Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Doug Barrow, Nick Bensted-Smith, Tijs Broeke, Deborah Oliver and James Tumbridge.

The Town Clerk noted that the meeting was inquorate and that the formal meeting should therefore end. Members agreed to proceed informally, with a note on any points made submitted to the next formal meeting for information.

There were no declarations.

To agree the public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 29 November 2019.

Members noted that the public minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2020 would be submitted to the next formal meeting for approval.

Joint report of the Town Clerk and Commissioner.

Members considered a report of the Town Clerk on outstanding public references and the following points were made.

8/2019/P – Force Communications Plan regarding Stop and Search

Members agreed that this reference should be retained for the next formal meeting. The Head of Professional Standards (HPS) agreed to consider whether this could be an annual piece of work.

12/2019/P – Report on Potential Predictive Policing Methods

Members agreed that this reference should be retained for the next meeting.

14/2019/P – London Police Challenge Forum Dates

The HPS noted that the Forum was reviewing future meeting dates. Members agreed that this reference should be retained for the next meeting.

16/2019/P – Update regarding Development Measure 2.11 (Ethical Drift Survey)

Members agreed that this reference could be closed.

18/2019/P – Report on File Failures

The Inspector Administration of Justice (IAJ) was head regarding file failures and the following points were made.

·         Any file that did not confirm to the National File Standard was deemed to be failed. They reviewed file failures on a monthly basis to ensure that they felt that the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision was appropriate.

·         The Force had measures in place to prevent file failures as far as was possible. Members were asked to note that some file failures were the result of one file being reviewed twice by CPS and therefore logged as two file failures.

·         The Force had a file failure rate of 4.6% (8 files out of 172). Moreover the Force had an 85% successful outcome at Magistrates’ and Crown Courts even in cases where there had been an initial file failure. 

·         The Chairman encouraged the Force to ensure that there was regular constructive communication between the Force and the CPS.

·         In response to a comment on how the Force could track whether the CPS was

Report of the Commissioner.

Members considered an update report of the Commissioner on the Integrity Dashboard and Code of Ethics and the following points were made.

·         The Chairman expressed concern that the outcomes of the London Police Challenge Forum were not adequately disseminated and requested that case studies arising from the Forum be shared with Members, rather than the minutes of its meetings.

·         In response to a question from the Chairman, the Assistant Commissioner committed to updating the Committee when the next Victims Survey would be conducted, noting that there were some General Data Protection Regulations issues to be resolved.

·         The Assistant Commissioner highlighted the positive survey responses wit regards to public confidence.

·         The Assistant Commissioner noted that data listed under HR1 (HR Indicators) was incorrect: the number of cases upheld and the number of grievances should be switched.

·         The Assistant Commissioner noted that exit interviews for leavers often took the form of informal discussions. The Deputy Head of the Police Authority Team noted that these should be recorded in some way so that data and trends could be tracked.

·         Members noted the Police Integrity Development and Delivery Plan Report 2019/20 – February 2020 Update.

·         Members noted the section of the peer review providing observations and comments on the Force. The Chairman requested that a timeline for delivery on the recommendations, and the statistics underpinning temporary promotions prior to retirement in the Force be provided at the next meeting.

Report of the Independent Office for Police Conduct

Members considered the IOPC Annual Report on Police Complaints 2018/19 and the following points were made.

·         The Assistant Commissioner noted whilst the report was broadly positive for the Force there had been a decline in the time it took to record complaints, from 98% within 10 working days in 2017/18 to 85% in 2018/19. The HPS explained that this was due to the team being reliant on one individual to record cases, which provided little resilience. However steps would be taken to mitigate this.

There were no questions.

Professional Standards and Integrity Site Visit – 19 February 2020

The Chairman thanked the HPS for convening the Member site visit to the Professional Standards Directorate at New Street, noting that all Members had found it a useful session that provided interesting insights into the work underpinning reports that were submitted to the Committee.

MOTION – that under Section 100 (A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

Members noted that as an informal, and therefore non-public, meeting it was not necessary to exclude the public.

To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2019.

Members noted that the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2020 would be submitted to the next formal meeting for approval.

Joint report of the Town Clerk and Commissioner.

Members considered a report of the Town Clerk on outstanding non-public references and the following points were made.

19/2019 – Dutch Reach Training

The HPS noted that this had been referred to the Roads Policing Unit and that an update would be provided in due course.

21/2019 – Speed Camera Activation Force Performance

Member agreed that it would be difficult to compare like-for-like data with other Force and therefore this reference could be closed.

Report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor.

Members considered a report of the Comptroller & City Solicitor on an Employment Tribunal and Other Cases and the following points were made.

The Comptroller & City Solicitor noted that there was a further pension case, and that a HR working party from across a number of Forces had been convened to establish a way forward.

Case 2

The Comptroller & City Solicitor noted that a preliminary hearing for this case was due in April 2020. Counsel’s advice was that it was difficult to predict whether the case would proceed to a full hearing or not.

Case 5

The Assistant Commissioner noted a meeting had been held within the Force to review the outcome. In short different Forces applied different clearance levels to different roles, and lessons had been learned in this instance.

Report of the Commissioner.

Members considered a report of the Commissioner regarding Professional Standards Statistics Q3 – 1 October 2019 – 31 December 2019 and the following points were made.

In response to a question, the HPS noted that the new regulations regarding complaints would likely lead to IOPC data being more detailed in future. The Deputy Head of the Police Authority Team noted that he would be reviewing this issue.

CO/0205/14 – Hearing – Serious Non-Sexual Assault – No Finding of Misconduct

In response to a question, the Assistant Commissioner noted that this was a civil case against all Forces and that little more could be done on the matter by the Force.

Members noted the Professional Standards Directorate Summary of Cases.

CM/7/18

·         The HPS noted she would clarify why it took 219 days to resolve this case. They noted that it was likely due to issues of either workflow or handover between staff.

CM/03/19

·         The Chairman expressed concern at the informal nature of initial discussions held with officers in cases such as this, where the issue later escalated. They felt that it was important that some form of record should be maintained to enable better monitoring and oversight. The HPS replied that PRI would ensure these discussions were easier to track and agreed to confirm this outside of the meeting.

CO/04/19

·         In response to a question regarding the time it took to turn on Body Worn Cameras, the HPS replied that in this instance the situation escalated very quickly. Nevertheless the lessons learned would be submitted to the Force’s Organisational Learning Forum.

CO/01/19

·         In response to a question, the HPS noted that not all officers were using the new call recording function, but no negative feedback from officers using the system had been received. They would provide confirmation of when all officers were able to use the system.

CO/36/19

·         In response to a question, the HPS confirmed that a complainant needed to agree to their complaint being dealt with via Local Resolution.

CO/74/19

·         In response to a question, the HPS noted that a complaint would only be followed up after being withdrawn if there was sufficient evidence to justify further action.

CO/77/19

·         In response to a question, the HPS confirmed that idling engines were necessary due to the Force’s ageing vehicle fleet, and the engines were required to run to ensure police equipment within the vehicle remained fully charged. 

Beech Street Electric Vehicle Enforcement

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Assistant Commissioner agreed to advise on how the Force intended to enforce the new electric vehicle measures on Beech Street.

There was no other business.