Recommendations - Metropolitan Police Service, June 2020

The IOPC recommends that the MPS Should consider providing role specific training to all of its professional standards investigators.

It is recommended that this training addresses the following requirements:

• The legal obligation under s21 Police Reform Act 2002 of Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) and Police Support Unit (PSU) staff to keep interested parties updated on the progress of their investigation.
• The need to analyse officer conduct against relevant policies in conduct matter investigations and investigative reports.
• The necessity in Death or Serious Injury (DSI), conduct and complaint investigations to provide an accurate summary of video evidence in their reports.
• The need to set terms of reference, approved by a supervising officer, in each DSI, conduct and complaint investigation.
• The need to treat injured parties in DSI investigations as witnesses unless there is a valid reason not to and the need, where a decision is made not to treat the individual as a witness, to record the rationale underpinning it.
• That the recording of investigative decision making is mandatory.
• The need to answer the following questions in DSI investigations:
  • What evidence is available regarding the nature and extent of police contact with [X] prior to his/her death/serious injury?
  • What evidence is available in relation to whether the police may have caused or contributed to [X’s] death or serious injury?
    Is there an indication that anyone serving with the police has committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings?

Another issue raised in this investigation was the lack of role specific training listed in the Detective Constable's (DC) training record. The problems this causes are evident in the quality of the DC's work (a level of quality that seemed to be acceptable in Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) at the time) and his knowledge of the Police Reform Act.

In discussions with officers from the DPS, this investigator has become aware that there is no role specific training currently offered to DPS investigators.

Do you accept the recommendation?

Yes

Accepted action:

In order to provide formal training to DPS investigators in this area, over the last 12-18 months the DPS have invested in training with the College of Policing and have sent investigators on the PSD Investigators’ Course. However, due to the frequency of this course, the MPS are unable to secure sufficient places to train all DPS investigators. Therefore, in the short term, the DPS have secured training with Sancus Solutions which was due to be delivered in June 2020. This was delayed and two sessions have now been planned for October 2020. The training is aimed at all Professional Standards staff and will deliver all requirements contained within this recommendation.

We continue to seek to develop our own in house training for DPS and PSU professionals.

In addition, the topic of DSIs will be delivered to the DPS Specialist Investigation Unit (SIU) via MS Teams during August and September 2020 as part of the continuous professional development for staff. PSUs will not be included as they do not investigate DSIs. The Detective Inspector within the SIU will be responsible for ensuring this training is refreshed regularly to capture any new joiners to the Department.

​The MPS should treat daybooks as controlled stationery across the whole force. Recognising that they contain relevant material to criminal, conduct and Death or Serious Injury investigations the movements and continuity of these books should be audited, and they should be stored securely using a method that is consistent across the force.

Where practicable, MPS staff should scan relevant sections of their day books and attach them to the relevant case management system i.e. COPA and Centurion.

A daybook is a notebook used by an officer to record their actions and, sometimes, decisions on their cases.

During this investigation it became abundantly clear that the system for tracking and storing daybooks in the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) was not fit for purpose. During the investigation the IOPC were told that a Detective Constable's (DC) daybooks were missing, a selection of books were then found in a locked cupboard.

This lack of audit on the movement and retention of daybooks could lead to issues under the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996.

Do you accept the recommendation?

No

Accepted action:

The MPS Records Management Retention, Review and Disposal Policy, published in 2018, provides retention and timescales for both paper and related digital records.

The policy is currently being updated to include Death and Serious Injury (DSI) investigations as part of its rationale and comments for retaining officers’ notebooks and diaries for a period of six years. The updated policy is expected to be published by September 2020. A reminder to officers’ and staff of their responsibilities for correct record management will be communicated via LinkedIn and short educational videos on the MPS intranet site (MetFlix) by the Strategy and Governance Data Office. DPS investigators will be sent a local instruction to ensure they are scanning relevant pages from their daybooks on to the Centurion record for a case in order to comply with the guidance.

Pocket books and day books are retained by local Shared Support Services. Each item is registered on the Records Management System to create an auditable log of all pocket and day books submitted. After six years, these items are destroyed. However, a caveat has been included that if the item contains information pertinent to a serious, sexual or violent crime, it should in the first instance be copied and attached to the case notes. Provisions have been included for serious crime investigators to collate their pocket books and daybooks and send them to Restore (a storage facility). They are retained for a period of 10 years, after which they are reviewed to determine whether the material is required for a further period of retention.

For disclosure purposes, extracts from the daybook can be attached as copies to a crime or investigation file for the purpose of policing. It is not recommended that the officer discloses the full pocket book or day book as this may have no bearing on the case in question, except when an officer is under investigation.

​The MPS should amend their Death and Serious Injury (DSI) investigation report template to specifically reference the three following questions:

• What evidence is available regarding the nature and extent of police contact with [X] prior to his/her death/serious injury?
• What evidence is available in relation to whether the police may have caused or contributed to [X’s] death or serious injury?
• Is there an indication that anyone serving with the police has committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedingsIs there an indication that anyone serving with the police has committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings?

The MPS reviews of a Detective Constable's (DC) reports suggested that the template used in Directorate of Professional Standards was ‘amateurish’. The template was less of an issue to the IOPC than the content of the reports themselves, as the IOPC reviews often concluded that the two key questions to be answered in a DSI investigation were not properly addressed by the investigation. These questions require being answered, and the MPS is meeting it’s legal duty under Article 2.

Do you accept the recommendation?

No

Accepted action:

The current DPS DSI report template (v.3) already incorporates the three questions set out, and therefore the meets this recommendation. In relation to the specific points in the learning recommendation, these are all addressed clearly in the template as follows (attached for reference):

• What evidence is available regarding the nature and extent of police contact with [X] prior to his/her death/serious injury?

The report not only considers evidence in that specific event, but Section 5 relates to Previous Police Contact – to encourage the investigator to look beyond the single event being examined and consider a wider scope of potential evidence (e.g. previous custody records that may assist custody staff risk-assessing a detainee, rather than relying solely on what information they are presented with on that one occasion).

• What evidence is available in relation to whether the police may have caused or contributed to [X’s] death or serious injury?

This is addressed throughout the DSI report and specifically the ‘Terms of Reference’ section. This is an underlying principle of DSI investigations – to what extent did police cause or contribute to the death or serious injury. Section 1.4 provides clarification of the purpose of a DSI investigation and highlights this consideration, which feeds into the terms of reference and helps focus the investigator’s mind on what they are trying to establish.

• Is there an indication that anyone serving with the police has committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings?

This is included within the template and is addressed in the Terms of Reference, Section 2.3.

Section 8 provides further guidance in relation to this matter.

The IOPC recommends the MPS should create a role profile for Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) investigators and DPS IOPC Single Point of Contacts (SPoC), outlining the requirements of the role and the role holder’s key responsibilities.

The MPS should consider liaising with the IOPC when setting out the responsibilities of the IOPC SPoC role.

When conducting this investigation, it became clear that there was no specific job description or policies that outlined the roles and responsibilities of a DPS investigator or IOPC SPoC.

This made this matter particularly difficult to investigate as there was no internal policy to compare the Detective Constable's conduct to. It also limits the ability of DPS staff to fully understand the nature and requirements of their role.

Do you accept the recommendation?

No

Accepted action:

When the SIU was formed, a Terms of Reference and operating principles for the unit and role profiles for each of the roles was produced. A guidance document was also circulated to all SIU investigators. These have been reviewed and both require refreshing which will be undertaken. New role profiles will be drafted for the following roles and will be in place by the end of September 2020:

• Specialist Investigation Unit Investigator
• Discrimination Investigation Unit Investigator
• IOPC SPoC

DPS Appeals Team SPoC

​The IOPC recommends that the MPS should consider putting policy in place that outlines the minimum standards required in Death and Serious Injury (DSI), complaint and conduct investigations. This policy should address the following requirements:

• The legal obligation under s21 Police Reform Act 2002 of Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) and Police Support Unit (PSU) staff to keep interested parties updated on the progress of investigations.
• The need to analyse officer conduct against relevant policies in conduct matter investigations and investigative reports.
• The necessity in DSI, conduct and complaint investigations to provide an accurate summary of video evidence in reports.
• The need to set terms of reference, approved by a supervising officer, in each DSI, conduct and complaint investigation.
• DPS investigators should treat injured parties in DSI investigations as witnesses unless there is a valid reason not to. Where a decision is made not to treat the individual as a witness, this decision and the rationale underpinning it should be recorded.
• That the recording of investigative decision making is mandatory. To assist with this the MPS should provide a system for its DPS staff to record their investigative decision making.
• The need to answer the following questions in DSI investigations:
  • What evidence is available regarding the nature and extent of police contact with [X] prior to his/her death/serious injury?
  • What evidence is available in relation to whether the police may have caused or contributed to [X’s] death or serious injury?
    Is there an indication that anyone serving with the police has committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings?

There was a lack of real policies on the required standards in DSI, conduct and complaint investigations.

Do you accept the recommendation?

No

Accepted action:

Other guidance has been highlighted and provides a strong framework which we are ensuring is followed through training. The MPS investigators are led by the statutory framework for professional standards, namely the Police Reform Act 2002, the IOPC Statutory Guidance 2020, Police (Complaints and Misconduct Regulations) 2020, Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, Police (Performance) Regulations 2020, Home Office Guidance on Conduct, Efficiency & Effectiveness 2020, and more recently, College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice for DSI (July 2020), which we consulted on to achieve its completion. In addition, the DSI template contains sufficient information to support the investigator through the investigation process.

We have provided the following explanation as to how the template covers each of the points mentioned therefore negating the necessity of a separate policy.

• The legal obligation under s21 Police Reform Act 2002 of DPS and PSU staff to keep interested parties updated on the progress of investigations.

The template addresses this in Section 3 (within the guidance notes). Additionally, the Performance Inspector role monitors and scrutinises compliance (on Centurion) and holds investigators to account through dip sampling.

• The need to analyse officer conduct against relevant policies in conduct matter investigations and investigative reports.

The DSI template addresses this in Sections 5 and 6. Section 5 was introduced in order to replicate the IOPC report structure. The guidance notes in red also help to guide the author as to what is required in each section. The analysis aims to examine and discuss officers’ conduct, with regard to policy, legislation, etc. in order to establish if they have followed process correctly. The Conduct Matter template is currently being updated to reflect these changes with a view to being operational by October 2020.

• The necessity in DSI, conduct and complaint investigations to provide an accurate summary of video evidence in reports.

This is addressed in the DSI report in Section 4 – summary of evidence. The black text (replicating what is often seen in IOPC reports) should remain, the red text is guidance notes only, for removal on completion of the report. The investigator is guided to review all material, decide what is relevant to address the terms of reference and provide accurate summaries of that evidence. All material examined, whether referred to or not, must be listed in the appendices and be made available for inspection. This principle of summarising evidence applies to all types of evidence and is not limited to video evidence.

• The need to set terms of reference, approved by a supervising officer, in each DSI, conduct and complaint investigation.

This is addressed in the DSI report template at Section 2 – Terms of Reference (ToR). The guidance notes in red should assist investigators not only in composing ToR, but also directs them to where they can find the IOPC Guidance on how to draft them. Some are standard, in order to comply with requirements, for example, the necessity to identify any organisational learning and establish if any officer has committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner justifying the bringing of disciplinary proceedings. The report, including ToR, is subject to supervision. ToR must be uploaded on to Centurion, which is also supervised and monitored by the internal performance process conducted by the Performance Inspector as part of the dip sampling process.

In addition to this, the new Regulations have made the provision of ToR to a subject officer in complaints and conduct matters (including DSIs where conduct is indicated) as a legislative requirement. DPS now have a new document provided to subject officers which incorporates a Regulation Notice and ToR.

In addition, as part of the new performance regime, a supervisor review process has been introduced. This includes checking ToR and ensuring they are present and sufficient. The reviews are to be conducted at 28 days by the immediate line manager, at 150 days by the Detective Inspector and at 180 days by the Detective Chief Inspector.

• DPS investigators should treat injured parties in DSI investigations as witnesses unless there is a valid reason not to. Where a decision is made not to treat the individual as a witness, this decision and the rationale underpinning it should be recorded.

This is addressed in the DSI report at Section 3 – Interested Persons / People Involved. The guidance notes, and reference to the IOPC Statutory Guidance explain this.

• That the recording of investigative decision making is mandatory. To assist with this the MPS should provide a system for its DPS staff to record their investigative decision making.

Centurion is used by all investigators within the DPS. At the time of the initiation of Op Glen, DPS - SI officers predominantly used CRIS to document DSI investigations, but its use was deemed inconsistent and used in such a way that it could not be searched or monitored. This is now being addressed by changing previous CRIS reports from Confidential to Restricted, to allow them to be searched and accessed. DPS SLT are confident that the consistent use of Centurion allows decision making to be properly recorded for all investigations.

The need to answer the following questions in DSI investigations:

• What evidence is available regarding the nature and extent of police contact with [X] prior to his/her death/serious injury?
• What evidence is available in relation to whether the police may have caused or contributed to [X’s] death or serious injury?
• Is there an indication that anyone serving with the police has committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings?

In response to the above three questions, we believe our previous responses to recommendations 005 and 007 satisfy these points.

The IOPC recommends the MPS should conduct a review of the staffing levels at the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) to satisfy themselves that they are adequate to meet the needs of that department.

This report makes repeated reference to the staffing levels at DPS and the feeling of the incumbent DSU at that time that it was not satisfactory and could lead to misconduct level failings among staff.

It is recognised that matters of resourcing are for the MPS to decide and not the purview of the IOPC, so this report will not seek to make any recommendations on the specific staffing numbers but does point out the potential negative effects on staff in this unit if they are overworked and under trained.

Do you accept the recommendation?

No

Accepted action:

Following a recent restructure of the Specialist Investigation portfolio, the resourcing of this area of DPS was reviewed and it has been concluded that the current Budgeted Workforce Target (BWT) is sufficient to meet the current demands of the department with no abstractions. Any increase in demand may require a further review. With regards to the remaining DPS portfolios, the BWT is believed to be sufficient to meet demand with no abstractions. We continually review our demand profile to ensure that our resources are sufficient, whilst still taking into account the competing priorities of the organisation.