Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
3.58 In addition, it:
● involves too many lawyers and is therefore costly;
● allows officers under investigation to exercise a right to silence;
● can result in days, sometimes weeks, of ‘abuse of process’ arguments when
a case finally comes before a disciplinary hearing;
● focuses on proving (or disproving) ‘guilt’, rather than addressing conduct
and performance in an appropriate ‘employment’ context;
● often results in officers being suspended on full pay (at public expense) for
long periods – in some cases years;
● does not promote opportunities for quick resolution;
● does not allow lessons to be learnt; and
● does not meet the needs of those who complain nor deal fairly with those
complained against.
“As things stand the sledgehammer of regulations and statutory guidance is used to crack the
nut of an allegation of incivility.” (Submission from Ken Jones, Chief Constable of Sussex.)
“How can anybody say it is justice for equitable dealing with people when people wait for four
to five to seven years to achieve a decision one way or the other, where you have a bureaucratic
legalised process which, quite frankly, is scandalous in some cases.”
(Evidence of the Commissioner, Sir John Stevens.)
“Justice delayed is justice denied”. (Evidence of the Commissioner, Sir John Stevens.)
3.59 These views are a digest of the views of individuals who have contacted us to
recount their own experiences, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the
Association of Police Authorities, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the
Metropolitan Police Service, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the
Police Complaints Authority, the Metropolitan Black Police Association, the
Discrimination Law Association and the Police Action Lawyers Group.
3.60 Figure 1 (opposite) illustrates a number of the criticisms vividly. In
diagrammatic form, the procedure looks more like a complex board game than a
management process.
3.61 However, it is important to record that we have heard evidence from the
Police Federation – both National and Metropolitan – which is less critical of the
regulatory framework. They point out that it has been subject to consultation with
the affected parties and to regular review.
“We do have this view that the regulations are archaic, but, of course, as I have said to you in
my evidence earlier, these are fairly new regulations that were arrived at over a period of two
or two and a half years’ consultation.”
(Evidence of Don Ratcliffe, General Secretary, Joint Executive Committee, Metropolitan
Police Federation.)
58