Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE
“The MPS has relied in its arguments for not proceeding with a disciplinary hearing primarily
on broader public interest arguments concerned with the needs of the police service to
recruit and retain more people from black and minority ethnic groups, and specifically its
assessment that in this case to set aside the agreement reached with the Black Police
Association would be to jeopardise its own strategy and plans for such recruitment.We have
given careful consideration to these arguments but dismiss them as matters that do not have
sufficient pertinence to either the case in hand or to the specific public interest in upholding
the police disciplinary system.They are essentially extraneous management concerns,
legitimate and important in their own right but never sensible grounds for manipulating a
disciplinary system. Indeed the failure of the MPS to keep the two separate has led to the
confusion and poor judgements characterising this case.”
(Decision of the IPCC Review Panel.)
10.56 We asked the Deputy Commissioner about the IPCC’s criticism and he made
clear that, in the MPS’ view, there were over-riding strategic management concerns
which justified the approach taken. Superintendent Dizaei referred to these when
he gave evidence:
“… once you look at where this case started, the cost to the taxpayer, the cost to the confidence
of policing, the trauma it caused to my family, to my colleagues, to my community, and the potential
damage this would have had as this matter went to discipline – which, from my understanding,
a further eminent QC was appointed to represent the Metropolitan Police – and for it to then
go to an employment tribunal listed for four months, I think it was perfectly sensible for all
those involved, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the Commissioner and my legal team, to try
to resolve this problem and I am delighted that they did.” (Evidence of Superintendent Dizaei.)
10.57 To an extent, we understand the MPS’ concerns at the time, in particular its
desire to resolve intractable management issues facing the organisation. However,
we consider that it is never appropriate for a public body such as the MPS to enter
into an agreement that is ultra vires, and which is likely to bring the organisation
into disrepute with its own staff and officers, as well as the wider public.
10.58 Failing to consult the PCA, which had a statutory role in the case at the time
the settlement agreement was drafted, was a fundamental error, as the
Commissioner himself pointed out when he gave evidence: “I do not know whether
Ian Blair actually contacted the PCA. If it had been me as Deputy Commissioner I would have
contacted the PCA and they would have been involved in negotiations, because remember, of
course, they had the job of supervising that inquiry from start to finish.”
Media issues
10.59 A number of criticisms have been made of the way in which the MPS
handled media issues during Operation Helios. Superintendent Dizaei contends
that the organisation had a proactive media strategy that apparently was devised
247