Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
offered absolutely no support at all. But I will say, and I think this is very, very important, I was
offered no official support, but there have been people who have been truly, truly loyal and
kind to me … It would have been nice if the Gold group had considered my welfare needs in
the first place, rather than just thinking about everybody else’s needs.”
(Evidence of Chief Inspector Pendry.)
Gold Group
10.110 We have already said that we consider that the MPS missed an opportunity
to address the issue raised by the complaint about Chief Inspector Pendry’s conduct
at an early stage. Instead, it formed a Gold Group, partly out of a desire, it was said,
to secure her welfare, which we consider it signally failed to do. A Gold Group is
formed where there is a critical incident. We have already referred to the definition as
“any incident where the effectiveness of the police response is likely to have a significant
impact on the confidence of the victim, their family and / or the community.”
10.111 In this case, we see the involvement of a Gold Group as an over-reaction
because the complaint came from Sikh officers and an example of the MPS’
difficulty in managing difference where race is an issue.
“It was completely and utterly disproportionate and an appalling way of managing a case.”
(Evidence of Chief Inspector Pendry.)
10.112 Under the current disciplinary system as operated by the MPS, investigations
into the alleged misconduct of an officer are the responsibility of DPS. In our view,
the use of a Gold Group in this case, as in the case of Superintendent Dizaei, only
served to blur the lines of decision-making and accountability.
10.113 Even if the decision to form a Gold Group were justified, it is clear that
there were a number of errors in the way it was used and its composition. Chief
Inspector Pendry has raised some pertinent questions in this respect:
“63.Why was the Gold Group held at Southall police station.Was this designed to intimidate me?
64. Given that Gold Groups should be independent and unbiased.Why was [redacted]
allowed to sit in the meetings and be the minute taker? He was a supervisor and witness at
my briefing for Guru Nanak.
65.Why was [redacted] excluded from the Gold Group?
66.Why was [redacted] [the officer who wrote the letter of complaint to [redacted] and
personal friend of seven years, to [redacted – one of the complainants], allowed to sit on the
Gold Group and make decisions about me? Why were the federation and the association of
senior women officers excluded from the group?
262