Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
7.21 In our view, that is not an image about which the MPS should be complacent.
One badly handled case is one too many. We have seen and heard examples of
poor supervision and flawed decision-making.
7.22 As a general rule, officers in the MPS have the highest standards of integrity
and are proud of the office they hold. It is only a very small minority whose
conduct falls below the expected standards.
7.23 The majority of officers, therefore, accept unequivocally that action must be
taken to deal with those whose integrity is in question. They are supportive of the
need to investigate allegations thoroughly to maintain public confidence. They do
not want to serve with officers whose conduct threatens the integrity of the Service.
7.24 Indeed, many of those who have themselves been subject to investigation are
also supportive of the need to maintain public confidence by taking action to
investigate allegations. We have been struck by the fact that a number of
individuals have told us that they recognised the imperative of concerns about their
conduct being investigated:
“It was absolutely right that I was investigated for this matter. I am not saying I should not have
been investigated. If somebody makes a complaint it should be investigated, quite rightly.”
(Evidence of Chief Inspector Julia Pendry.)
“I should have been investigated properly, all of us should have been investigated, … the
discipline procedure should have taken place immediately as it did, … what they should have
done was investigate what happened, how did it happen, and is there anybody to blame for it?
Or, how are we going to deal with them, and how are we going to set matters right and make
sure it does not happen again?” (Evidence of Ms JJ.)
7.25 However, there is less support for DPS itself. We have received a substantial
amount of evidence about the culture of DPS and the way that it operates.
7.26 We appreciate that DPS carries out a vast number of investigations each year
and that we have only heard from a relatively small number of individuals.
However, we have also heard from a range of organisations that have dealt with
DPS and we have a concern, based on what we have read and heard, that DPS is
somewhat detached from the rest of the organisation. This image, real or perceived,
cannot be good for the directorate itself and is unhealthy for the MPS as a whole.
7.27 DPS has variously been described to us as ‘unaccountable’,‘untouchable’,‘out of
control’ and in effect operating outside the rest of the organisation.
“I believe they have a different agenda. I mean, charter standards are for everyone, are they
not? Everyone has got charter standards, and they have got their own charter standards.
That is my belief now.” (Evidence of Mr DD.)
141