Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
10.126 The policy file in relation to this investigation was inadequate and
unprofessional. As a consequence, the MPS was unable to give sufficient
justification to its actions when they were challenged in the Employment Tribunal.
10.127 We agree with the following criticisms made by our independent
investigator:
“The policy file in this case was loose leaved, contained in a ring binder and, with the
exception of the first seven entries, was not consecutively numbered. These deficiencies
together with the failure by the investigating officers to record important decisions and the
rationale behind them had the effect of making it difficult for them to justify their decisions
during the Employment Tribunal Hearings and for senior managers of the MPS to defend the
actions of their staff …
“Because the use of a PolSA in these circumstances is highly unusual I would have expected
that a decision log entry would have been made outlining the reasons for using one in the
case of PS Virdi. No such log exists and there is no reason shown in the Operational order
prepared for the arrest and search of PS Virdi’s home …
“The issue of staffing of the investigation is not addressed in the policy file …
“However this was only one hypothesis. There were others. For example the documents
could have been created on another IT system (there was nothing on the documents
themselves which indicated where they had been created or produced) and brought to a
police station and placed into the internal mail system. This may well have been considered by
the investigators but again there is no acknowledgement in the policy file that other theories
existed, that they were explored or tested and that they were dismissed on the basis of the
evidence uncovered.” (Independent investigator’s report.)
Investigation process
10.128 Criticisms have also been made of the investigatory process in this case,
and the lack of policy file entries gives the impression that insufficient rigour was
applied to important decisions made during the course of the investigation:
“The nominating of a suspect on an enquiry is one not taken lightly. There is a need to identify
a criteria to apply to a suspect to see if they can be eliminated from an enquiry for instance by
means of an alibi or through forensic evidence.This criteria should be the subject of a policy
entry. The lack of such an entry means that there is no evidence of a methodical approach
being applied to the Implication or Elimination of any of the suspects in this case. This led to
confusion about who was and was not a suspect at a particular time and raised the question
about why one suspect was interviewed whilst under arrest and had their house searched
whilst the other was not subjected to these processes.”
(Independent investigator’s report.)
268