Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
A new model of case management
7.61 If our earlier recommendations are accepted, the current disciplinary regime
will no longer exist. However, implementing this change is likely to take some time
and therefore the MPS, and other police services, will have to operate under the
current system in the interim. We consider that there is room for greater rigour in
the operation of the process and that this would flow from greater oversight.
7.62 We have devised a model of case management which we are recommending
to the MPS and which we believe will provide a more effective framework for
handling complaints and discipline matters. This builds on the recommendations of
the Lancet Review, which we have outlined above, and is designed to ensure more
rigorous internal oversight of case management.
7.63 Whilst we accept that there have been improvements in terms of delay and
the use of suspension, we believe that the way DPS operates the current system has
led to a loss of confidence both internally and externally. In our view, it still takes
too long to resolve a case and there are delays both in the investigation and in the
time it takes to convene a disciplinary hearing.
7.64 We are optimistic that, properly applied, the model will meet some of the
criticisms we have heard, from individuals and others, of the way the system is
currently operated in the MPS. In particular, we believe that it will address issues of
delay, the use of suspension, delay in arranging discipline panels and the lack of
welfare support given to officers involved in the disciplinary process.
7.65 We accept that DPS’ caseload is very high when compared to other police
services. We have been told that DPS handles approximately 5,000 cases a year.
We accept that DPS should retain a case management function in respect of the
majority of those cases.
7.66 However, we are persuaded that there should be a target for the completion
of investigations within 90 days. We believe that many investigations could be
completed well within this timescale.
7.67 Where an investigation exceeds that target period, the MPA should have a
monitoring role. The Commissioner should report to the MPA’s Professional
Standards and Complaints Committee and the Committee should hold DPS to
account for the progress of the investigation and scrutinise the reasons why it has
exceeded the target time. DPS will be required to justify the time taken and also
the need for a continued investigation.
7.68 We appreciate that this will involve details of individual cases being provided
to the MPA’s Committee. This has not been the practice to date. However, if there
is to be a return of confidence in the complaints investigation process in the MPS,
we strongly believe that independent oversight is essential.
149