Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

THE CASE FOR CHANGE
process has on Applicants and their subsequent retention within the MPS in any meaningful
capacity following the conclusion of the Employment Tribunal process.”
(Submission from the MBPA.)
“Our experience having represented many black staff and been involved in their race
discrimination claims shows that the lynch pin behind a majority of disputes spiralling out of
control is the intransigence and dogmatic manner which this department treats members of
the Metropolitan Police Service.” (Submission from the NBPA.)
“The Directorate of Legal Services should be held to account for aggressive and ‘defend at all
costs’ mindset which preoccupies its current culture and is indicative of police legal
departments nationally.” (Submission from the NBPA.)
4.130 However, having received evidence from both Esme Crowther, the Head of
the ETU, and David Hamilton, the Director of Legal Services, we are not persuaded
that either service is performing its respective role in anything other than the
correct manner. Staff in the ETU are extremely experienced in dealing with Tribunal
cases and David Hamilton outlined his directorate’s approach as follows:
“DLS lawyers are instructed to maintain objectivity and take a realistic merits based approach
to their cases. Strong or deserving claims are identified as soon as possible. The MPS
endeavours to settle them swiftly. However, DLS will recommend defending those claims where
important points of principle are at stake, and/or the MPS has a good prospect of winning.”
(Submission from David Hamilton, Director of Legal Services, MPS.)
4.131 This is clearly the correct approach to take. The MPS must, of course, assess
the merits of each claim when it is received, and then proceed quickly either to
resolve the issue where the points made are good, or to defend the organisation
if they are not.
4.132 One of the key recommendations in Learning the Lessons is that “Lawyers
should advise and Managers decide.” We completely agree with this approach and it
seems to be consistent with how the MPS deals with Employment Tribunal cases.
4.133 We believe that the criticisms of the way in which the ETU and the DLS
interact may largely arise from perception and perhaps also a misunderstanding of
the role of an in-house legal service:
“I entirely understand the perception of applicants and those who represent applicants that
somehow the proceedings are being driven by lawyers because of course we are the ones
who go along to tribunals for directions hearings, full hearings, we are the ones who actually
send the letters. But we are not the decision-makers.”
(Evidence of Sandra Burrows, Assistant Director of Legal Services, MPS.)
4.134 We think the changes we have proposed to the location of the ETU will assist
in changing these perceptions.
94