Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
2.67 As an example, we received evidence of one case where serious allegations of
corruption were made against two officers in 1994. The officers were suspended in
1997. Further allegations were made and in 1998 the officers were charged with
criminal offences in relation to these later allegations. The case was dismissed at
committal proceedings in 1999. A disciplinary investigation then began with
disciplinary papers being served in 2002. The case was heard in 2004 and both
officers were required to resign. We make no comment on responsibility for the
delays in this case but simply use it as an example of the unsatisfactory operation
of the current system.
2.68 In addition the proceedings are characterised by the extensive involvement
of lawyers:
“If one considers that it is quite possible that the existing framework can create a situation
whereby the Presenting Officer is represented by Q.C. (and junior) instructed by the Force
Solicitor, with another Q.C. likewise instructed to act as legal advisor to the Tribunal, and with
yet another Q.C. representing the accused officer in a hearing scheduled over a period of
many months (several weeks of which may be taken up with arguments on abuse of process
and disclosure), then one sees at times the true nature of a system that has as its ultimate
sanction the power to dismiss an individual from his or her employment. Such a scenario is
impossible to reconcile with any easily understandable concept of a ‘management process’ as
referred to in the submission of Ken Jones, the Chief Constable of Sussex Constabulary.”
(Submission from the Metropolitan Black Police Association (MBPA).)
2.69 The Inquiry has heard that delays have many causes and can sometimes be
attributed to the investigating officers or to so-called ‘tactics’ employed on behalf
of the officer to prolong or defer an investigation. “These range from abuse of ill health
procedures to solicitors failing to consult their clients causing interviews to be delayed.”
(Submission from Ken Jones, Chief Constable of Sussex.)
2.70 Officers subject to disciplinary investigation can be left suspended for several
years while the process rolls on, or alternatively grinds to a halt. No one benefits
from this antiquated and anachronistic system other than the guilty officer. An
‘innocent’ officer, most likely under great strain, is left to languish at home when he
or she should be ‘on the streets’ protecting the public. The ‘guilty’ officer remains
on the payroll at the taxpayers’ expense.
“It is well known that police officers can wait for up to a year to go before a disciplinary
tribunal. Such delays are seriously damaging to the credibility of the disciplinary system and the
complaints system. Delays of this magnitude mean difficulties in sustaining charges because
witnesses’ memories have faded or they are unwilling to give evidence.”
(Submission from Sir Alistair Graham, former Chairman of the PCA.)
2.71 There is clearly a serious potential for such a long drawn out process to
undermine public confidence in the police service. The APA drew our attention to
the recent cases following from the BBC documentary, The Secret Policeman, as an
42