Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
10.139 Secondly, DPS must refine its practice in relation to maintaining policy files,
so that the reasoning adopted by the relevant officers for decisions made in
investigations is properly recorded. This will ensure that there is a proper audit trail
for decisions taken.
10.140 Failure to do this will cast doubt on the rationale adopted and put the
organisation at risk of being challenged. The lack of a proper audit trail does not
just affect the officer under investigation but also casts doubt on the
professionalism of the directorate as a whole.
10.141 Thirdly, we have already made it clear that there is a need for greater
scrutiny of complaints and discipline cases. We have recommended a new model of
case management which we believe will address our concerns and the criticisms
that have been raised with us. Above all, properly applied, the model should
address the issue of delay, which has featured so prominently in the evidence we
have received.
10.142 Media handling is not a straightforward matter, but we think the MPS
would benefit from clear guidelines about the way in which officers under
investigation are treated by the organisation and the support they are to be given.
We consider that unfairness can easily be caused to an officer under investigation
if the MPS comments publicly about the allegations made or the investigation
conducted. We accept the public interest argument that the MPS is entitled to
make the public aware that an investigation is taking place into the conduct of an
officer. However, we cannot agree that it is ever right for the organisation to
comment publicly on the guilt or innocence of any officer until it has been
determined by the appropriate decision-making body.
10.143 We have also raised our concerns about the lack of welfare support to
officers who are under investigation. This has been drawn to our attention by a
number of individuals and is a theme of most of the cases we have considered.
We consider that this issue requires urgent attention.
10.144 We have commented on the use of Gold Groups in relation to two of the
high profile cases. We would urge the MPS to consider our comments carefully as
we strongly believe that over-use of the concept of a ‘critical incident’, and the
resultant formation of a Gold Group, leads to confused accountability. We question
their use in disciplinary investigations in anything other than the most exceptional
circumstances.
10.145 Finally, we are concerned by the apparent failure of the organisation to
learn lessons when investigations go wrong. We suspect that one reason for this is
that officers of senior rank seem consistently to avoid accountability for either their
actions or those of the officers under their direction.
272