Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
vi. Failing to interview officers and witnesses:
“During this period, they had ample opportunity to interview me, and, in actual fact –
I was suspended in [redacted]; almost 14 months later, [redacted], I was told to report
to a police station for interview. That was the first indication I have got as to what was
happening to the inquiry.” (Evidence of Mr KK.)
“I was suspended from duty … on the word of a self confessed criminal, who at the
time of committing crimes was a serving Police Officer. His allegations against me were
not corroborated in any way. His so called confession where I was incriminated by him
was not recorded by contemporaneous notes, tapes or video. I was left in limbo without
any help or support for over a year before I was arrested by appointment, interviewed
and released on bail to be told that no further action would be taken.”
(Evidence of IND 42.)
7.110 We have also received much evidence about a lack of proportionality in
some investigations which are allowed to run on because the investigating officer
is certain that something will be revealed. This is in contrast to an approach, which
insists on concrete evidence or considers suspending the investigation. Such
‘fishing expeditions’ give rise to the perception which we heard of DPS being ‘out
to get’ certain officers.
7.111 DAC Roberts denied that the DPS approach was anything other than totally
evidence based: “Evidence-based allocation of resources is not just a matter of ethics, as far
as I am concerned; it is also a matter of good resource management. I could not afford to
spend a lot of resources, or hardly anything, on an allegation of the sort of thing that you have
just been talking about.”
7.112 As part of our consideration of high profile cases, we commissioned reviews
from two experienced former detectives into a number of the cases. They
commented on poor practice in relation to policy files. The files they saw did not
record all the important decisions on the cases.
7.113 Not only does this leave investigating officers exposed but it also means that
there can be no confidence that the necessary rigour has been brought to bear on
the investigation. It also makes it difficult to track the thought processes and
reasons for decisions made, which is vital.
7.114 This is all part of a picture of DPS officers operating outside of the constraints
imposed on ordinary investigations. We see no compelling reason for this to be
tolerated and, once again, this indicates a need for proper supervision and
oversight.
7.115 All of these concerns about the way DPS carries out investigations point, in
our view, to a root and branch review of investigatory practices within DPS.
161