Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
● To identify specific cases upon which it requires a full report from the Commissioner,
and for these to include live as well as closed cases.
● To give advice or views on the conduct or progress of a specific case to which the
Commissioner should be required to have regard; to nominate one or more
Members to give such advice or views on a continuing basis throughout the course of
an individual case.
● To set standards in respect of matters such as use of mediation, informal resolution of
complaints, and restorative conferencing to which the Commissioner should be
required to have regard.”
(Submission from Reshard Auladin, Chair of the MPA’s Professional Standards and
Complaints Committee.)
6.27 Lord Harris proposed in his submission that the function of the investigation
of complaints within a service should be at “arms length” from the service
management and directly accountable to the police authority. “Redefining the
relationship of the investigating unit to the Authority could boost community confidence in the
complaints process, complementing the role of the MPA.”
6.28 The MPA itself acknowledged that this proposal received little support from
those giving evidence to the Inquiry. The Commissioner saw it as potentially being
“political interference”, although the MPA, like all police authorities, is not intended to
be a political body. The MPA clarified that they were not proposing that police
authorities should have any direct responsibility for discipline decisions or functions
and saw the proposal as building on the “existing convention in police forces that the
Deputy Chief Constable is the discipline authority and responsible for the operation of the
complaints function.”
6.29 Thus, in respect of the MPS, the MPA’s proposal is that the Deputy
Commissioner should have responsibility and accountability for the direction and
control of the service relating to the investigation of complaints and conduct
matters and should report to, and be accountable, to the Authority for the
performance of those responsibilities.
6.30 This would leave the Commissioner free in the role of final adjudicator on
individual cases without a conflict of responsibilities.
“The separation of functions, and the introduction of the authority as an independent player,
would serve to increase public and internal confidence in the system.”
(Submission from Reshard Auladin, Chair of the MPA’s Professional Standards and
Complaints Committee.)
6.31 We invited the Home Office to comment on the MPA’s proposal. The department’s
view is that the current statutory framework enables police authorities to carry out their
oversight responsibilities and that authorities play a valuable role in asking challenging
questions of the service. In their submission to us, the Home Office noted the MPA’s
view that there was a case for “fundamental structural reform to put the investigation of
122