Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

PATHWAY TO CHANGE
example of this. In fact the probationers concerned resigned from the service
soon after the programme was broadcast. However, in order to dismiss them,
the service would have had to invoke the Regulations resulting in delay, etc. despite
the strong video evidence against them. This is because, as sworn officers, they
were entitled to the same protection as officers who have completed their
probationary service.
2.72 Another concern is the use of ‘abuse of process’ arguments (which we accept
an accused officer is entitled to raise) to frustrate the proceedings. It is not unusual
for the first day of a disciplinary hearing or even longer to be dominated by legal
arguments of this kind.
“… legal issues such as ‘abuse of process’ etc. are often raised. This does tend to cause
bureaucratic delay in the process.” (Submission from DAC Stephen Roberts, MPS.)
“Sometimes those abuse of process arguments go on for three weeks.”
(Evidence of Commander Phillip Hagon, MPS.)
“We have been taking some cases to the courts, and winning them on abuse of process. Now
that is in nobody’s interest, for us to win a case on abuse of process, because at the end of the
day, the question is not answered, either for the complainant or for the officer.”
(Evidence of Clint Elliott, General Secretary, Police Federation.)
2.73 Given the characteristics of the system which we have outlined above, it is
hardly surprising “that misconduct proceedings regularly relate to events that happened
many years before and, in the more complex of cases, that the whole process is routinely
measured in terms of years rather than months, with a corresponding cost to the public purse
that can be difficult to reconcile in the public opinion with a process that ostensibly is there to
determine whether an individual should retain their current employment or not.”
(Submission from the MBPA.)
2.74 The creation of the IPCC will undoubtedly bring some improvements to
the system but it is faced with implementing a system which the Commission
itself considers is “not working”. We will outline our recommendations for change
in the next chapter of this report but, given the weight of evidence we have
received, we, like the MBPA, “… find it hard to believe that anyone could seriously argue
that such a system, even through what we hope will be the corrective filter of IPCC,
represents the best and most efficient system available for resolving public and internal
complaints against police officers.”
The employment status of police staff
2.75 In contrast to the complex regulations governing police officers, police staff
are dealt with in a more straightforward and recognisable way.
43