Transcript of public session: Mr N Hardwick, Mr J Tate and Ms J Douglas Todd of the Independent Police Complaints Commission

Tuesday, 24 February 2004
3.45 pm

Sir William Morris: Chairman, can I first of all say good afternoon to you and your colleagues, and can I thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry and to give evidence, and thank you also for letting us have your written submission, which we found extremely helpful.

I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses, not your good self, I should perhaps add, any process of this nature might seem a very daunting task, so I thought it would be helpful if I just very briefly set out the purpose of the Inquiry, and the way that I intend to conduct these hearings.

First let me introduce myself; for the record, I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, and, of course, I have two other members of the Panel: Sir Anthony Burden, who has recently retired as Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary, after a very long and distinguished career in the police service; and on my left is Anesta Weekes, who is an eminent barrister, and Anesta sits as a Recorder and part-time chairperson of the employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

Chairman, as you know, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the MPS. Our focus is indeed the MPS as an organisation, and not the individuals who make up that organisation. The inquiry we are conducting is inquisitorial, and it is not adversarial in nature, or in its character.

We are keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice, rather than concentrating on making criticisms of the MPS, or the organisation, or any particular individuals.

To help us in our task, we are very keen to hear from all our witnesses not just about what is wrong with the Metropolitan Police Service, but what is right with it, and most importantly, we are very keen to get your and indeed other witnesses' suggestions as to how things might be put right.

Can I just for the record say that a transcript is being taken of all that is said, and that will provide a proper record of the evidence given by all our witnesses. This will in fact be posted on our website later today.

At the end of these introductory remarks, I will lead on the questions. My questions will be followed by questions from my colleagues, Sir Anthony Burden first, followed by Anesta Weekes, and indeed any supplementary questions that I might deem necessary.

At the conclusion of our questions, I will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment if you so wish.

Can I just at this stage remind you that in your written submission, you have offered us evidence which addresses issues such as the establishment and the remit of your commission, the IPCC; you have offered us evidence in respect of the IPCC's constitution and powers, its vision and its values; you have offered us evidence in terms of the IPCC's investigation, and the need for a more proportionate, efficient and effective investigatory regime in respect of further reforms.

We would like to ask you some questions about all these issues, and indeed range over matters which are of interest to us, some of which are, as I have indicated, in your written submission.

But before we raise these issues, however, for the benefit of the transcript, I wonder if you would not mind formally introducing yourself and indeed your colleagues to the Inquiry.

Mr Hardwick: Well, good afternoon, Sir Bill, and Panel members. My name is Nick Hardwick and I am the Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which comes into operation on April 1st this year. With me I have Jennifer Douglas Todd, our director of policy, and John Tate, our director of legal services, who may be able to help yourselves if there are more detailed questions you have about the regulations or the legislation itself.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: Chairman, last week we heard evidence from your predecessor in the context of the PCA. I have to be careful in recognising that we are still in the transition phase. But what we heard was the relationship between the PCA and indeed the Directorate of Professional Standards, it appears to us that the relationship between the PCA and the Directorate of Professional Standards stops there; it did not sort of permeate any further or deeper, broader or deeper, into the Metropolitan Police Service itself, and we are wondering whether you could help us in giving us an early preview, so to speak, of how you see the relationship between your Commission and the MPS evolving, whether it will stop at the status quo, with just the Directorate of Professional Standards, or will it be a bit more proactive as an evolving relationship, both of which have certainly different objectives, but working towards a common end, which is professional standards around complaints and investigation. Could you share your thoughts with us, please?

Mr Hardwick: Yes, thank you, Sir Bill. I think our relationship will be different to the one that the PCA is able to have. We have different powers, different responsibilities, and indeed different resources, and so I think the scope of what we can do can be greater.

I think the differences you can maybe put under three headings. First of all, I think I and my fellow commissioners are all very clear that, if you like, the principal purpose of the IPCC is to try and learn the lessons when things go wrong and make sure that those are applied, so that we are not only increasing public confidence in the police service as a whole, building trust or contributing to that, but also trying to ensure that the lessons that are learnt from our work can be applied so that they can, you know, become more effective.

So I think that kind of deeper relationship with the MPS will not be a side product of what we do, but will be central to our work in London.

How we will do that; I think there are two different ways in which we will work from the PCA. First of all, although a lot of attention has been focused on the IPCC's investigative powers, our ability to conduct independent or manage or supervise investigations, equally important is what has been described as our guardianship role, our wider role, trying to raise public confidence in the whole police complaints system, and, as I have previously indicated, make sure that when things do go wrong the lessons are learnt, so built into our remit is that kind of wider role which involves establishing a wider range of links with forces such as the MPS.

The other difference, I think, is that we will be regionally based, so that we will have five commissioners dedicated to working in London and the South East with a specific responsibility, performing those kind of longer term and more productive relationships, so we do not simply show up when something has gone wrong, but we build an ongoing and more proactive relationship, and we have tried to make sure that we apply the resources we have to enable that to take place, and indeed, you know, as colleagues have been appointed, we have already started that process of relationship building, and we have been very grateful for the positive response we have had from the Police Authority, and indeed senior officers and commissioners in the Met itself.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. In your submission, Chairman, I think it is paragraph 1.5 of your submission, you state that you have already formed some preliminary views – well, or you phrase that you have found some firm views on the current system for investigating complaints against police officers.

You say there, and I quote:

"Too time-consuming; too resource intensive; too legalistic; and does not meet in many instances the needs of those who complain, nor deal fairly with those complained against."

You then go on to say that you believe that the discipline process and the relevant police regulation will need to be reformed if the system is to work in the way that the IPCC wishes it to.

Could you expand for us what changes you would like to see?

Mr Hardwick: Well, first of all, just to confirm, it has been – I have come into this area of work new, I started last February, so it has been very much a learning experience for me, and I suppose I have been surprised by the degree of consistency there has been from all the people I have met, both in the police service, at whatever level, and indeed the kind of stakeholders who represent complainants, about what is wrong with the current system, and I think what we summarised there would indeed be a very widely shared view.

I think we will be able to do four things that will make a difference to that process. First of all, the fact that for the most serious incidents we will be able to independently investigate them I think will bring a degree of credibility and reassurance that almost at the moment, no matter how well the police do it themselves, is lacking, and I think that is widely understood and accepted.

Secondly, I think, if you talk to anyone about the current system, what they complain about is how long it takes to bring cases to a conclusion, and the fact that people feel that the current process has become disproportionate. I know you have heard evidence from other witnesses to that effect. It is very striking, the degree to which that is the case.

If you look at the most serious incidents, things which, if it was a normal criminal investigation, might be wrapped up in months, take years; less serious incidents that common sense would suggest could be dealt with within 24 or 48 hours seem to take months to bring to a conclusion.

We think that part of the answer to that is first of all in the more serious cases, following the recommendations of the Lancet Inquiry, and drawing much tighter terms of reference – so that the investigation is focused right from the start. It does not mean those terms of reference might never change if more information comes to light, but those changes are the result of a deliberate decision-making process, rather than simply a drift.

And in less serious cases, we think a local resolution, informal resolution, as it used to be called, all the evidence suggests that that is likely to be a process that is more satisfactory, both for the police officers or police staff complained against and for the complainant, in reaching a satisfactory conclusion.

The other thing I think we will do which will make a difference is we will try and make the system more transparent and more open. I think part of the reason for the suspicion and lack of credibility that there is around the system at the moment, from both sides, from the officers complained against and from the complainants, is that people feel they are not told what is going on, and they do not understand why, if you like, whatever conclusions an investigation reaches, you know, on what evidence that is based and how that conclusion has been reached, and I think if we can make the system more transparent and more open, I think that will go a long way to reducing some of the suspicion and lack of credibility it currently has.

Sir William Morris: Let us just pick up your last point there, because we have mentioned the fate of officers complained against, and in some circumstances it would not be unfair to say that officers are hung out to dry. Could you share with us what plans you have got, if any, to ensure that officers are kept informed about the progress or lack of it in the context of investigation; how will they be treated differently under the Commission regime, as compared to the current situation?

A. If I may give you an example of how the system works at present, which was – I was out in a patrol car in Southwark, and something an officer there told me, which was very striking, has lived with me since.

He described a situation where a complaint had been made against him, he said that complaint was the worst thing that had happened in his career, it had affected his family and personal life, and it had gone on for 14 months. After 14 months, he discovered that the complaint had actually been withdrawn five months earlier, but no one had seen fit to tell him about that.

Now one of the things that we will insist on in the new system is that the same high standards of regular communication that we are insisting on for complainants is also applied to police officers who are the subject of the complaints, and I think what is important –

Sir William Morris: That is a guarantee, is it?

A. It is a guarantee, but I think what is important as well – and we are saying that there has to be regular communication, even if nothing much has happened, because I think sometimes what happens is that people say, "Look, we do not have much to tell them, we will not communicate." But actually for the complainant or the police officer, they imagine all sorts of things are going on while they are perhaps suspended, sitting at home, desperately anxious; of course, their imagination is running riot. Sometimes what you have to tell them is, "Look, we are waiting for a response from the Crown Prosecution Service", or this expert, that expert, "Nothing much has happened", but you need to keep that regular communication going.

The other point, I think, that will make a difference in terms of looking after officers concerned, I have been struck by, if you talk about the most serious but very exceptional incidents, for instance when there has been a violent incident and someone has been killed as a result of police use of firearms, very exceptional, very traumatic for everybody involved. What police officers have said to me is that what they would really like in that situation is some consistency. They would like some certainty about what is going to happen, how the investigation will take place, why decisions will be made, what is the background of the people dealing with them.

Under the current system, normally when that is investigated, the SIO in charge of that investigation, maybe one investigation like that in their career – those are the kinds of incidents that we are likely to independently investigate on a consistent basis, and so over time, we will be able to build up not only our expertise but also a consistent approach, so at least where people are caught up in these very difficult incidents, they will know exactly what to expect.

Sir William Morris: Okay. We have heard from the Chair of the PCA, a week or so ago, about the two pilots which have been conducted, I think in Durham and Thames Valley Constabularies. I am just wondering whether there are any initial trends which have emerged from these two pilots that you are able to share with us.

Mr Hardwick: The pilots were in Thames Valley and Avon and Somerset, if I remember correctly.

Sir William Morris: Yes, thank you.

Mr Hardwick: The Thames Valley pilot was very important, because what the PCA were trying to test there was to pilot the new appeal system that will be in the new system. So for most cases, we will not be involved in initial decision-making by the police, so in a local investigation it will be the police's responsibility, the MPS's responsibility, to carry that out from start to finish, but the complainant will have a right of appeal to us.

This links back to your earlier point, Sir Bill; I think one of the critical pieces of learning that has come out of that is that the number of appeals is likely to be substantially affected by how effective the communication is with the complainant. If you get the communication wrong, if people do not know what is happening and the suspicion grows and all of that, then you are likely to get more appeals than if you have not just timely and regular communication but thoughtful communication, good quality communication, that tries to help people who may be very unfamiliar – almost by definition may be very unfamiliar with these processes, keep them properly informed about what is going on. Now that is one of the lessons we have tried to learn and apply in the operating advice we have drawn up for forces.

The Avon and Somerset pilot was looking at appeals relating to disclosure of information, and in a sense, that was helpful for us, in terms of our planning, because it suggested there were likely to be less appeals on that specific topic; if people had concerns about that, they were more likely to come out as a concern about the investigation as a whole, and that certainly informed our thinking a lot about how we can approach these issues.

Sir William Morris: Just one final question from me, Chairman: let us roll the tape forward a bit, 18 months, two years or so; by what criteria would you wish your key stakeholders to measure your effectiveness? And by key stakeholders, I am talking about possible complainant, police officers, and, of course, the MPS itself.

Mr Hardwick: Well, I think, Chairman – perhaps it is appropriate to say this is not a system, no matter what we do, that is going to have everybody happy. If you have got a family whose son has died in police custody, there is nothing we can do that will, if you like, resolve the issue for that family. If an officer has been caught up in a major investigation and is innocent of the charges of which he is accused, it is always going to be a very traumatic and difficult experience for them, so I do not want to promise too much.

But the critical test for the IPCC is: have we improved, have we made a contribution to increasing public confidence in the police as a whole, and thereby their effectiveness? You know, for me, whether people feel confident about the IPCC, that is just a means to an end. The critical issue is whether we have contributed to public confidence and trust in the police, and thereby their effectiveness. And that is very difficult to measure, and it is difficult to measure what contribution we have made to that.

At a more practical level, I certainly hope that people will judge us on whether we have made the system more open and transparent; I hope that there will be a measurable difference in the time it takes to conclude investigations to incidents, whether we are doing it or whether the police are doing it themselves, and I hope that the kind of quality of our investigations will pass the test of competence and professionalism, because I think one of the things we have been very clear about is that the IPCC – we can be as independent as you like, but if we are not also competent and professional, we are not going to please anybody. So those are the tests on which I really expect and hope to be judged.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. You have our best wishes.

Mr Hardwick: Thank you.

Sir William Morris: Can I ask Sir Anthony Burden to put a few questions to you, Chairman?

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Mr Hardwick, looking at the terms of reference of the IPCC, and the high expectations particularly around independent inquiries – if I might say, this is the crucial issue for us in our terms of reference – is the reliance that is going to be placed upon your role in independent investigations for the future.

Do you feel your organisation is sufficiently resourced and properly staffed to be able to deal with the volume of business that will be coming your way?

Mr Hardwick: I am very clearly of the view that the resources we have at present for next year are appropriate to the start-up of the IPCC, and I am at one with – I know Ken Jones from Sussex told you yesterday that in fact, in theory, it might have been nice to have more resources at this early stage, but we will be judged, I believe, more on quality than on quantity.

May I just say a word or two about our independent investigations, just to clarify our approach to that? I think there are two things to say. First of all – and it is almost like managing expectations down. There will be no such thing as a completely independent investigation. You know, at the very least, here in London, it would be the MPS who do all the golden hour stuff, who preserve the scene before we can assemble our teams and have them on site.

I think what we are talking to ACPO about is thereafter, looking at a graduated response; there may be some cases that are so serious, that have such impact on public concern, that we would want to do everything ourselves, and we have the capacity and resources in a small number of investigations to do absolutely that, including forensics, specialists, all investigative teams.

More likely, we would provide probably a majority of the investigators, a majority of the resources; we would use police resources as well, but they would be working under our direction. There may be some cases where we can satisfy the test of independence where, if you like, we have the key roles but a significant proportion of the staff involved might come from the police service. So we are looking at that graduated – we see it as a spectrum, not an absolute.

The second thing I would say is I think – and I recognise this is difficult, but for some cases you might start by taking a view that it is a very serious incident and public concern may be very high, but evidence may come to light quite quickly that offers reassurance. That reassurance is accepted by the family, and it may not be a good use of our resources to keep up with that independent investigation. Conversely, something that initially seems a small and minor incident you might want to ratchet up the scale. So we want to try and maintain that kind of flexible approach.

We anticipate, thinking of that spectrum, that in our first year we will be able to independently investigate around 30 cases, and we will be able to manage around another 80, and I am confident that if we can prove the kind of quality and worth of what we do, we will be able to win the arguments with Government about an expansion of our resources. But it would not do anybody any good if we started off now claiming to be able to do a lot of cases and actually not doing them well; I would rather have excellence and quality than quantity.

Sir Anthony Burden: Sure, thank you.

You have already mentioned the Lancet report, and you have obviously read the website of yesterday's deliberations. You very helpfully say in your submission that you will embrace the Lancet report in the way that you work, and as you know, Ken Jones yesterday also embraced the Lancet report as being very important.

The important thing, I think, for me and for the other Panel members that Mr Jones said around this yesterday, but we just want to get this clear in our own minds, is around the issue of compliance; the Lancet report is a first class piece of work, but it is no good if we do not have uniform compliance across the service, and, as you know, the independent role of chief constables in 43 forces.

Mr Jones suggested yesterday that the essence of Lancet would be going in the statutory guidance that you are producing; is that right?

Mr Hardwick: That is the case. Perhaps one small caution on that: we had decided we would not issue statutory guidance until after six months, until October at the earliest, because we want to base our statutory guidance on some experience; as far as possible it is practical, and there will also be a consultation process on that, and I would not want to prejudge that consultation process.

But I think it is almost certain that the Lancet recommendations will form a fundamental part of our guidance. Certainly, if I can speak personally, of all the material I have looked at since I started, the reading I have done, to try to familiarise myself with this issue, it is the document that has made one of the biggest impressions on me. It is central, it is very much at the heart of what we are trying to do.

And the point as well I think to make, and this goes back to our guardianship role, is that it is not simply a question of us issuing guidance, we then have the inspection and audit powers to make sure that that guidance is actually being complied with, and draw attention where that is not the case. Obviously we would work closely with colleagues in HMIC to achieve that.

Sir Anthony Burden: That is very reassuring actually, thank you.

Can I move on to investigations which involve black and minority ethnic police officers and police staff, and, of course, complainants from black and minority ethnic communities?

There are quite often, around these investigations, if I can put it this way, sort of sensitivities of understanding, and understanding the sensitivities. I would be interested to know the ethnic make-up of your team, purely from the viewpoint that will you be able to guarantee that where there are these sensitivities, there will be a level of supervision provided by black and minority ethnic members of the IPCC, so that any concerns and sensitivities from those complained of, or the complainants, can actually be satisfied?

Mr Hardwick: I think it would be presumptuous to offer a guarantee, but what I can say to you is that it is absolutely at the heart of our thinking. You know, you will be aware of my own background; this is a key priority for me personally, and I will have personal charge of ensuring that this is embedded in the organisation.

In terms of the make-up of our staff, of the commissioners, who are ultimately the guarantors of the process, 27 per cent are from an visible minority ethnic group, which I think is quite good for a n non-departmental public body. Of our senior executive team, 16 per cent are from a visible minority. Of our investigators, 10 per cent are from a visible minority.

I would qualify that among investigators; our senior investigators, for the most part we have targeted people with a police background because they have the experience we want, none of our senior investigators are from a visible minority. We are disappointed about that, but we took a very conscious decision about the particular skills, where we would try to recruit those people from, and those tended to be from people with 30 years' experience in the police service, where people from those minority groups are in short supply, but if you look at the organisation as a whole, I feel we have made important progress.

We have not tried to deal with it as an isolated issue, we have tried to make sure that those sensitivities are embedded into all our training programmes, and embedded into all the work we do; the material we produce, our relationships with our stakeholders, the media we talk to. We try to make it very much part of our everyday work.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Finally from me, a related issue: you very helpfully in your submission attached various documents relating to the gathering of statistics. Very much central to our considerations is the issue and concerns around disproportionality displayed in the way that people have been treated subject to misconduct; whether individuals are suspended, how long they are suspended for, how they are treated during suspension, decisions to charge, disciplinary matters, and taking issues formally to discipline hearings.

I must say, personally, I had been rather surprised that those sorts of statistics had not been available for us under current arrangements. Would it be your intention to pursue statistics along those sorts of lines, and I think it is also important, if I might say so, in monitoring behaviour, not only of individual officers, but shifts of officers, stations, et cetera.

Mr Hardwick: Absolutely. I think we will be able to collect that information, both about complainants and about officers themselves. It has been very interesting going around different forces in the country; there are some that are doing precisely what you say, looking at the trends, trying to identify the particular shifts, the particular officers, the particular kind of situations that made, of course, that disproportionality, and others for whom that seems a very unusual and surprising idea. There is a big discrepancy.

So we can use our statistics to provide that national picture, and then what I would anticipate, say, here in London, is to work with the Metropolitan Police Authority to say, "Look, this is the national picture, these are your statistics, there are differences here, do you want to explore them, do you want to go further?"

The other point, if I may add, I think, where I think we can add some value, is our ability to call in cases. We do not just have to investigate or supervise those cases that are referred to us, we can call in particular cases. I think as our experience grows, and if you like as our intelligence grows, we may say, "Look, there is a particular issue, nationally or in a particular force, around complaints about this particular area", it might be stop and search, for instance. So we say, "Okay, we are going to call in a selection of complaints about that issue", and we will supervise that investigation, so we can get a real insight into how those particular incidents are being kind of dealt with.

Now we will not do that to start with, because if we chose those kinds of issues to start with it would be pretty much a random choice, but as our information, and statistical information, comes back, we will then be able to target our resources to try and provide that fuller picture that then forces can use to influence their operational practice.

Sir Anthony Burden: Will there be any statutory powers available to you? I am not suggesting that any information you provide to forces of that nature will be snubbed and ignored, but if you are not happy with the response what would your action be to pursue it?

Mr Hardwick: We do not have, and rightly, I think – our remit does not extend to direction and control, to operational issues; I think that is right in principle. But the exception to that is that we can draw the operational lessons that arise out of the work that we do.

So we can draw that, and we can publish that. Now, if we were talking about here in London, if the Authority or the Commissioner here chose to ignore that, we could not force him to do that, but we could make sure that that was done – you know, that there was an appropriate degree of accountability and exposure for that decision, and we could try and create the environment in which those decisions had to be justified.

So in principle, I think it is right that actually the decisions about those operational matters are made by the Commissioner and his staff, or by the Authority as appropriate, rather than ourselves.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much indeed.

Sir William Morris: Thank you, Sir Anthony. I pass you over to Miss Weekes for her questions.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you, Chairman. Can I come to a paragraph in your submission which is at page 10, entitled:

"The need for further reform – the discipline process."

If I may just paraphrase my question, so that you understand where I am going, it is quite clear that your success at dealing with public complaints, and the consequential treatment of the public and police officers at the same time, is going to be absolutely crucial to moving the known complaints about public complaints on to a different level; it is quite clear your success is going to be looked at.

In phrasing my questions, I really wanted to get from you how our recommendations around the need for further reform are going to help you.

The disciplinary process, in the majority of cases, in fact in all the cases, will be dealt with by the Metropolitan Police Service at the first instance, before it ever gets to you. So what they do and how they do it is and will have a knock-on effect, in a sense, by the time it gets to you.

What you have clearly stated here, and I am going to read it, because it is important, and I would like your assistance as to how we should deal with this by way of recommendation. First of all, you identify that one of the key concerns which had been highlighted by the new complaints process is the bringing together of police staff and officers under the same system.

Just why do you think that is important?

Mr Hardwick: Well, I think it is going to be a driver for change. One of the differences of the new system, as you say, is that our remit includes police staff, and indeed certain contracted staff, and police officers themselves. So imagine an incident where there has been, say, a death in custody where misconduct is alleged to have occurred, and involved in that same incident are sworn officers, police staff and potentially even contracted staff.

What will happen in the new system is that the investigative process will be the same for all of those individuals; we would treat them in the same way.

At the conclusion of that investigation, if we felt there was a disciplinary case to answer, not a criminal one, but a disciplinary case to answer, then everything goes on in separate directions. The police officers get dealt with under the disciplinary regulations; the police staff get dealt with under their contract of employment; and the contracted staff would get dealt with under their contract of employment.

At that point, all three people, despite the fact they had been involved in the same incident, accused of the same thing, start to get treated very differently, and in some cases the advantage or disadvantage may change from incident to incident, but I think those differences and the exposure those differences will get will be one of the things people will say, "Look, how can we justify that? Why is it the case that these people need to be treated differently?" So I think it will be a driver for change.

Miss Weekes: I am very grateful for that. Can I just go back to your page 10, if I may:

"It is clear that police staff are nervous that they will not be afforded the same protection as officers in complaints and discipline matters, and it is highly possible, particularly with the shift to greater civilianisation of police roles, that two people could find themselves up on the same complaints charges, but be dealt with in very different ways."

I think you have explained that, but I want to go on to 6.3:

"The consistent messages that we have been hearing from officers, police staff and non-police stakeholders is that the current system is: too slow; too adversarial and legalistic; too bureaucratic and does not allow lessons to be learnt; too closed; stressful for everyone involved."

This is something that we have heard from other witnesses. In the short time that you have gathered your information, this is the consistent message that you have heard from three sources?

Mr Hardwick: I would say I have heard that from people at every kind of rank in the police service. I have heard it from ACPO to Federation members; I think there is a very consistent message around what are the problems with the current system. I have to say, there is much less agreement about what the replacement should be.

Miss Weekes: I was just about to ask you that.

Mr Hardwick: First of all, I would want to be very cautious in this answer, because in general what I want the IPCC to – its kind of policy recommendations need to be based on evidence, and at the moment we do not have the evidence from our experience to comment on this very widely. So with a degree of caution, and I should obviously say this is not something that has been discussed in detail with my colleagues on the Commission, so to some extent it is a personal view. My view is that rather than starting with the regulations as they are now, and say, "Okay, what piecemeal changes do we need to make?", I think there would be great merit in looking at, if you like, the current kind of best practice for ordinary employees, as recommended by ACAS; look at that and say, "Okay, what of that does not apply or would not apply for police officers?"

Now I am not saying that you can have a completely identical system; I think there is a case that police officers need particular protection in some circumstances, and also I think there is a degree to which police officers have – or in the police system there is a kind of obligation of public accountability which may not apply in other forms of employment.

But I do not think that those differences are so great that you cannot start with the way everybody else gets treated in the 21st century, and then say, "What of that does not apply?", rather than looking at what has been described, rightly, I think, as this Victorian quasi court martial system, and saying, you know, what bits of sticking plaster can we put on this to bring it a bit more up to date? I would look at it the other way round.

Miss Weekes: I am grateful for that, and I do note the degree of caution that you give that personal view, but I am very grateful for it.

I have one other area to speak to you about. As you know, your paths are going to cross with the Crown Prosecution Service and the role that they play in whether to charge or not in a serious conduct or misconduct case. Again, I appreciate you have not yet started work, but first of all, explain how you see that relationship, and how is it going to affect the question of delay, and what officers expect?

Mr Hardwick: Well, first of all, we have had a series of discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service and with the DPP – in fact, my colleague, John Tate, has led on a lot of those, so he may be able to give a fuller answer than I can.

First of all, I would start by saying we have been very encouraged by the response that the DPP has made to the introduction of the IPCC. Certainly in the more serious cases, what we are talking to them about is bringing in the Crown Prosecution Service at a much earlier stage. You know, if one goes back to the Lancet kind of case conference type view, bringing them in right at the start, rather than, as the current position often seems to be, that you go through the investigative phase and then at the end of it you go along to the Crown Prosecution Service, and so things happen in a sequential rather than kind of a concurrent way. So that seems to me a key difference.

Secondly, I think we are looking at improving liaison at a local level, with the local CPS teams, to improve our day-to-day contact and our relationships, so there is a kind of greater understanding of what we are trying to do. Some of that – we will have a detailed protocol that will set that out, but I certainly have been encouraged by the very positive reaction from the DPP himself to what we are trying to do.

Mr Tate: If I could just add one thing, that as it exists we are engaged in negotiating protocols with the CPS at the moment, we are having meetings with them to sort that out. One thing that, for example, I think they will be agreeing with us is that when IPCC lawyers advise Commissioners that there is no scintilla of evidence of a criminal matter, then that will rest with the IPCC, it will not go to the CPS, it will not spend months at the CPS, so in terms of those officers who are facing criminal proceedings they will know the answer, if there is nothing, much, much quicker.

Miss Weekes: That is obviously going to be a helpful factor to deal with the delay that has happened in the past.

That leads me to the final point: there may be an investigation about a piece of conduct by the officer, and the Crown Prosecution Service, as they are an independent service, take the view, having looked at the file, that he ought to be prosecuted. He is acquitted, but there are still matters which the Metropolitan Police Service consider that they should properly proceed with by way of disciplinary. Do you have a role in any of that?

Mr Hardwick: It may indeed be the case that you suggest. I mean, we might have a role, because if we felt that there was a disciplinary case to answer, and the MPS were reluctant to convene a tribunal, we can require a tribunal to be convened. Where we so require, we would be able to present the case against the officer accused, and one of the things that I know is with ministers at the moment, that they are currently considering, is whether in those circumstances, in the most exceptional circumstances, a disciplinary tribunal should be able to be held in public, so those are all areas where we can affect, if you like, the conduct of a tribunal, but I would stress, rightly so, that any decisions that tribunal makes are a matter for them, not for us.

Miss Weekes: Yes. It is clearly important that your ability to recommend disciplinary proceedings exists, even though the man or woman is found not guilty, because that has, of course, to do with the whole question of professional standards, and the public's perception of professional standards.

Does that deal adequately, do you think, with the whole question of the officer's point of view of double jeopardy against him or her?

Mr Hardwick: I think there are issues around ensuring that the case concerned, the handling of the case, remains proportionate and timely in view of the allegations that are made, and that does need to be looked at. But I think if you go back to the question, if one looks at what would happen in ordinary civilian employment, compared with what happens in the police service, it might well be the case, you know, that someone is accused of a criminal offence, you do not have the standard of proof necessary, or the court does not have the standard of proof necessary to convict on that basis, but nevertheless, if one looks under ordinary employment law on the balance of probabilities you could decide that that person should face some kind of internal disciplinary sanction.

So I do not think in principle – and I think that is acceptable, and do think that is appropriate, but you have to look at these things in a proportionate way, you have to consider what I said about timeliness, and I do not think it is in anybody's interest that these things go on for years and years, if that can possibly be avoided.

So there is a judgment call to be made, but I would not want to say that – I think to lose the possibility that in some circumstances it may be appropriate that even if a criminal prosecution fails, that some sort of disciplinary action is required, but I think you would have to make those decisions on a case by case basis.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much indeed, Chairman.

Sir William Morris: Chairman, thank you very much indeed for your help, and in particular for your contribution to the Inquiry overall.

We have now finished the questions that we wanted to ask of you and your colleagues, but you will recall that in my opening comments I said I would offer you the opportunity for a brief closing statement, if you so wish. If you do, now is your chance.

Mr Hardwick: Well, thank you, Sir Bill, and if I can repeat how certainly from our point of view this has been a very timely inquiry, and we certainly will, from our point of view, want to build on your recommendations, I am sure, and take them forward.

I think the kind of key messages that I would like to leave with you about the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the difference we will make are these: that first of all, in the most serious cases, we do guarantee that we will offer an investigative capacity that is genuinely and credibly independent. But alongside that, we will make sure, and put great efforts into making sure, that those investigations are also competent and professional, and meet the very highest standards of what is available currently.

We are giving absolute priority to making sure that the process is timely and proportionate, and we expect to be judged on whether we achieve that. We will make the system more transparent, and we will have an appreciation of diversity issues at the very heart of what we do. We have a very clear vision of what we want the IPCC to achieve, and we look forward to working with the MPS and the MPA to do that.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. Could I just make a comment for the record? I say that because as with all our witnesses it may be that once we have heard from other witnesses we will want to ask you to answer for us a few more questions, either in writing or ask you to come back and share your thoughts with us at a future hearing.

If we need to do that, we will try to do so in a way which offers the least inconvenience to you, your organisation, and indeed your colleagues.

But for the moment, all that I need to do is, on behalf of my two colleagues and the Panel, to thank you and your colleagues for attending this afternoon for your help and your contribution to our work. Thank you very much.

Mr Hardwick: Thank you.

Sir William Morris: As usual, I ask the members of the public to remain seated whilst the witnesses leave the room, and to indicate that the Inquiry is adjourned until 10.30 tomorrow morning. Thank you very much.

4.40 pm
(Hearing adjourned until 10.30 am the following day)

Skip Navigation \| Accessible

Accessibility About the Inquiry Contacts Search
Home News Schedule Transcripts Evidence Report Links
Transcripts > Independent Police Complaints Commission (24 Feb 04)
QuickSearch See also On this website: Evidence: Independent Police Complaints Commission Transcript: Independent Police Complaints Commission (8 June 2004)	Previous Next	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 Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the public session with Mr N Hardwick, Chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, on 24 February 2004. Mr John Tate and Ms Jennifer Douglas Todd were also called to this hearing. Sections available here: Transcript of public session: Mr N Hardwick, Mr J Tate and Ms J Douglas Todd of the Independent Police Complaints Commission Questions by Sir William Morris Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Questions by Miss Weekes Alternative versions This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering. Content Transcript of public session: Mr N Hardwick, Mr J Tate and Ms J Douglas Todd of the Independent Police Complaints Commission Tuesday, 24 February 2004 3.45 pm Sir William Morris: Chairman, can I first of all say good afternoon to you and your colleagues, and can I thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry and to give evidence, and thank you also for letting us have your written submission, which we found extremely helpful. I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses, not your good self, I should perhaps add, any process of this nature might seem a very daunting task, so I thought it would be helpful if I just very briefly set out the purpose of the Inquiry, and the way that I intend to conduct these hearings. First let me introduce myself; for the record, I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, and, of course, I have two other members of the Panel: Sir Anthony Burden, who has recently retired as Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary, after a very long and distinguished career in the police service; and on my left is Anesta Weekes, who is an eminent barrister, and Anesta sits as a Recorder and part-time chairperson of the employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry. Chairman, as you know, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the MPS. Our focus is indeed the MPS as an organisation, and not the individuals who make up that organisation. The inquiry we are conducting is inquisitorial, and it is not adversarial in nature, or in its character. We are keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice, rather than concentrating on making criticisms of the MPS, or the organisation, or any particular individuals. To help us in our task, we are very keen to hear from all our witnesses not just about what is wrong with the Metropolitan Police Service, but what is right with it, and most importantly, we are very keen to get your and indeed other witnesses' suggestions as to how things might be put right. Can I just for the record say that a transcript is being taken of all that is said, and that will provide a proper record of the evidence given by all our witnesses. This will in fact be posted on our website later today. At the end of these introductory remarks, I will lead on the questions. My questions will be followed by questions from my colleagues, Sir Anthony Burden first, followed by Anesta Weekes, and indeed any supplementary questions that I might deem necessary. At the conclusion of our questions, I will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment if you so wish. Can I just at this stage remind you that in your written submission, you have offered us evidence which addresses issues such as the establishment and the remit of your commission, the IPCC; you have offered us evidence in respect of the IPCC's constitution and powers, its vision and its values; you have offered us evidence in terms of the IPCC's investigation, and the need for a more proportionate, efficient and effective investigatory regime in respect of further reforms. We would like to ask you some questions about all these issues, and indeed range over matters which are of interest to us, some of which are, as I have indicated, in your written submission. But before we raise these issues, however, for the benefit of the transcript, I wonder if you would not mind formally introducing yourself and indeed your colleagues to the Inquiry. Mr Hardwick: Well, good afternoon, Sir Bill, and Panel members. My name is Nick Hardwick and I am the Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which comes into operation on April 1st this year. With me I have Jennifer Douglas Todd, our director of policy, and John Tate, our director of legal services, who may be able to help yourselves if there are more detailed questions you have about the regulations or the legislation itself. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. Questions by Sir William Morris Sir William Morris: Chairman, last week we heard evidence from your predecessor in the context of the PCA. I have to be careful in recognising that we are still in the transition phase. But what we heard was the relationship between the PCA and indeed the Directorate of Professional Standards, it appears to us that the relationship between the PCA and the Directorate of Professional Standards stops there; it did not sort of permeate any further or deeper, broader or deeper, into the Metropolitan Police Service itself, and we are wondering whether you could help us in giving us an early preview, so to speak, of how you see the relationship between your Commission and the MPS evolving, whether it will stop at the status quo, with just the Directorate of Professional Standards, or will it be a bit more proactive as an evolving relationship, both of which have certainly different objectives, but working towards a common end, which is professional standards around complaints and investigation. Could you share your thoughts with us, please? Mr Hardwick: Yes, thank you, Sir Bill. I think our relationship will be different to the one that the PCA is able to have. We have different powers, different responsibilities, and indeed different resources, and so I think the scope of what we can do can be greater. I think the differences you can maybe put under three headings. First of all, I think I and my fellow commissioners are all very clear that, if you like, the principal purpose of the IPCC is to try and learn the lessons when things go wrong and make sure that those are applied, so that we are not only increasing public confidence in the police service as a whole, building trust or contributing to that, but also trying to ensure that the lessons that are learnt from our work can be applied so that they can, you know, become more effective. So I think that kind of deeper relationship with the MPS will not be a side product of what we do, but will be central to our work in London. How we will do that; I think there are two different ways in which we will work from the PCA. First of all, although a lot of attention has been focused on the IPCC's investigative powers, our ability to conduct independent or manage or supervise investigations, equally important is what has been described as our guardianship role, our wider role, trying to raise public confidence in the whole police complaints system, and, as I have previously indicated, make sure that when things do go wrong the lessons are learnt, so built into our remit is that kind of wider role which involves establishing a wider range of links with forces such as the MPS. The other difference, I think, is that we will be regionally based, so that we will have five commissioners dedicated to working in London and the South East with a specific responsibility, performing those kind of longer term and more productive relationships, so we do not simply show up when something has gone wrong, but we build an ongoing and more proactive relationship, and we have tried to make sure that we apply the resources we have to enable that to take place, and indeed, you know, as colleagues have been appointed, we have already started that process of relationship building, and we have been very grateful for the positive response we have had from the Police Authority, and indeed senior officers and commissioners in the Met itself. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. In your submission, Chairman, I think it is paragraph 1.5 of your submission, you state that you have already formed some preliminary views – well, or you phrase that you have found some firm views on the current system for investigating complaints against police officers. You say there, and I quote: "Too time-consuming; too resource intensive; too legalistic; and does not meet in many instances the needs of those who complain, nor deal fairly with those complained against." You then go on to say that you believe that the discipline process and the relevant police regulation will need to be reformed if the system is to work in the way that the IPCC wishes it to. Could you expand for us what changes you would like to see? Mr Hardwick: Well, first of all, just to confirm, it has been – I have come into this area of work new, I started last February, so it has been very much a learning experience for me, and I suppose I have been surprised by the degree of consistency there has been from all the people I have met, both in the police service, at whatever level, and indeed the kind of stakeholders who represent complainants, about what is wrong with the current system, and I think what we summarised there would indeed be a very widely shared view. I think we will be able to do four things that will make a difference to that process. First of all, the fact that for the most serious incidents we will be able to independently investigate them I think will bring a degree of credibility and reassurance that almost at the moment, no matter how well the police do it themselves, is lacking, and I think that is widely understood and accepted. Secondly, I think, if you talk to anyone about the current system, what they complain about is how long it takes to bring cases to a conclusion, and the fact that people feel that the current process has become disproportionate. I know you have heard evidence from other witnesses to that effect. It is very striking, the degree to which that is the case. If you look at the most serious incidents, things which, if it was a normal criminal investigation, might be wrapped up in months, take years; less serious incidents that common sense would suggest could be dealt with within 24 or 48 hours seem to take months to bring to a conclusion. We think that part of the answer to that is first of all in the more serious cases, following the recommendations of the Lancet Inquiry, and drawing much tighter terms of reference – so that the investigation is focused right from the start. It does not mean those terms of reference might never change if more information comes to light, but those changes are the result of a deliberate decision-making process, rather than simply a drift. And in less serious cases, we think a local resolution, informal resolution, as it used to be called, all the evidence suggests that that is likely to be a process that is more satisfactory, both for the police officers or police staff complained against and for the complainant, in reaching a satisfactory conclusion. The other thing I think we will do which will make a difference is we will try and make the system more transparent and more open. I think part of the reason for the suspicion and lack of credibility that there is around the system at the moment, from both sides, from the officers complained against and from the complainants, is that people feel they are not told what is going on, and they do not understand why, if you like, whatever conclusions an investigation reaches, you know, on what evidence that is based and how that conclusion has been reached, and I think if we can make the system more transparent and more open, I think that will go a long way to reducing some of the suspicion and lack of credibility it currently has. Sir William Morris: Let us just pick up your last point there, because we have mentioned the fate of officers complained against, and in some circumstances it would not be unfair to say that officers are hung out to dry. Could you share with us what plans you have got, if any, to ensure that officers are kept informed about the progress or lack of it in the context of investigation; how will they be treated differently under the Commission regime, as compared to the current situation? A. If I may give you an example of how the system works at present, which was – I was out in a patrol car in Southwark, and something an officer there told me, which was very striking, has lived with me since. He described a situation where a complaint had been made against him, he said that complaint was the worst thing that had happened in his career, it had affected his family and personal life, and it had gone on for 14 months. After 14 months, he discovered that the complaint had actually been withdrawn five months earlier, but no one had seen fit to tell him about that. Now one of the things that we will insist on in the new system is that the same high standards of regular communication that we are insisting on for complainants is also applied to police officers who are the subject of the complaints, and I think what is important – Sir William Morris: That is a guarantee, is it? A. It is a guarantee, but I think what is important as well – and we are saying that there has to be regular communication, even if nothing much has happened, because I think sometimes what happens is that people say, "Look, we do not have much to tell them, we will not communicate." But actually for the complainant or the police officer, they imagine all sorts of things are going on while they are perhaps suspended, sitting at home, desperately anxious; of course, their imagination is running riot. Sometimes what you have to tell them is, "Look, we are waiting for a response from the Crown Prosecution Service", or this expert, that expert, "Nothing much has happened", but you need to keep that regular communication going. The other point, I think, that will make a difference in terms of looking after officers concerned, I have been struck by, if you talk about the most serious but very exceptional incidents, for instance when there has been a violent incident and someone has been killed as a result of police use of firearms, very exceptional, very traumatic for everybody involved. What police officers have said to me is that what they would really like in that situation is some consistency. They would like some certainty about what is going to happen, how the investigation will take place, why decisions will be made, what is the background of the people dealing with them. Under the current system, normally when that is investigated, the SIO in charge of that investigation, maybe one investigation like that in their career – those are the kinds of incidents that we are likely to independently investigate on a consistent basis, and so over time, we will be able to build up not only our expertise but also a consistent approach, so at least where people are caught up in these very difficult incidents, they will know exactly what to expect. Sir William Morris: Okay. We have heard from the Chair of the PCA, a week or so ago, about the two pilots which have been conducted, I think in Durham and Thames Valley Constabularies. I am just wondering whether there are any initial trends which have emerged from these two pilots that you are able to share with us. Mr Hardwick: The pilots were in Thames Valley and Avon and Somerset, if I remember correctly. Sir William Morris: Yes, thank you. Mr Hardwick: The Thames Valley pilot was very important, because what the PCA were trying to test there was to pilot the new appeal system that will be in the new system. So for most cases, we will not be involved in initial decision-making by the police, so in a local investigation it will be the police's responsibility, the MPS's responsibility, to carry that out from start to finish, but the complainant will have a right of appeal to us. This links back to your earlier point, Sir Bill; I think one of the critical pieces of learning that has come out of that is that the number of appeals is likely to be substantially affected by how effective the communication is with the complainant. If you get the communication wrong, if people do not know what is happening and the suspicion grows and all of that, then you are likely to get more appeals than if you have not just timely and regular communication but thoughtful communication, good quality communication, that tries to help people who may be very unfamiliar – almost by definition may be very unfamiliar with these processes, keep them properly informed about what is going on. Now that is one of the lessons we have tried to learn and apply in the operating advice we have drawn up for forces. The Avon and Somerset pilot was looking at appeals relating to disclosure of information, and in a sense, that was helpful for us, in terms of our planning, because it suggested there were likely to be less appeals on that specific topic; if people had concerns about that, they were more likely to come out as a concern about the investigation as a whole, and that certainly informed our thinking a lot about how we can approach these issues. Sir William Morris: Just one final question from me, Chairman: let us roll the tape forward a bit, 18 months, two years or so; by what criteria would you wish your key stakeholders to measure your effectiveness? And by key stakeholders, I am talking about possible complainant, police officers, and, of course, the MPS itself. Mr Hardwick: Well, I think, Chairman – perhaps it is appropriate to say this is not a system, no matter what we do, that is going to have everybody happy. If you have got a family whose son has died in police custody, there is nothing we can do that will, if you like, resolve the issue for that family. If an officer has been caught up in a major investigation and is innocent of the charges of which he is accused, it is always going to be a very traumatic and difficult experience for them, so I do not want to promise too much. But the critical test for the IPCC is: have we improved, have we made a contribution to increasing public confidence in the police as a whole, and thereby their effectiveness? You know, for me, whether people feel confident about the IPCC, that is just a means to an end. The critical issue is whether we have contributed to public confidence and trust in the police, and thereby their effectiveness. And that is very difficult to measure, and it is difficult to measure what contribution we have made to that. At a more practical level, I certainly hope that people will judge us on whether we have made the system more open and transparent; I hope that there will be a measurable difference in the time it takes to conclude investigations to incidents, whether we are doing it or whether the police are doing it themselves, and I hope that the kind of quality of our investigations will pass the test of competence and professionalism, because I think one of the things we have been very clear about is that the IPCC – we can be as independent as you like, but if we are not also competent and professional, we are not going to please anybody. So those are the tests on which I really expect and hope to be judged. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. You have our best wishes. Mr Hardwick: Thank you. Sir William Morris: Can I ask Sir Anthony Burden to put a few questions to you, Chairman? Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Sir Anthony Burden: Mr Hardwick, looking at the terms of reference of the IPCC, and the high expectations particularly around independent inquiries – if I might say, this is the crucial issue for us in our terms of reference – is the reliance that is going to be placed upon your role in independent investigations for the future. Do you feel your organisation is sufficiently resourced and properly staffed to be able to deal with the volume of business that will be coming your way? Mr Hardwick: I am very clearly of the view that the resources we have at present for next year are appropriate to the start-up of the IPCC, and I am at one with – I know Ken Jones from Sussex told you yesterday that in fact, in theory, it might have been nice to have more resources at this early stage, but we will be judged, I believe, more on quality than on quantity. May I just say a word or two about our independent investigations, just to clarify our approach to that? I think there are two things to say. First of all – and it is almost like managing expectations down. There will be no such thing as a completely independent investigation. You know, at the very least, here in London, it would be the MPS who do all the golden hour stuff, who preserve the scene before we can assemble our teams and have them on site. I think what we are talking to ACPO about is thereafter, looking at a graduated response; there may be some cases that are so serious, that have such impact on public concern, that we would want to do everything ourselves, and we have the capacity and resources in a small number of investigations to do absolutely that, including forensics, specialists, all investigative teams. More likely, we would provide probably a majority of the investigators, a majority of the resources; we would use police resources as well, but they would be working under our direction. There may be some cases where we can satisfy the test of independence where, if you like, we have the key roles but a significant proportion of the staff involved might come from the police service. So we are looking at that graduated – we see it as a spectrum, not an absolute. The second thing I would say is I think – and I recognise this is difficult, but for some cases you might start by taking a view that it is a very serious incident and public concern may be very high, but evidence may come to light quite quickly that offers reassurance. That reassurance is accepted by the family, and it may not be a good use of our resources to keep up with that independent investigation. Conversely, something that initially seems a small and minor incident you might want to ratchet up the scale. So we want to try and maintain that kind of flexible approach. We anticipate, thinking of that spectrum, that in our first year we will be able to independently investigate around 30 cases, and we will be able to manage around another 80, and I am confident that if we can prove the kind of quality and worth of what we do, we will be able to win the arguments with Government about an expansion of our resources. But it would not do anybody any good if we started off now claiming to be able to do a lot of cases and actually not doing them well; I would rather have excellence and quality than quantity. Sir Anthony Burden: Sure, thank you. You have already mentioned the Lancet report, and you have obviously read the website of yesterday's deliberations. You very helpfully say in your submission that you will embrace the Lancet report in the way that you work, and as you know, Ken Jones yesterday also embraced the Lancet report as being very important. The important thing, I think, for me and for the other Panel members that Mr Jones said around this yesterday, but we just want to get this clear in our own minds, is around the issue of compliance; the Lancet report is a first class piece of work, but it is no good if we do not have uniform compliance across the service, and, as you know, the independent role of chief constables in 43 forces. Mr Jones suggested yesterday that the essence of Lancet would be going in the statutory guidance that you are producing; is that right? Mr Hardwick: That is the case. Perhaps one small caution on that: we had decided we would not issue statutory guidance until after six months, until October at the earliest, because we want to base our statutory guidance on some experience; as far as possible it is practical, and there will also be a consultation process on that, and I would not want to prejudge that consultation process. But I think it is almost certain that the Lancet recommendations will form a fundamental part of our guidance. Certainly, if I can speak personally, of all the material I have looked at since I started, the reading I have done, to try to familiarise myself with this issue, it is the document that has made one of the biggest impressions on me. It is central, it is very much at the heart of what we are trying to do. And the point as well I think to make, and this goes back to our guardianship role, is that it is not simply a question of us issuing guidance, we then have the inspection and audit powers to make sure that that guidance is actually being complied with, and draw attention where that is not the case. Obviously we would work closely with colleagues in HMIC to achieve that. Sir Anthony Burden: That is very reassuring actually, thank you. Can I move on to investigations which involve black and minority ethnic police officers and police staff, and, of course, complainants from black and minority ethnic communities? There are quite often, around these investigations, if I can put it this way, sort of sensitivities of understanding, and understanding the sensitivities. I would be interested to know the ethnic make-up of your team, purely from the viewpoint that will you be able to guarantee that where there are these sensitivities, there will be a level of supervision provided by black and minority ethnic members of the IPCC, so that any concerns and sensitivities from those complained of, or the complainants, can actually be satisfied? Mr Hardwick: I think it would be presumptuous to offer a guarantee, but what I can say to you is that it is absolutely at the heart of our thinking. You know, you will be aware of my own background; this is a key priority for me personally, and I will have personal charge of ensuring that this is embedded in the organisation. In terms of the make-up of our staff, of the commissioners, who are ultimately the guarantors of the process, 27 per cent are from an visible minority ethnic group, which I think is quite good for a n non-departmental public body. Of our senior executive team, 16 per cent are from a visible minority. Of our investigators, 10 per cent are from a visible minority. I would qualify that among investigators; our senior investigators, for the most part we have targeted people with a police background because they have the experience we want, none of our senior investigators are from a visible minority. We are disappointed about that, but we took a very conscious decision about the particular skills, where we would try to recruit those people from, and those tended to be from people with 30 years' experience in the police service, where people from those minority groups are in short supply, but if you look at the organisation as a whole, I feel we have made important progress. We have not tried to deal with it as an isolated issue, we have tried to make sure that those sensitivities are embedded into all our training programmes, and embedded into all the work we do; the material we produce, our relationships with our stakeholders, the media we talk to. We try to make it very much part of our everyday work. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Finally from me, a related issue: you very helpfully in your submission attached various documents relating to the gathering of statistics. Very much central to our considerations is the issue and concerns around disproportionality displayed in the way that people have been treated subject to misconduct; whether individuals are suspended, how long they are suspended for, how they are treated during suspension, decisions to charge, disciplinary matters, and taking issues formally to discipline hearings. I must say, personally, I had been rather surprised that those sorts of statistics had not been available for us under current arrangements. Would it be your intention to pursue statistics along those sorts of lines, and I think it is also important, if I might say so, in monitoring behaviour, not only of individual officers, but shifts of officers, stations, et cetera. Mr Hardwick: Absolutely. I think we will be able to collect that information, both about complainants and about officers themselves. It has been very interesting going around different forces in the country; there are some that are doing precisely what you say, looking at the trends, trying to identify the particular shifts, the particular officers, the particular kind of situations that made, of course, that disproportionality, and others for whom that seems a very unusual and surprising idea. There is a big discrepancy. So we can use our statistics to provide that national picture, and then what I would anticipate, say, here in London, is to work with the Metropolitan Police Authority to say, "Look, this is the national picture, these are your statistics, there are differences here, do you want to explore them, do you want to go further?" The other point, if I may add, I think, where I think we can add some value, is our ability to call in cases. We do not just have to investigate or supervise those cases that are referred to us, we can call in particular cases. I think as our experience grows, and if you like as our intelligence grows, we may say, "Look, there is a particular issue, nationally or in a particular force, around complaints about this particular area", it might be stop and search, for instance. So we say, "Okay, we are going to call in a selection of complaints about that issue", and we will supervise that investigation, so we can get a real insight into how those particular incidents are being kind of dealt with. Now we will not do that to start with, because if we chose those kinds of issues to start with it would be pretty much a random choice, but as our information, and statistical information, comes back, we will then be able to target our resources to try and provide that fuller picture that then forces can use to influence their operational practice. Sir Anthony Burden: Will there be any statutory powers available to you? I am not suggesting that any information you provide to forces of that nature will be snubbed and ignored, but if you are not happy with the response what would your action be to pursue it? Mr Hardwick: We do not have, and rightly, I think – our remit does not extend to direction and control, to operational issues; I think that is right in principle. But the exception to that is that we can draw the operational lessons that arise out of the work that we do. So we can draw that, and we can publish that. Now, if we were talking about here in London, if the Authority or the Commissioner here chose to ignore that, we could not force him to do that, but we could make sure that that was done – you know, that there was an appropriate degree of accountability and exposure for that decision, and we could try and create the environment in which those decisions had to be justified. So in principle, I think it is right that actually the decisions about those operational matters are made by the Commissioner and his staff, or by the Authority as appropriate, rather than ourselves. Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much indeed. Sir William Morris: Thank you, Sir Anthony. I pass you over to Miss Weekes for her questions. Questions by Miss Weekes Miss Weekes: Thank you, Chairman. Can I come to a paragraph in your submission which is at page 10, entitled: "The need for further reform – the discipline process." If I may just paraphrase my question, so that you understand where I am going, it is quite clear that your success at dealing with public complaints, and the consequential treatment of the public and police officers at the same time, is going to be absolutely crucial to moving the known complaints about public complaints on to a different level; it is quite clear your success is going to be looked at. In phrasing my questions, I really wanted to get from you how our recommendations around the need for further reform are going to help you. The disciplinary process, in the majority of cases, in fact in all the cases, will be dealt with by the Metropolitan Police Service at the first instance, before it ever gets to you. So what they do and how they do it is and will have a knock-on effect, in a sense, by the time it gets to you. What you have clearly stated here, and I am going to read it, because it is important, and I would like your assistance as to how we should deal with this by way of recommendation. First of all, you identify that one of the key concerns which had been highlighted by the new complaints process is the bringing together of police staff and officers under the same system. Just why do you think that is important? Mr Hardwick: Well, I think it is going to be a driver for change. One of the differences of the new system, as you say, is that our remit includes police staff, and indeed certain contracted staff, and police officers themselves. So imagine an incident where there has been, say, a death in custody where misconduct is alleged to have occurred, and involved in that same incident are sworn officers, police staff and potentially even contracted staff. What will happen in the new system is that the investigative process will be the same for all of those individuals; we would treat them in the same way. At the conclusion of that investigation, if we felt there was a disciplinary case to answer, not a criminal one, but a disciplinary case to answer, then everything goes on in separate directions. The police officers get dealt with under the disciplinary regulations; the police staff get dealt with under their contract of employment; and the contracted staff would get dealt with under their contract of employment. At that point, all three people, despite the fact they had been involved in the same incident, accused of the same thing, start to get treated very differently, and in some cases the advantage or disadvantage may change from incident to incident, but I think those differences and the exposure those differences will get will be one of the things people will say, "Look, how can we justify that? Why is it the case that these people need to be treated differently?" So I think it will be a driver for change. Miss Weekes: I am very grateful for that. Can I just go back to your page 10, if I may: "It is clear that police staff are nervous that they will not be afforded the same protection as officers in complaints and discipline matters, and it is highly possible, particularly with the shift to greater civilianisation of police roles, that two people could find themselves up on the same complaints charges, but be dealt with in very different ways." I think you have explained that, but I want to go on to 6.3: "The consistent messages that we have been hearing from officers, police staff and non-police stakeholders is that the current system is: too slow; too adversarial and legalistic; too bureaucratic and does not allow lessons to be learnt; too closed; stressful for everyone involved." This is something that we have heard from other witnesses. In the short time that you have gathered your information, this is the consistent message that you have heard from three sources? Mr Hardwick: I would say I have heard that from people at every kind of rank in the police service. I have heard it from ACPO to Federation members; I think there is a very consistent message around what are the problems with the current system. I have to say, there is much less agreement about what the replacement should be. Miss Weekes: I was just about to ask you that. Mr Hardwick: First of all, I would want to be very cautious in this answer, because in general what I want the IPCC to – its kind of policy recommendations need to be based on evidence, and at the moment we do not have the evidence from our experience to comment on this very widely. So with a degree of caution, and I should obviously say this is not something that has been discussed in detail with my colleagues on the Commission, so to some extent it is a personal view. My view is that rather than starting with the regulations as they are now, and say, "Okay, what piecemeal changes do we need to make?", I think there would be great merit in looking at, if you like, the current kind of best practice for ordinary employees, as recommended by ACAS; look at that and say, "Okay, what of that does not apply or would not apply for police officers?" Now I am not saying that you can have a completely identical system; I think there is a case that police officers need particular protection in some circumstances, and also I think there is a degree to which police officers have – or in the police system there is a kind of obligation of public accountability which may not apply in other forms of employment. But I do not think that those differences are so great that you cannot start with the way everybody else gets treated in the 21st century, and then say, "What of that does not apply?", rather than looking at what has been described, rightly, I think, as this Victorian quasi court martial system, and saying, you know, what bits of sticking plaster can we put on this to bring it a bit more up to date? I would look at it the other way round. Miss Weekes: I am grateful for that, and I do note the degree of caution that you give that personal view, but I am very grateful for it. I have one other area to speak to you about. As you know, your paths are going to cross with the Crown Prosecution Service and the role that they play in whether to charge or not in a serious conduct or misconduct case. Again, I appreciate you have not yet started work, but first of all, explain how you see that relationship, and how is it going to affect the question of delay, and what officers expect? Mr Hardwick: Well, first of all, we have had a series of discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service and with the DPP – in fact, my colleague, John Tate, has led on a lot of those, so he may be able to give a fuller answer than I can. First of all, I would start by saying we have been very encouraged by the response that the DPP has made to the introduction of the IPCC. Certainly in the more serious cases, what we are talking to them about is bringing in the Crown Prosecution Service at a much earlier stage. You know, if one goes back to the Lancet kind of case conference type view, bringing them in right at the start, rather than, as the current position often seems to be, that you go through the investigative phase and then at the end of it you go along to the Crown Prosecution Service, and so things happen in a sequential rather than kind of a concurrent way. So that seems to me a key difference. Secondly, I think we are looking at improving liaison at a local level, with the local CPS teams, to improve our day-to-day contact and our relationships, so there is a kind of greater understanding of what we are trying to do. Some of that – we will have a detailed protocol that will set that out, but I certainly have been encouraged by the very positive reaction from the DPP himself to what we are trying to do. Mr Tate: If I could just add one thing, that as it exists we are engaged in negotiating protocols with the CPS at the moment, we are having meetings with them to sort that out. One thing that, for example, I think they will be agreeing with us is that when IPCC lawyers advise Commissioners that there is no scintilla of evidence of a criminal matter, then that will rest with the IPCC, it will not go to the CPS, it will not spend months at the CPS, so in terms of those officers who are facing criminal proceedings they will know the answer, if there is nothing, much, much quicker. Miss Weekes: That is obviously going to be a helpful factor to deal with the delay that has happened in the past. That leads me to the final point: there may be an investigation about a piece of conduct by the officer, and the Crown Prosecution Service, as they are an independent service, take the view, having looked at the file, that he ought to be prosecuted. He is acquitted, but there are still matters which the Metropolitan Police Service consider that they should properly proceed with by way of disciplinary. Do you have a role in any of that? Mr Hardwick: It may indeed be the case that you suggest. I mean, we might have a role, because if we felt that there was a disciplinary case to answer, and the MPS were reluctant to convene a tribunal, we can require a tribunal to be convened. Where we so require, we would be able to present the case against the officer accused, and one of the things that I know is with ministers at the moment, that they are currently considering, is whether in those circumstances, in the most exceptional circumstances, a disciplinary tribunal should be able to be held in public, so those are all areas where we can affect, if you like, the conduct of a tribunal, but I would stress, rightly so, that any decisions that tribunal makes are a matter for them, not for us. Miss Weekes: Yes. It is clearly important that your ability to recommend disciplinary proceedings exists, even though the man or woman is found not guilty, because that has, of course, to do with the whole question of professional standards, and the public's perception of professional standards. Does that deal adequately, do you think, with the whole question of the officer's point of view of double jeopardy against him or her? Mr Hardwick: I think there are issues around ensuring that the case concerned, the handling of the case, remains proportionate and timely in view of the allegations that are made, and that does need to be looked at. But I think if you go back to the question, if one looks at what would happen in ordinary civilian employment, compared with what happens in the police service, it might well be the case, you know, that someone is accused of a criminal offence, you do not have the standard of proof necessary, or the court does not have the standard of proof necessary to convict on that basis, but nevertheless, if one looks under ordinary employment law on the balance of probabilities you could decide that that person should face some kind of internal disciplinary sanction. So I do not think in principle – and I think that is acceptable, and do think that is appropriate, but you have to look at these things in a proportionate way, you have to consider what I said about timeliness, and I do not think it is in anybody's interest that these things go on for years and years, if that can possibly be avoided. So there is a judgment call to be made, but I would not want to say that – I think to lose the possibility that in some circumstances it may be appropriate that even if a criminal prosecution fails, that some sort of disciplinary action is required, but I think you would have to make those decisions on a case by case basis. Miss Weekes: Thank you very much indeed, Chairman. Sir William Morris: Chairman, thank you very much indeed for your help, and in particular for your contribution to the Inquiry overall. We have now finished the questions that we wanted to ask of you and your colleagues, but you will recall that in my opening comments I said I would offer you the opportunity for a brief closing statement, if you so wish. If you do, now is your chance. Mr Hardwick: Well, thank you, Sir Bill, and if I can repeat how certainly from our point of view this has been a very timely inquiry, and we certainly will, from our point of view, want to build on your recommendations, I am sure, and take them forward. I think the kind of key messages that I would like to leave with you about the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the difference we will make are these: that first of all, in the most serious cases, we do guarantee that we will offer an investigative capacity that is genuinely and credibly independent. But alongside that, we will make sure, and put great efforts into making sure, that those investigations are also competent and professional, and meet the very highest standards of what is available currently. We are giving absolute priority to making sure that the process is timely and proportionate, and we expect to be judged on whether we achieve that. We will make the system more transparent, and we will have an appreciation of diversity issues at the very heart of what we do. We have a very clear vision of what we want the IPCC to achieve, and we look forward to working with the MPS and the MPA to do that. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. Could I just make a comment for the record? I say that because as with all our witnesses it may be that once we have heard from other witnesses we will want to ask you to answer for us a few more questions, either in writing or ask you to come back and share your thoughts with us at a future hearing. If we need to do that, we will try to do so in a way which offers the least inconvenience to you, your organisation, and indeed your colleagues. But for the moment, all that I need to do is, on behalf of my two colleagues and the Panel, to thank you and your colleagues for attending this afternoon for your help and your contribution to our work. Thank you very much. Mr Hardwick: Thank you. Sir William Morris: As usual, I ask the members of the public to remain seated whilst the witnesses leave the room, and to indicate that the Inquiry is adjourned until 10.30 tomorrow morning. Thank you very much. 4.40 pm (Hearing adjourned until 10.30 am the following day) Internal links On this website: Evidence: Independent Police Complaints Commission Evidence provided by and documents referred to by Mr N Hardwick of the Independent Police Complaints Commission in his appearance at the Inquiry. Transcript: Independent Police Complaints Commission (8 June 2004) The full transcript of the second public session with Mr N Hardwick and Mr J Wadham of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, held at 10.30am on 8 June 2004.
	Previous Next
Transcripts > Independent Police Complaints Commission (24 Feb 04)
© Copyright 2004, The Morris Inquiry. Standards compliant HTML. Designed and maintained by Netfundi