“Orders and Instructions Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions. Police officers abide by police regulations, force polices and lawful orders. … Confidentiality Police officers treat information with respect and access or disclose it only in the proper course of police duties. … Discreditable Conduct Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence in it, whether on or off duty. Police officers report any action taken against them for a criminal offence, any conditions imposed on them by a court or the receipt of any penalty notice.”
“… all my Detective Sergeants will be proactive in identifying prisoners requiring CSU attention and ensuring that staff are despatched to the relevant custody suite to process them. This is essential to prevent prisoners remaining in custody for longer than is necessary. I acknowledge that there is policy in place requiring a written/verbal handover by the arresting officer to the Duty OS, however, in reality this can be overlooked and the ask of my DSs is that a search of the custody database ‘NSPIS’ is completed at least once during the shift to identify possible CSU prisoners. The DS will routinely check the two South West custody suites [at Wandsworth and Kingston] on the NSPIS ‘Whiteboard’ which shows all prisoners held at that location and the offence details. However, they may also check neighbouring BCUs if prisoners are being sent there. If it is unclear on the ‘Whiteboard’ whether the prisoner has been arrested, or ought to have been arrested for Domestic Abuse offences, a further search of that entry by the DS would be necessary. It may also be necessary to check the corresponding case file via COPA (or more recently CONNECT) to ascertain more detail and to make an assessment as to whether CSU assistance will be required. ”
“Any incident or pattern of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate (or romantic) partners or family members who are 18 and above, regardless of gender or sexuality. Any incident not falling within the definition of domestic abuse where the Crime Manager has particular concerns about the risk to the victim or the impact of the incident on the community.”
“A/DS Ward when on the spare shift would often be called upon or volunteer to assist the core duty Sgt whom may busy/over worked or absent (Annual Leave/attending a crime scene). Our designated custody suites were Wandsworth and Kingston Police Stations. It became a common occurrence for arresting officers would not contact CSU or notify late in the detention clock for prisoners in custody for CSU allegations. This encouraged issues with locating statements/arrest notes, gathering evidence, arranging solicitors/appropriate adults and assigning officers within the 24 hour PACE detention clock. To mitigate these issues, it became common practice for the duty Sgt to frequently check NSPIS/Custody records throughout the shift for any CSU prisoners – I would perform this check myself as the duty Sgt prior to promotion. The NSPIS/Custody record main page was a drop down list numbered by cells with limited details including the prisoner name and offence. To determine and understand the full details of the offence/allegation, it was necessary to open and read the individual custody record reviewing against the CSU remit – relationship between prisoner/victim, date of birth/age/Venue of offence/location.Often the custody record would not contain sufficient details necessitating a review of the COPA/Connect file. In my time both as D/Insp and Duty Sgt – the CSU has investigated kidnap allegations/prisoners. It is also not uncommon for the custody officer has not input the correct offence and may enter Kidnap as opposed to False Imprisonment. I would expect a good duty Sgt as was A/DS Ward to check all custody records that may be CSU related.”
“It can be quite – the core shift is extremely frenetic and busy and it may be that you’re just constantly trying to play catch up. I can’t think of many more reasons than that but they would be centrally why you’ve heard something to imply you’re missing a prisoner and, as I say, that is – that’s what we proactively drum into them, we don’t want prisoners sitting not being progressed and risk not being managed. So we do perhaps go quite heavy on explain that to them, that they’re not just to wait reactively for prisoners to come to them, they are to find out because the systems in place don’t always work.”
“Q. On this day Mr Ward goes into one custody record. That custody record is for a detainee who has been arrested for kidnap. He says – his case is, ‘I went in there because that could be a domestic abuse case’. A. Yes. Q. Do you agree with that? A. Yes, that would be one of the things I would expect a sergeant to do.”
“Q. In your statement you described two aspects to the role; one is carrying on looking at existing workload and developing cases and the other is the proactive scanning role. So have I understood this correctly, a proactive scanning role means primarily the job of the core team on duty? A. Yes. Q. And the spare would only be called upon to become involved in the proactive scanning as a result of a specific arrangement or a specific request? A. Yeah. Q. If they are, what does that role involve? Would it involve looking at just one particular prisoner or would it involve looking at prisoners generally? A. It could be looking at prisoners generally. It could -- it could be anything. It depends what the arrangement is. It depends what the need is on that day. If there's a lot of prisoners and too few staff it could be, ‘Look, could you please look at all these prisoners?’ It could be, ‘Could you look at the work file of crime for me while I deal with the prisoners?’ It could be some combination of the two. It very much -- it is very much kind of a dynamic thing really on the day. We have some very, very busy shifts.”
“No, so the MG3 contents for me were completely blank. I went to review the facts of the offence. There was nothing written in there whatsoever and there were no supporting documents attached to the case file at all.”
“‘Misconduct’ … means a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify disciplinary action. ‘Gross Misconduct’ means a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal.”
“The seriousness of the allegation of misconduct and/or the seriousness of the consequences for the officer do not require a different standard of proof, merely appropriately careful consideration by the panel before it is satisfied of the matter which has to be established. The inherent probability or improbability of the conduct occurring is itself a matter to be taken into account when deciding whether, on the balance of probabilities, the conduct occurred.”
“What was apparent to the Panel was that DC Ward in his role as A/DS Ward at the time would have been required to proactively check NSPIS and other indices for prisoners that may fall within the CSU remit. That the Safeguarding team were allocated to cover the custody suites at Kingston and Wandsworth and that kidnapping would have been an offence relevant to his team. The Panel were assisted by the helpful schedule produced on behalf of DC Ward which detailed a productive and conscientious officer.”
“It is well established that cogent evidence is required to satisfy a tribunal that a person has behaved in a reprehensible manner or to prove serious allegations see Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman[2003] 1 AC 153 , 194 [at [55]] as reflected in [the Home Office Guidance] at §9.10.”
“19. … Proceedings in the Administrative Court seeking to challenge the decision of a Police Appeals Tribunal do not arise by way of appeal, but by way of a claim for judicial review. In those circumstances, a claimant in judicial review proceedings must establish a public law error before the decision of that Tribunal could be quashed. … 25. At each level in the disciplinary process, the decision maker or decision making body is expert in nature. It knows and understands how the police service works. It knows and understands the importance of maintaining integrity amongst police officers. It knows and understands the impact that serious misconduct can have on the force concerned and the police service in general. Parliament has provided that the Tribunal is the appellate body for these purposes. There is no further appeal to the High Court. The Tribunal is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court. I have already observed that the approach of this court in judicial review is different from the approach adopted when sitting in an appellate capacity from the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. Absent another error of law on the part of the Police Appeals Tribunal its decision on sanction could be interfered with only on classic Wednesbury grounds, in short that on the material before it no reasonable Tribunal could have reached the conclusion that it did.”
“… The judge held that the court ‘naturally [paid] great respect to the view of the evidence taken by the IOP’, in view of their ‘immense experience’. I would prefer to say that the approach of the court to the opinion of the IOP is not a question of giving respect but of attaching appropriate weight to the evidence in the ordinary way. In contrast to the giving of respect, there can be no automaticity about the attaching of weight to evidence. Weight does not attach to a person’s evidence by virtue only of his experience or status. The giving of weight to opinion evidence entails a holistic evaluation of the persuasiveness of the evidence on the relevant issue, having regard to all relevant circumstances including its content as well as the viewpoint of the author of the opinion. …”
“… A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.”
“… The legal standard applicable in public law, to assess whether legally adequate reasons have been given by decision-maker, is a practical one. It recognises that decisions are being given to an informed audience. It identifies as a key part of the standard of legally adequate reasons the need to address the principal controversial issues. …”
“It is axiomatic that reasons for a decision will always be capable of having been better expressed. It is well-known that a reviewing court should not subject a decision to narrow textual analysis. Nor should it be picked over or construed as though it were a piece of legislation or a contract … .”
“… One matter to have clearly in mind when assessing a submission such as this, which touches on the way in which a misconduct panel has reasoned its decision, is that those decisions must be read realistically and fairly. Notwithstanding that the chairman of a misconduct panel will be a lawyer, panel decisions are not intended to be significant works of legal scholarship. Decisions should state clear conclusions and reasons, but they are not to be picked over in search of respects in which they could have been better or more fully expressed, or for other immaterial error.”
“Q. In your statement you described two aspects to the role; one is carrying on looking at existing workload and developing cases and the other is the proactive scanning role. So have I understood this correctly, a proactive scanning role means primarily the job of the core team on duty? A. Yes. Q. And the spare would only be called upon to become involved in the proactive scanning as a result of a specific arrangement or a specific request? A. Yeah.”