Earlier this week a serving Police Constable Metropolitan Police Service and a former officer each received a sentence of 12 weeks imprisonment after exchanging grossly offensive messages in a social media chat group.
The content of these messages has been described as being “grossly racist, sexist, and misogynistic”. Wayne Couzens, a serving Met officer who murdered Sarah Everard, was an active member of this group.
The Defence asserted that the offending messages were “banter” and made reference to “dark humour” in trying to minimise the actions of those concerned. The Court, quite rightly, took a different view.
With this trial as a backdrop, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Service has issued a damning report touching on this very issue. In the wake of Sarah Everard’s murder, the then Home Secretary ordered an enquiry into police vetting and counter-corruption. This included the Inspectorate looking at individual forces and their response to misogynistic and predatory behaviour by police officers and staff.
The findings of the investigation identified failures within the recruitment and vetting process. Several forces are not complying with national guidance. Comment was also made about vetting units being under-resourced and struggling to cope with demand. Officers have been recruited with criminal convictions, which should have disbarred them from selection.
The Inspectorate found improvements in some aspects of police culture. This progress is undermined by pockets of misogynistic and predatory behaviour towards officers and police staff. It is inevitable that this will spill over into contact with the public.
Taking a broader view of policing, we hold dear the concept of “policing by consent.” Robert Peel propounded the notion that police officers are civilians in uniform. In order for this approach to succeed, public confidence and trust in the police, including staff, is paramount.
In trying to understand this calamitous situation, there are inevitably a number of influencing factors. The Government’s pledge to recruit an “additional” 20,000 officers by 2023 is one such issue; policing lost 20,000 officers and 24,000 police staff during the years of austerity.
15,000 officers have been recruited nationally as part of this initiative. Individual forces have been set targets for recruitment along with central funding, which is dependent on the achievement of targets. In short, if you do not meet your target, the funding is lost.
There is a telling section in the Inspectorate’s report about the race by Forces to meet targets and not lose funding. It euphemistically refers to “risk appetite” on taking a chance with potential recruits of doubtful character:
“We believe that sometimes this may be influenced by the need to meet certain recruitment targets. As a result, some forces have too great a risk appetite, which has led them to grant vetting clearance despite knowing disturbing information about applicants.”
I fear that an unintended consequence of this recruitment drive is to drop standards in order to get recruits through the door.
There is a wider issue here for me when it comes to standards in public office. An obvious example is the reinstatement of the current Home Secretary. Efforts have been made to describe her offending as being a “mistake”. In my view, breaching security protocols six times through using a personal email account is a choice, it reveals a pattern of behaviour. I will leave it to others to contemplate the Prime Minister’s risk appetite.
In a former life, I was responsible for the investigation of complaints against members of Wiltshire Police. I headed a small team of investigators that conducted investigations. Our work was quality assured by the Police Complaints Authority, who took an active role in deciding on the outcome of investigations and when necessary, appropriate penalties for misconduct.
My recollection is that only 4% of complaints were capable of being substantiated. I choose my words carefully as we had to rely upon the available evidence. It is worth noting that the burden of proof in police misconduct cases is the “balance of probabilities”. The standard in criminal cases heard by a Court is “beyond reasonable doubt”, which sets a higher bar when it comes to conviction.
In deciding what to do with the offending 4%, we considered whether this reflected a training need, a welfare consideration or was evidence of unacceptable standards when it came to personal attitude and behaviour. Any officer or member of police staff breaching conduct regulations six times would have merited considerable scrutiny.
I can assure you that no one detests a corrupt officer more than the thousands of officers and police staff, who go about their duties in a diligent and professional manner.
It is vital that we shed light on systemic failures of this nature as well as the failings of individuals. The response to misconduct in public office presents a leadership challenge and not just in the offices of Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners.
A Member of Parliament has just been suspended for his “cavalier attitude” to rules regarding lobbying. We deserve better from those who are trusted with public office.
‘All Bets are Off’ – Ladbrokes, Marlborough’s last bookmakers odd on to close
