary to the draft, before finalising its report.

Appendix Three – Terms of Reference and Commissioning Brief

Terms of Reference

The Metropolitan Police Authority, pursuant to its powers and duties under the Police Act 1996, the Local Government Act 1972, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, has appointed Sir William Morris OJ (Chairperson), Sir Anthony Burden O St J, QPM, and Ms Anesta Weekes QC to conduct an Inquiry with the following terms of reference:

1. To inquire into the conduct by the Metropolitan Police Service of the following matters in relation to police officers and police staff

Policies, procedures and practices for and resolution of complaints and allegations against individuals and grievances by individuals;
Policies, procedures and practices for and resolution of Employment Tribunal claims, in particular those claims involving allegations of race or other discrimination against the MPS; and
Policies, procedures and practices for and resolution of workplace conflicts falling short of allegations or grievances.

The Inquiry’s attention is drawn to points 1 to 8 in the Notes below.

2. In relation to matters outlined in 1 (i) (ii) and (iii) to establish whether the policies, practices, procedures and structure of the MPS in relation to those matters represent good effective practice in line with key strategies and the statutory obligations of the MPS and MPA under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and other relevant legislation.

3. In relation to matters outlined in 1 (i) (ii) and (iii) to establish whether the policies, practices, procedures and structure of the MPS in relation to those matters represent good effective practice when compared to other police forces and public service organisations.

4. To identify lessons to be learnt from the outcome of recent high profile cases (including recommendations made by the Gurpal Virdi Inquiry, and the outcome of the case involving Supt Dizaei).

5. To consider and make recommendations on the role of the Police Authority and its Members in relation to the consideration of high profile or sensitive cases, and the oversight of the performance of the MPS in relation to the matters covered by this Inquiry.

6. To publish a Report with its findings and recommendations.

Notes to terms of reference

The Authority asks the Inquiry to consider these matters in the context of the Authority’s strong support for the Commissioner’s philosophy on integrity and anti-corruption in the MPS.

The Authority invites the Inquiry to consider the following matters, amongst others.

Whether the arrangements within the MPS for making decisions on individual cases (including obtaining and considering legal advice) and for the review of decisions and progression of cases, are appropriate and effective.
Whether there are disparities in the treatment of black and other minority police officers in relation to grievance, complaint and disciplinary proceedings and hearings.
Whether the organisational structures and allocation of functions in these matters within the MPS is effective.
Whether appropriate consideration is given to early resolution of grievances and conflicts, through mediation/conciliation or an internal ombudsman or other restorative justice techniques, and whether there are adequate processes to achieve such resolution.
Whether there should be arrangements for employment tribunal claims, particularly those involving allegations of discrimination or harassment, to be subject to independent review as part of the MPS handling of such cases, in order to encourage and facilitate efforts to achieve resolution by agreement.
Whether it is possible for the investigation of complaints and allegations to be dealt with in a swifter, less bureaucratic and less resource intensive way, so that the investigative effort can be seen to be proportionate to the gravity of the allegation.
The extent to which the current requirements of the relevant legislation and regulations hinder the swift resolution of cases.
What progress has been made by the MPS on the implementation of recommendations from the Gurpal Virdi Inquiry

Commissioning brief

The Metropolitan Police Authority is the statutory body with responsibility to secure efficient and effective policing for London. The Authority sets the medium term strategy for policing London, publishes an annual policing plan setting out priorities and targets, and holds the Commissioner to account for the performance of the Metropolitan Police Service.

The Authority was created in July 2000 at the same time as the Greater London Authority. There are 23 Members of the MPA: 12 are nominated by the Mayor of London from amongst members of the Greater London Assembly, 4 are Magistrates, 6 are independent members and 1 is appointed by the Home Secretary.

The legal powers of the Authority are the same as other Police Authorities, under the Police Act 1996.

Following the case of Superintendent Dizaei, and a number of other high profile cases in recent years, the Authority has expressed serious concerns about perceptions of unfairness in the way that some internal investigations are handled by the MPS. Members of the Authority are aware of officers from ethnic and other minority groups within the MPS who feel vulnerable and discouraged by what they perceive to be discrimination and disproportionality in the way in which investigations are conducted. More generally, Members have also expressed concerns about the scale of the investigation of complaints against police in general, believing them sometimes to be out of proportion with the gravity of the matters complained of.

The Authority is also concerned whether the MPS deals as effectively as it could with internal conflicts and grievances, especially those involving allegations of discrimination.

The Authority reaffirms its strong support for the Commissioner’s philosophy that integrity is non-negotiable in the police service, and for the determination of the MPS to tackle corruption and impropriety by police officers.

Nevertheless, the Authority decided that, in the interests of public confidence in the MPS, there should be a comprehensive and independent inquiry into these matters. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have indicated their full support of the Authority’s decision.

The Authority is clear that this Inquiry should not be an inquiry into any individual case or investigation, though it accepts that the Inquiry Panel will want to identify and draw on any relevant lessons to be learnt from the handling of a number of cases, as well as taking account of the recommendations of the report into the case of Sgt Gurpal Virdi.

The Authority wishes the Inquiry to commence its work before the end of 2003 and to present its report as early as possible in 2004. If the Inquiry feels that it will be unable to complete its work by the end of March 2004, the Authority would wish to have an interim report with emerging conclusions.

The Inquiry will wish to have regard to

The statutory responsibilities of the Police Complaints Authority for the oversight of the police complaints process and for the supervision of investigation of certain categories of complaint/allegation.
The statutory responsibilities of the Independent Police Complaints Commission created by the Police Reform Act 2002 to succeed the PCA.

The Authority will meet the expenses of the Inquiry including the appointment of a Secretariat to the Inquiry and Solicitors to the Inquiry.

The Inquiry will not possess powers to compel witnesses. However, given that the Commissioner supports the Inquiry, it is anticipated that the MPS will give its full co-operation to the Inquiry. It is also expected that Metropolitan Police Staff Associations, representative groups of minority police officers and community stakeholder groups will wish to give evidence.

The Authority will leave the Inquiry to determine its own rules of procedure. The Authority expects the Inquiry to hold evidence taking sessions in public in order to engage with all stakeholders openly and transparently, but recognises that the Inquiry should be able to hold some sessions in private if there are good reasons to do so. The Authority also considers that stakeholders and parties should not, as a general rule, be legally represented.

Appendix Four – The Witnesses

The Inquiry would like to thank all the individuals and organisations who provided written submissions and came to give evidence at a hearing. Their contributions were invaluable.

The following witnesses provided written submissions and also gave evidence at hearings:

Sir John Stevens, Commissioner, MPS
Sir Ronnie Flanagan, HMIC
Sir Alistair Graham, PCA
Ian Bynoe, PCA
Wendy Towers, PCA
Commander Stephen Allen, MPS
Lord Harris of Haringey, MPA
Reshard Auladin, MPA
Cecile Wright, MPA
Ken Jones, Chief Constable of Sussex
Jane Stichbury, Chief Constable of Dorset
Nick Hardwick, IPCC
John Tate, IPCC
Jennifer Douglas Todd, IPCC
DAC Stephen Roberts, MPS
Commander Phillip Hagon, MPS
AC Bernard Hogan-Howe, MPS
Simon Marshall, MPS
Commander Shabir Hussain, MPS
George McAnuff, MPS
David Hamilton, MPS
Sandra Burrows, MPS
Esme Crowther, MPS
Robert Pull, CPA
Andrew Cameron, CPA
Kashmira Singh Mann, MPSA
Carole Howlett, ASWO
Clint Elliott, Police Federation of England and Wales
Jan Berry, Police Federation of England and Wales
Rene Barclay, CPS
Don Ratcliffe, Metropolitan Police Federation
Mr Glen Smyth, Metropolitan Police Federation
Andrea Earl, Metropolitan Police Federation
Robert Justham, MET-TUS
Sevi Yesildalli, MET-TUS
Russell Mills, MET-TUS
Bevan Powell, MBPA
Leroy Logan, MBPA
Gareth Reid, MBPA
Alfred John, MBPA
John Taylor, ACAS
Ray Powell, NBPA
David McFarlane, NBPA
Patricia McLeod, NBPA
Philip Aspey, PSAEW
Michael McAndrew, Metropolitan Police Superintendents’ Assn
Kevin Boyle, Metropolitan GPA
Mahommed Mahroof, AMP
Josephine Poole, JPA
Meryem Cast, MPS Turkish and Turkish Cypriot Assn
Kitty Hung, Metropolitan Police Chinese and S. E. Asian Assn
Franco Ianelli, Police Anglo-Italian Assn
Elizabeth Owsley, BAWP
AC Tarique Ghaffur
John Azah, IAG
Beverley Thompson, IAG
Ben Owusu, IAG
Alan Robinson, DSA
Mahesh Nandha, Metropolitan Police Hindu Assn
Stephen Banyard, Inland Revenue
John Middleton, Inland Revenue
Pat Samson, Inland Revenue
Anthony Murphy, PALG
Jane Deighton, PALG
Raj Bhatt, PALG
Baroness Henig, APA
Bertram Woolnough, APA
Sharon Pantry, APA
Janet Champion, H M Customs and Excise
Annie Purkis, H M Customs and Excise
William Pickup, H M Customs and Excise
Sarah Drury, Metropolitan Police Federation Women’s Committee
Lindsay Kitchener, Metropolitan Police Federation Women’s Committee
Chief Inspector Julia Pendry
DAC Brian Paddick
Paul Carroll, Prison Service
Brian Caton, Prison Officer Assn
Detective Sergeant Gurpal Virdi
Superintendent Ali Dizaei
John Wadham, IPCC
David Riddle, MPA
Sir Michael Lyons
Lord Dholakia, LAG
Nigel Whittaker
Sir Ian Blair, Deputy Commisioner, MPS
Chief Superintendent Alex Fish, MPS
Detective Chief Superintendent Sharon Kerr, MPS
Detective Chief Superintendent Peter Spindler, MPS
Detective Chief Superintendent John Coles
Chief Superintendent Victoria Marr
Sue Adams, Court Service
Sharon Black, Court Service
Peter Herbert, MPA

The following individuals, whose names have been anonymised, also provided written submissions and gave oral evidence:

Ms AA
Ms BB
Mr CC
Mr DD
Mr EE
Mr FF
Ms GG
Mr HH
Ms JJ
Mr KK
Ms LL
Mr MM
Mr NN
Ms OO
Mr PP

In addition, we received written submissions from the following individuals and organisations:

Dr James Hart, Commissioner of Police for the City of London
Commander Ian Carter, MPS
Dick Fedorcio, MPS
Keith Luck, MPS
Denise Milani, MPS
Linda Van den Hende, MPS
David Wilkinson, MPS
Discrimination Law Association
Nigel Arnold, Deputy Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall
Conflict Management Plus Ltd
People Resolutions Group Ltd

The individuals involved in ’high profile‘ cases, whose names have been anonymised:

HPC 1
HPC 2
HPC 3
HPC 4
HPC 5

Other individuals, whose names have been anonymised:

IND 1
IND 2
IND 3
IND 4
IND 5
IND 6
IND 7
IND 8
IND 9
IND 10
IND 11
IND 12
IND 13
IND 14
IND 15
IND 16
IND 17
IND 18
IND 19
IND 20
IND 21
IND 22
IND 23
IND 24
IND 25
IND 26
IND 27
IND 28
IND 29
IND 30
IND 31
IND 32
IND 33
IND 34
IND 35
IND 36
IND 37
IND 38
IND 39
IND 40
IND 41
IND 42
IND 43
IND 44
IND 45
IND 46
IND 47
IND 48
IND 49
IND 50
IND 51

Appendix Five – Abbreviations

AC: Assistant Commissioner
ACAS: Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
ACPO: Association of Chief Police Officers
APA: Association of Police Authorities
ASWO: Association of Senior Women Officers
BAWP: British Association of Women in Policing
BOCU: Borough Operational Command Unit
CIB: Complaints Investigations Bureau
CPA: Christian Police Association
CPS: Crown Prosecution Service
DAC: Deputy Assistant Commissioner
DDA: Disability Discrimination Act 1995
DEM: Diversity Excellence Model
DLS: Department of Legal Services
DPA: Department of Public Affairs
DPS: Department of Professional Standards
DSA: Disabled Staff Association
DTI: Department of Trade & Industry
ETU: Employment Tribunal Unit
FAW: Fairness at Work
FAWA: Fairness at Work Advisor
FAWAA: Fairness at Work Appeal Advisor
GMP: Greater Manchester Police
GPA: Gay Police Association
HMIC: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary
HPC: High Profile Case
HPDS: High Potential Development Scheme
HR: Human Resources
IAG: Independent Advisory Group
ICG: Internal Consultancy Group
IND: Submission from an individual
IPCC: Independent Police Complaints Commission
LAG: Lay Advisors Group
MBPA: Metropolitan Black Police Association
MET-TUS: Trades Unions in the Metropolitan Police
MPA: Metropolitan Police Authority
MPS: Metropolitan Police Service
MPSA: Metropolitan Police Sikh Association
NBPA: National Black Police Association
OCU: Operational Command Unit
PALG: Police Action Lawyers Group
PCA: Police Complaints Authority
PCSO: Police Community Support Officer
PCS: Public and Commercial Services Union
PDR: Performance Development Review
PNB: Police Negotiating Board
PSAEW: Police Superintendents’ Association of England & Wales
PSI: Private Side Intercept
SCD: Specialist Crime Directorate
SIO: Senior Investigating Officer
SO: Specialist Operations
SMT: Senior Management Team
VEM: Visible Ethnic Minority

Skip Navigation \| Accessible

Accessibility About the Inquiry Contacts Search
Home News Schedule Transcripts Evidence Report Links
Report > Appendices
QuickSearch	Previous	Views Print Accessible Actions Send
	Archive note Important note: This is an archive of the website that was formerly at www.morrisinquiry.gov.uk. It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information. Page summary This resource is from the final Report of the Morris Inquiry. This section contains the appendices, with details on the Inquiry team, the Inquiry process, terms of reference, commissioning brief, the witnesses, and abbreviations used in the Report. Sections available here: Appendices Appendix One – The Secretariat Team Appendix Two – The Inquiry Process Appendix Three – Terms of Reference and Commissioning Brief Appendix Four – The Witnesses Appendix Five – Abbreviations Alternative versions This document is also available in the following formats: Word [0.97MB]; PDF [1.45MB] Content Appendices Appendix One – The Secretariat Team Appendix Two – The Inquiry Process Appendix Three – Terms of Reference and Commissioning Brief Appendix Four – The Witnesses Appendix Five – Abbreviations Appendix One – The Secretariat Team Amanda Kelly Secretary to the Inquiry Graham Spencer Assistant Secretary Martin Smith Clifford Chance LLP Kaspar Nazeri Clifford Chance LLP Selena Anderson Helen Richards Shakeela Aziz Edward Smith Clifford Chance LLP were Solicitors to the Inquiry. Michael Smyth was the partner-in-charge. Other professional support was provided by: Citigate Communications Netfundi The Work Foundation Dennis McGookin Bernard Postles, QPM Dennis Roberts Precision Creative Services Amanda Kelly is an Associate of Solace Enterprises Ltd Standing left to right: Shakeela Aziz, Edward Smith, Selena Anderson, Graham Spencer, Amanda Kelly, Helen Richards, Martin Smith, Kaspar Nazeri. Seated left to right: Sir Anthony Burden, Sir William Morris, Anesta Weekes QC. Appendix Two – The Inquiry Process 1. The Inquiry was established as an independent and impartial inquiry by the MPA, which set out its terms of reference. The Members of the Inquiry, Inquiry Secretary and Inquiry Solicitors were independent of the MPA, the MPS and all other organisations and individuals who were likely to wish to contribute to the Inquiry process. 2. The Secretary to the Inquiry invited written submissions from individuals and organisations which the Inquiry believed might be able to assist them in their task. The Inquiry also invited written submissions from any interested organisations, groups and individuals who believed they had relevant information falling within its terms of reference. 3. The Inquiry then considered the written submissions it had received, and invited the individuals and organisations that it believed could assist further to do so by giving oral evidence at a hearing. 4. The Inquiry received extensive written submissions and heard in total from 109 witnesses at its hearings, the first of which was held on 18 February 2004. Of these, Inquiry Members had further questions for 10 witnesses, who attended the Inquiry to give evidence a second time. Hearings were held in public, except in a small number of cases where the Inquiry was anxious to protect the identity of individuals. All questions were asked by Members of the Inquiry. 5. The Inquiry also held a forum for women in the MPS, attended by approximately 40 officers and staff. 6. Individual Inquiry Members visited 14 police stations in MPS borough operational command units, the Hendon Training Centre, New Scotland Yard and other central London MPS buildings. They spoke to groups of officers and members of staff working there. 7. In addition, the Inquiry spent a day with each of the Greater Manchester Police Service, the Merseyside Police Service and the West Midlands Police Service. 8. The Inquiry considered nine cases designated as ‘high profile cases’. In seven of these cases, the Inquiry was assisted by reports prepared by two former senior police officers, Dennis McGookin and Bernard Postles, and an experienced human resources practitioner, Dennis Roberts. 9. The Inquiry published all the submissions it received on its website, together with transcripts of its hearings and notes of its visits to police stations and other police services. The evidence and submissions were redacted where appropriate to prevent the identification of individuals. 10. The Inquiry’s last hearing was held on 6 July 2004. After that date, the Inquiry was engaged in considering the material before it and drafting its report. By mid-September 2004, the Inquiry had completed an initial draft of its report. Extracts of this draft were provided to any person or organisation who might feel that they were criticised in them. They were provided with an opportunity to respond in writing. The last of these responses were provided in October 2004. The Inquiry considered these responses carefully and made whatever changes the Inquiry felt were necessary to the draft, before finalising its report. Appendix Three – Terms of Reference and Commissioning Brief Terms of Reference The Metropolitan Police Authority, pursuant to its powers and duties under the Police Act 1996, the Local Government Act 1972, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, has appointed Sir William Morris OJ (Chairperson), Sir Anthony Burden O St J, QPM, and Ms Anesta Weekes QC to conduct an Inquiry with the following terms of reference: 1. To inquire into the conduct by the Metropolitan Police Service of the following matters in relation to police officers and police staff Policies, procedures and practices for and resolution of complaints and allegations against individuals and grievances by individuals; Policies, procedures and practices for and resolution of Employment Tribunal claims, in particular those claims involving allegations of race or other discrimination against the MPS; and Policies, procedures and practices for and resolution of workplace conflicts falling short of allegations or grievances. The Inquiry’s attention is drawn to points 1 to 8 in the Notes below. 2. In relation to matters outlined in 1 (i) (ii) and (iii) to establish whether the policies, practices, procedures and structure of the MPS in relation to those matters represent good effective practice in line with key strategies and the statutory obligations of the MPS and MPA under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and other relevant legislation. 3. In relation to matters outlined in 1 (i) (ii) and (iii) to establish whether the policies, practices, procedures and structure of the MPS in relation to those matters represent good effective practice when compared to other police forces and public service organisations. 4. To identify lessons to be learnt from the outcome of recent high profile cases (including recommendations made by the Gurpal Virdi Inquiry, and the outcome of the case involving Supt Dizaei). 5. To consider and make recommendations on the role of the Police Authority and its Members in relation to the consideration of high profile or sensitive cases, and the oversight of the performance of the MPS in relation to the matters covered by this Inquiry. 6. To publish a Report with its findings and recommendations. Notes to terms of reference The Authority asks the Inquiry to consider these matters in the context of the Authority’s strong support for the Commissioner’s philosophy on integrity and anti-corruption in the MPS. The Authority invites the Inquiry to consider the following matters, amongst others. Whether the arrangements within the MPS for making decisions on individual cases (including obtaining and considering legal advice) and for the review of decisions and progression of cases, are appropriate and effective. Whether there are disparities in the treatment of black and other minority police officers in relation to grievance, complaint and disciplinary proceedings and hearings. Whether the organisational structures and allocation of functions in these matters within the MPS is effective. Whether appropriate consideration is given to early resolution of grievances and conflicts, through mediation/conciliation or an internal ombudsman or other restorative justice techniques, and whether there are adequate processes to achieve such resolution. Whether there should be arrangements for employment tribunal claims, particularly those involving allegations of discrimination or harassment, to be subject to independent review as part of the MPS handling of such cases, in order to encourage and facilitate efforts to achieve resolution by agreement. Whether it is possible for the investigation of complaints and allegations to be dealt with in a swifter, less bureaucratic and less resource intensive way, so that the investigative effort can be seen to be proportionate to the gravity of the allegation. The extent to which the current requirements of the relevant legislation and regulations hinder the swift resolution of cases. What progress has been made by the MPS on the implementation of recommendations from the Gurpal Virdi Inquiry Commissioning brief The Metropolitan Police Authority is the statutory body with responsibility to secure efficient and effective policing for London. The Authority sets the medium term strategy for policing London, publishes an annual policing plan setting out priorities and targets, and holds the Commissioner to account for the performance of the Metropolitan Police Service. The Authority was created in July 2000 at the same time as the Greater London Authority. There are 23 Members of the MPA: 12 are nominated by the Mayor of London from amongst members of the Greater London Assembly, 4 are Magistrates, 6 are independent members and 1 is appointed by the Home Secretary. The legal powers of the Authority are the same as other Police Authorities, under the Police Act 1996. Following the case of Superintendent Dizaei, and a number of other high profile cases in recent years, the Authority has expressed serious concerns about perceptions of unfairness in the way that some internal investigations are handled by the MPS. Members of the Authority are aware of officers from ethnic and other minority groups within the MPS who feel vulnerable and discouraged by what they perceive to be discrimination and disproportionality in the way in which investigations are conducted. More generally, Members have also expressed concerns about the scale of the investigation of complaints against police in general, believing them sometimes to be out of proportion with the gravity of the matters complained of. The Authority is also concerned whether the MPS deals as effectively as it could with internal conflicts and grievances, especially those involving allegations of discrimination. The Authority reaffirms its strong support for the Commissioner’s philosophy that integrity is non-negotiable in the police service, and for the determination of the MPS to tackle corruption and impropriety by police officers. Nevertheless, the Authority decided that, in the interests of public confidence in the MPS, there should be a comprehensive and independent inquiry into these matters. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have indicated their full support of the Authority’s decision. The Authority is clear that this Inquiry should not be an inquiry into any individual case or investigation, though it accepts that the Inquiry Panel will want to identify and draw on any relevant lessons to be learnt from the handling of a number of cases, as well as taking account of the recommendations of the report into the case of Sgt Gurpal Virdi. The Authority wishes the Inquiry to commence its work before the end of 2003 and to present its report as early as possible in 2004. If the Inquiry feels that it will be unable to complete its work by the end of March 2004, the Authority would wish to have an interim report with emerging conclusions. The Inquiry will wish to have regard to The statutory responsibilities of the Police Complaints Authority for the oversight of the police complaints process and for the supervision of investigation of certain categories of complaint/allegation. The statutory responsibilities of the Independent Police Complaints Commission created by the Police Reform Act 2002 to succeed the PCA. The Authority will meet the expenses of the Inquiry including the appointment of a Secretariat to the Inquiry and Solicitors to the Inquiry. The Inquiry will not possess powers to compel witnesses. However, given that the Commissioner supports the Inquiry, it is anticipated that the MPS will give its full co-operation to the Inquiry. It is also expected that Metropolitan Police Staff Associations, representative groups of minority police officers and community stakeholder groups will wish to give evidence. The Authority will leave the Inquiry to determine its own rules of procedure. The Authority expects the Inquiry to hold evidence taking sessions in public in order to engage with all stakeholders openly and transparently, but recognises that the Inquiry should be able to hold some sessions in private if there are good reasons to do so. The Authority also considers that stakeholders and parties should not, as a general rule, be legally represented. Appendix Four – The Witnesses The Inquiry would like to thank all the individuals and organisations who provided written submissions and came to give evidence at a hearing. Their contributions were invaluable. The following witnesses provided written submissions and also gave evidence at hearings: Sir John Stevens, Commissioner, MPS Sir Ronnie Flanagan, HMIC Sir Alistair Graham, PCA Ian Bynoe, PCA Wendy Towers, PCA Commander Stephen Allen, MPS Lord Harris of Haringey, MPA Reshard Auladin, MPA Cecile Wright, MPA Ken Jones, Chief Constable of Sussex Jane Stichbury, Chief Constable of Dorset Nick Hardwick, IPCC John Tate, IPCC Jennifer Douglas Todd, IPCC DAC Stephen Roberts, MPS Commander Phillip Hagon, MPS AC Bernard Hogan-Howe, MPS Simon Marshall, MPS Commander Shabir Hussain, MPS George McAnuff, MPS David Hamilton, MPS Sandra Burrows, MPS Esme Crowther, MPS Robert Pull, CPA Andrew Cameron, CPA Kashmira Singh Mann, MPSA Carole Howlett, ASWO Clint Elliott, Police Federation of England and Wales Jan Berry, Police Federation of England and Wales Rene Barclay, CPS Don Ratcliffe, Metropolitan Police Federation Mr Glen Smyth, Metropolitan Police Federation Andrea Earl, Metropolitan Police Federation Robert Justham, MET-TUS Sevi Yesildalli, MET-TUS Russell Mills, MET-TUS Bevan Powell, MBPA Leroy Logan, MBPA Gareth Reid, MBPA Alfred John, MBPA John Taylor, ACAS Ray Powell, NBPA David McFarlane, NBPA Patricia McLeod, NBPA Philip Aspey, PSAEW Michael McAndrew, Metropolitan Police Superintendents’ Assn Kevin Boyle, Metropolitan GPA Mahommed Mahroof, AMP Josephine Poole, JPA Meryem Cast, MPS Turkish and Turkish Cypriot Assn Kitty Hung, Metropolitan Police Chinese and S. E. Asian Assn Franco Ianelli, Police Anglo-Italian Assn Elizabeth Owsley, BAWP AC Tarique Ghaffur John Azah, IAG Beverley Thompson, IAG Ben Owusu, IAG Alan Robinson, DSA Mahesh Nandha, Metropolitan Police Hindu Assn Stephen Banyard, Inland Revenue John Middleton, Inland Revenue Pat Samson, Inland Revenue Anthony Murphy, PALG Jane Deighton, PALG Raj Bhatt, PALG Baroness Henig, APA Bertram Woolnough, APA Sharon Pantry, APA Janet Champion, H M Customs and Excise Annie Purkis, H M Customs and Excise William Pickup, H M Customs and Excise Sarah Drury, Metropolitan Police Federation Women’s Committee Lindsay Kitchener, Metropolitan Police Federation Women’s Committee Chief Inspector Julia Pendry DAC Brian Paddick Paul Carroll, Prison Service Brian Caton, Prison Officer Assn Detective Sergeant Gurpal Virdi Superintendent Ali Dizaei John Wadham, IPCC David Riddle, MPA Sir Michael Lyons Lord Dholakia, LAG Nigel Whittaker Sir Ian Blair, Deputy Commisioner, MPS Chief Superintendent Alex Fish, MPS Detective Chief Superintendent Sharon Kerr, MPS Detective Chief Superintendent Peter Spindler, MPS Detective Chief Superintendent John Coles Chief Superintendent Victoria Marr Sue Adams, Court Service Sharon Black, Court Service Peter Herbert, MPA The following individuals, whose names have been anonymised, also provided written submissions and gave oral evidence: Ms AA Ms BB Mr CC Mr DD Mr EE Mr FF Ms GG Mr HH Ms JJ Mr KK Ms LL Mr MM Mr NN Ms OO Mr PP In addition, we received written submissions from the following individuals and organisations: Dr James Hart, Commissioner of Police for the City of London Commander Ian Carter, MPS Dick Fedorcio, MPS Keith Luck, MPS Denise Milani, MPS Linda Van den Hende, MPS David Wilkinson, MPS Discrimination Law Association Nigel Arnold, Deputy Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Conflict Management Plus Ltd People Resolutions Group Ltd The individuals involved in ’high profile‘ cases, whose names have been anonymised: HPC 1 HPC 2 HPC 3 HPC 4 HPC 5 Other individuals, whose names have been anonymised: IND 1 IND 2 IND 3 IND 4 IND 5 IND 6 IND 7 IND 8 IND 9 IND 10 IND 11 IND 12 IND 13 IND 14 IND 15 IND 16 IND 17 IND 18 IND 19 IND 20 IND 21 IND 22 IND 23 IND 24 IND 25 IND 26 IND 27 IND 28 IND 29 IND 30 IND 31 IND 32 IND 33 IND 34 IND 35 IND 36 IND 37 IND 38 IND 39 IND 40 IND 41 IND 42 IND 43 IND 44 IND 45 IND 46 IND 47 IND 48 IND 49 IND 50 IND 51 Appendix Five – Abbreviations AC Assistant Commissioner ACAS Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service ACPO Association of Chief Police Officers APA Association of Police Authorities ASWO Association of Senior Women Officers BAWP British Association of Women in Policing BOCU Borough Operational Command Unit CIB Complaints Investigations Bureau CPA Christian Police Association CPS Crown Prosecution Service DAC Deputy Assistant Commissioner DDA Disability Discrimination Act 1995 DEM Diversity Excellence Model DLS Department of Legal Services DPA Department of Public Affairs DPS Department of Professional Standards DSA Disabled Staff Association DTI Department of Trade & Industry ETU Employment Tribunal Unit FAW Fairness at Work FAWA Fairness at Work Advisor FAWAA Fairness at Work Appeal Advisor GMP Greater Manchester Police GPA Gay Police Association HMIC Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary HPC High Profile Case HPDS High Potential Development Scheme HR Human Resources IAG Independent Advisory Group ICG Internal Consultancy Group IND Submission from an individual IPCC Independent Police Complaints Commission LAG Lay Advisors Group MBPA Metropolitan Black Police Association MET-TUS Trades Unions in the Metropolitan Police MPA Metropolitan Police Authority MPS Metropolitan Police Service MPSA Metropolitan Police Sikh Association NBPA National Black Police Association OCU Operational Command Unit PALG Police Action Lawyers Group PCA Police Complaints Authority PCSO Police Community Support Officer PCS Public and Commercial Services Union PDR Performance Development Review PNB Police Negotiating Board PSAEW Police Superintendents’ Association of England & Wales PSI Private Side Intercept SCD Specialist Crime Directorate SIO Senior Investigating Officer SO Specialist Operations SMT Senior Management Team VEM Visible Ethnic Minority
	Previous
Report > Appendices
© Copyright 2004, The Morris Inquiry. Standards compliant HTML. Designed and maintained by Netfundi