Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
7.101 In addition, DAC Roberts told us about a new model he had evolved for
reviewing cases:
“It is really looking at how a review should be done on two dimensions. The vertical axis is
what you might call the traditional murder review style: where are we on the route, between
‘allegation’ and ‘conviction’, whether that be in a court or on misconduct board; or an informal
finding, words of advice, something short of going to a misconduct board. The second
dimension that is actually new is … where are we positioned along that spectrum of a pure
search for truth or a decision that he is already guilty, and all we have got to do is find the
evidence …
“That might well indicate that what it is we are trying to achieve out of this … has changed
over the course of the investigation. Is our definition of success now … that, actually, sending
this to a misconduct board would be completely absurd and what we really need here is
management intervention and a mediation process that gets us away from the formality of
quasi criminal proceedings? And are we sure, if that is the right course, that only we as the
investigators think that that is the right outcome, but that the victim or victims do, that the
stakeholder or stakeholders do as well, because unless all those parties to it are happy, or at
least acquiescent, then you are going to end up with a process that has not satisfied
everybody. And that is actually what we are trying to achieve.”
7.102 His view was that additional skills would be needed “... to those that you would
require for murder review: around diversity, around mediation, around restorative justice …
and legal qualifications as well. I think that would provide us with a much more rounded
process which could stop the steam roller in appropriate cases, but equally could divert it into
something that would be a lot more productive as an outcome than either a successful or,
indeed, a failed misconduct board or criminal proceedings.”
7.103 We are not persuaded that either the current systems or DAC Roberts’ new
model will involve the rigorous scrutiny that we consider essential to increase
confidence in the system. Nor will it provide the accountability that is urgently
needed. We return to our earlier conclusion that there needs to be an independent
monitoring and review function outside DPS.
7.104 We discussed the issue of independent review with many witnesses and the
suggestion found great support. Initially we considered that an external resource
might be needed, but we have concluded that it could be carried out internally
provided the review function was independent from DPS.
“I think it needs to sit outside the DPS. It can be internal but it is almost like a listing office,
it has the functions of a listing office, and it is that independent rigour that will push issues
forward. I think that if that responsibility is taken away from the officers directly involved then
that will speed things up.” (Evidence of Detective Chief Superintendent Sharon Kerr.)
7.105 The model we have proposed involves more than simply monitoring
progress. It also involves monitoring the decisions taken in investigations and
158