Transcript of private session: Mr FF

The name of this witness has been changed, and his submission redacted, to avoid the identification of the individuals and any third parties.

Monday, 19 April 2004
3.50 pm

Sir William Morris: Mr F, please make yourself comfortable, have some water, and we will start when you are ready.

Mr F: At your time, sir. I am ready now.

Sir William Morris: Can I, first of all, thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this afternoon to give some evidence, and thank you also for letting us have your written submission, which we found extremely helpful.

Can I say also that my colleagues and I fully appreciate that for some of our witnesses, a process of this nature can seem somewhat daunting, so I thought it would be helpful if I set out, very briefly, how we propose to conduct the hearing this afternoon.

But first, let me introduce myself and the other members of the panel. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, but as you can see, there are two other members of the panel: on my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary after a very long and distinguished career in the police service. And on my left is Miss Anesta Weekes, who is an eminent barrister. Anesta sits as a recorder and part-time chairperson of employment tribunals, and she was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

As you know, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. Our focus is one which indicates that we will be paying due attention to the MPS as an organisation, and not the individuals who make up the organisation.

Nevertheless, we want to hear from individuals in order to understand how they are affected by the policies, the practices and the procedures which govern the way that the Metropolitan Police Service operates.

Although we are a public inquiry, we have decided to conduct this hearing and some others, where we hear from individuals, in private. The reason for that is that we are keen to hear from individuals like yourself, who have had problems, who can provide information on the way the MPS operates, but we also understand that some people might feel somewhat reluctant to answer questions if they feel that the Metropolitan Police is listening in, so to speak.

I hope that the arrangements that we have offered you will find helpful, and you will feel confident to speak as freely as we hope you will.

Although we are meeting in private today, as I have just said, we are a public inquiry, and that means that it might be necessary for us to seek further clarification from others about the evidence that – your written evidence, and indeed, whatever you might say to us today.

If we do decide to seek further clarification, then we will do so in a way that does not identify you in any shape or form.

Also, let me assure you that we will try to ensure that any additional information or clarification we seek is done in a manner which causes you the least possible inconvenience, if any at all, and we will not do so without seeking your permission first.

The inquiry that we are conducting is inquisitorial, it is not adversarial in any way. We are seeking to get evidence, we are seeking to get information, and we are seeking to find facts.

We are keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice within the Metropolitan Police Service, rather than be critical of the service or its individuals.

We have no wish to go back over the details of what might or might not have happened, because we have your written submission, for which we are grateful, and the thoughts that you want to offer are very clearly set out in your written submission.

What we want to do is to ask some questions which will enable us to draw on your experience in order to inform our work, and to help us in our task.

At the end of these introductory remarks, one of my colleagues, in this instance Sir Anthony Burden, will lead with some questions, at the end of which, myself or Miss Weekes might have one or two supplementary questions that we might want to put to you. When we have finished our questions, I will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing statement or comment if you so wish.

Just for the record, let me draw to your attention that a transcript is being taken, so that we have a proper record of the evidence given by all our witnesses. We are hoping to publish this transcript together with your written submission on our website in the next few days, but we will only do so after we have taken out references to your name and other personal details, in order to ensure that it contains no information which identifies you or any other individuals.

But before I ask Sir Anthony to start our questions, for the benefit of the transcript, could I invite you, please, to formally introduce yourself and indeed your colleague, if you wish, to the Inquiry?

Mr F: Thank you very much, sir. Again, my name is FF, I have been a police officer for about [Redacted] years. The first quarter of that was spent in [Redacted], where I was [Redacted] and I joined the MPS in [Redacted].

My colleague today, or my friend today, is Ms I, she is assisting me as a back-up team, basically. She is a confidant, sir.

Sir William Morris: You are both welcome. I would ask Sir Anthony to lead straight into the questions we would like to put to you this afternoon.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Good afternoon, Mr F.

Mr F: Good afternoon.

Sir Anthony Burden: As the chairman has said, thank you very much indeed for a very full submission. I found it particularly helpful. You have already set the scene; as you said, you served in the Metropolitan Police as a constable, having previously served in [Redacted], and, indeed, you are [Redacted], I think?

Mr F: Yes, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: Now, during your service with the Metropolitan Police, you have had reason, on three separate occasions, I think, to complain about or challenge the behaviour or professional standards of colleagues, and you say, in your submission, that on two of these occasions, the handling of these complaints fell below the standard you would have expected from an organisation which claims to hold integrity so dear to its heart. That is correct; I have given a correct synopsis of what you said, is that right?

Mr F: That is correct, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: And indeed, on page 2 of your submission, you say, in relation to these complaints:

"In one instance, relevant documents in a file were removed and later declared lost in a subsequent official report. This brought the investigation which spanned across two years to an end with a ... letter of apology addressed to me. On only one occasion so far and only in the recent years did I have a matter brought before the employment tribunal for resolution."

So these must have been fairly serious matters, I would suggest, that you have brought to the notice of the Metropolitan Police.

Mr F: Yes, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: Did you feel that the complaints that you made were treated seriously?

Mr F: I think the process appeared to be serious, but the question of whether the intent was genuine is what I doubted. All the mechanisms were there, I met several officers, and I was interviewed, the right forms were filled, but as the months went by, I could see – I began to have a sense that perhaps the truth, if discovered, was too uncomfortable to handle, and therefore nobody wanted it, as a matter of fact.

Sir Anthony Burden: Right. There seems to be building a picture, from other witnesses we have spoken to, of inordinate delay, insensitivity in the way that complaints were handled; is this something that you have found?

Mr F: It varies from one case to the other, out of the three cases which I referred to. If I can deal with the last and most recent, which I think was the most serious of the cases, I would not say that insensitivity was part of it, but clearly, inordinate delays were part of it, it spanned across three years, but I think it took about 24 months on the whole, from [Redacted ]up until last year, [Redacted].

Sir Anthony Burden: And you were the complainant, basically, in his case?

Mr F: Yes, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: Were you treated like a complainant, or did you become also a victim of the process?

Mr F: If you refer to being a victim in terms of being investigated, I was not investigated at all. I felt patronised; I repeatedly tried to draw their attention to what the facts were, what the issues were. I did not think it was necessary to do that, but each time I had a meeting, other issues that were not relevant to the matter had been brought in, and I said, "No sir, this is the point, if you have not addressed it at the last one, let us deal with it now", and it got to a point, I was seen – I was having meetings perhaps twice a month, I met – I do not know how many officers I met, and at each stage, I felt that the attempt was perhaps to persuade me to rethink my position.

Sir Anthony Burden: So you were left with a feeling that they would like you to withdraw your complaint –

Mr F: Without question, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: – so it could all be finished?

Mr F: Without question, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: You have made some very interesting points in your submissions, and some issues that you have identified. There are, however, four that I would like to go into in some detail, if I may, that are directly relevant to our terms of reference, and they are recommendations you make, firstly, around the introduction of a police staff association independent advisory group; secondly, the need to review high-profile prosecutions of black and minority ethnic officers; thirdly, the need for enhanced protection for reporters of wrongdoing; and finally, the recommendation you make about creating dedicated grievance managers.

So those are the four I would like to concentrate on, if I may. Firstly, your suggestion for a police staff association independent advisory group; would you like to give us a bit more detail of what your thinking is there?

Mr F: I was a member of the [Redacted] investigation team, and also a member of the gold group steering committee, where we had the benefit of members of the public who were members of the IAG.

All through the process of the investigation, every now and then, you would get some feeling from the community that things were not going quite right, but their own people were on board with us, and they could go back and say, "Well, at least I think the police are doing their best, from what I can see so far, and we are also part of the decision-making process", and that helped, I think, to contain the issues around tensions in the community.

Now with police investigations into police officers, clearly we have seen that many members of the staff association – the BPA, for example, of which I am a member, appears to have lost confidence in the ability of the Met to investigate its own members impartially or fairly.

This has gone on for quite a while. The Met thinks it is doing its best, the BPA does not think it is doing its best, and I would have thought that perhaps if we have a member of the BPA on board these investigations, a police officer, of course, to oversee what is going on, of course, he will be bound by the usual codes of confidence about investigations, and see if it is true. If there is any area of doubt to an investigation, he can point it out there and then, not post-mortem afterwards.

And during one of my issues with the – during my last grievance issue, one of the officers who I eventually had to complain against had acted on the impression that I had issues against him. What I did at the time was to ask the grievance manager to bring him on board, you know, that was the chairman of the BPA, so I said, "Bring him on board to see what is going on, let him understand the seriousness of what is being discussed, please let him have a copy of my grievance report", and he was given a copy.

When he then saw that, he appreciated that what I was saying was quite serious, and he approached me and said, "I am sorry, F, I was not aware it was that serious".

So I felt, if he was on board the investigation to oversee, because some of the officers that I complained against were his members too, BPA members, and he was an interested party in that sense, so on that strength, I feel that having IAG members who are staff association members will help, certainly will help.

Sir Anthony Burden: So you fundamentally see a problem for black and minority ethnic officers within the process more than would apply to their white colleagues?

Mr F: My case – the last one is very peculiar, because the officers I complained against were black officers, if you see what I mean, they were black officers, they were members of the BPA, and so was I, and the BPA chairman's intervention did not help matters, from my point of view, if you see what I mean.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes.

Mr F: And some white officers, who were also involved in what I complained against, now took refuge under the cover of the black officers, and hence the system kept on talking about, "The fear factor, hot potato, we cannot deal with it."

If the matter was investigated adequately, I think it might have affected the careers of many officers, a couple of black officers, but many more white officers, and I think that they used this issue in a very cynical manner to cover themselves.

So I do not know the answer to your question, whether black officers find more problems within the given system or whether whites do, but I can only speak from my own experience. The issues around white officers or black that I have heard are only hearsay, what I have heard them say in the press, but I do not know anybody who has come up to me.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I just bring you on to this fear factor issue? Because I think it is important for us – it has been referred to quite frequently in evidence given to us that whenever the issue of race or diversity comes on the agenda around grievances or workplace conflict, that managers seem reluctant to manage that conflict locally, and they are more inclined to either push it to the directorate of professional standards or to central personnel departments; is that something that you have experienced?

Mr F: Yes, sir, I think the whole system goes haywire, it completely goes haywire, if there is a black officer involved as a witness, or as the accused person or whatever, it just goes haywire completely. I think I mentioned that in my report, where I had a matter that was nothing at all to do with race, it was a sergeant's behaviour, and I complained about it, but I was forced to go beyond the panel over race.

Sir Anthony Burden: Because of a reluctance locally to want to get involved, basically?

Mr F: In this case I see it as a reluctance to deal with the officer's criminal behaviour; it was not about race, it is just that it is there – I think race is not just being abused by some black officers, it is also being abused by some white managers, if you see what I am trying to say, sir.

If I complain about the behaviour of a white sergeant, done something nothing to do with race, the fact that I am black gets brought in, and I am saying "No, his behaviour is a discipline issue, or a criminal matter, deal with it."

Sir Anthony Burden: It is not about race.

Mr F: Yes, deal with it.

Sir Anthony Burden: This issue of having independence: do you think that independent person or persons should also have a role to manage the way that complaints or grievances should be handled in a more timely fashion, that they should be able to monitor the speed with which complaints or grievances are actually handled? In other words, any delay should be reported through to this advisory group or whatever, and the advisory group should be able to have some say in speeding up the process; would that work, do you think?

Mr F: I do not know how far that would work, sir, but the role I envisage for this advisory group is not – they would not get involved with the investigation itself, but they would manage, like you said, the issues of time, the issue of the direction of the investigation, the issue of the quality of the evidence, and if there is a review, subsequently, of the investigation, their position would become crucial.

I think their presence on the investigation would prompt the investigating officers to do things in a timely fashion.

I am not saying that they will set deadlines for an investigation, I am not saying so, but where there is an extension, it needs to be justified by the investigating officer, it needs to be accurately justified, why it has been extended.

And most officers are reasonable people; if you tell the IAG member, "This is why we need to extend this investigation", and have it documented, I do not see any issues there at all.

Sir Anthony Burden: You mentioned time limits; from your experience with grievances and complaints, would you wish to see statutory time limits in place?

Mr F: No, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: You would not?

Mr F: No, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can you tell me why?

Mr F: It might hamper the cause of justice. Ultimately, what we look for here is the truth, and justice. If it takes ten years to find it, then so be it. The [Redacted] case or investigation, I think, was one that was hampered by this issue of enforced time limits. It should have lasted longer, a year, two, three, four, if necessary, to find the [Redacted]. There is no point setting time limits and losing the case in court. I do not at all endorse time limits, not at all, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: But if there is delay – and I think what you are saying is, you want the job done properly, and that may mean some delay, and may mean some public criticism that the thing has not been brought to a conclusion. Do you feel that there should be some body or some person to whom delays must be reported and justified so that at least somebody is managing those delays?

Mr F: Yes, sir, without question. Perhaps a senior officer outside the investigation, at some level or the other, without question.

Sir Anthony Burden: That brings me on, then, as to who should do this. Would it work if it were somebody internally in the Met doing that, or should it be completely independent, do you think?

Mr F: I do not think I am equipped with the necessary facts to give an honest answer to that question, sir, but I just think there needs to be somebody you need to report to, who will monitor events.

Sir Anthony Burden: So in terms of delays, there must be accountability to somebody.

Mr F: Absolutely.

Sir Anthony Burden: Right, that is fine. That is very, very helpful.

Can I bring you on to your second point, and that is the need to review failed high-profile prosecutions of black and minority ethnic officers, and of course there have been several examples, and several examples recently.

Can you give us an insight into your thinking here, with this recommendation?

Mr F: I think I was – I may have referred to the Ali Dizaei case, and my thinking was based on the fact that some of us – I did feel disappointed with the outcome of the case.

I felt disappointed by the fact that – I mean, I tried to see it from a junior officer's point of view, and also from the point of view of a Londoner. Something went wrong there, we do not have the full answers to it, we do not have all the answers to it.

I felt that the Met and the officer had done a deal to sort of keep both sides (inaudible) in public, but this is a matter of public interest, we need to know where the Met failed in this investigation, because they did fail, as far as we are concerned. Well, how did they fail?

But I also feel that the officer himself needs to be asked some questions about his behaviour, outside the areas where he has been told no case to answer, but all the areas that were untouched; but by that deal which they have done now, no further discussion, but there are victims out there, I believe, victims being some of the witnesses or some of the informants who brought the matter before the police in the first place, and the officers who need to work with him as their supervising officer, and when an officer – in my view, when an officer's integrity is damaged, there is a problem of how he can enforce – for example, if there is an issue similar to what he has done, how would he enforce discipline to a junior officer? I would find that difficult myself.

But by calling for review of these cases, I felt that this question needed to be answered, it needed to be answered to the satisfaction of the public and of the community. It will also help in that, in future, officers who are brought before a discipline hearing will stick to the facts of their behaviour, and where they need to, apologise and say, "I am sorry, I got it wrong".

For many of us black officers, and although I am not an official of the BPA, but for many of us in the BPA, we are often embarrassed when race is brought in, and, we think, inappropriately, by an officer who ought to answer questions about his conduct; in this case, some of us think so.

Sir Anthony Burden: Well, that is a very balanced answer. You will not be aware of this report, and there is no reason why you should, but there is a report in existence now called the Taylor Report. It actually came about as a result of complaint inquiries elsewhere in the UK. But that report actually now requires complaints to be monitored through the investigation to ensure that the investigation remains justified, and that it is proportionate, and I guess if evidence has not being gathered to prove criminality or a discipline charge, that the inquiries and the investigation could cease as a result of that review.

Would that be an improvement to the current process, do you think, and maybe would have assisted in some of the high-profile cases that you are referring to?

Mr F: In all honesty, sir, I was not even aware of this report you are talking about, the Taylor Report. I have not seen it.

Sir Anthony Burden: I do not expect you to be, but that sort of review process, that makes people sit down once a month –

Mr F: It certainly would help.

Sir Anthony Burden: – and say, "Is what we are doing still justified?", and that might happen three months into the inquiry, rather than get to the end of three years and for people to turn round and say, "That was a complete waste of time and an unjustified complaint".

Mr F: I agree entirely, sir, it would help.

Sir Anthony Burden: So you agree that would be useful.

Can I come on to your third point; you mention enhanced protection for reporters of wrongdoing and witnesses as well. Has that recommendation come out of some bad experiences that you have had, or others have had?

Mr F: My experience, sir, and the experience of some of my colleagues also, black officers as well. Well, the protection is there in print, but in reality, it is not there. If you report a matter to the DPS, you do not expect anybody in the station to know, but they do know, and in my case, they knew.

In my case, for example, the officers I complained against had their proxies contact me; I was spoken to at the BPA conference, I did not need to be spoken about at the BPA conference. The BPA chairman spoke to me about it, I was not happy with it. My witnesses were contacted, I was not happy with it. I complained about it to the investigating officer, and nothing came of it. So that enforced my recommendation that we need more protection, you know, more protection for witnesses and complainants as well.

Sir Anthony Burden: What would you have, a more formal process of protection?

Mr F: Let me see how – I would think, for example, if a witness – if it is made clear that contacts with a witness is a serious offence – it is an offence, but somehow, it is taken lightly. It is a serious offence. Regardless of rank, you do not speak to a witness, you just do not do that.

I was outraged by that; why should I have phone calls about a matter where I have been assured by the DPS that this is confidential, and I get a phone call, or my witnesses get phone calls, and they change their minds?

I felt it was not just a question of the officers who were doing it, but I felt that the entire system, the entire MPS structure was happy with their efforts, it might get me or my witnesses to drop their case, because my case was linked very closely to the [Redacted] [Redacted] investigation, and that is why everybody was very panicky about it, but I still felt, "I am a victim here", and I also felt the truth often (inaudible) course of justice, so why not let us hear it?

Sir Anthony Burden: I mean, is it the case that there are policies in place which should control that sort of behaviour, but the policies are not taken seriously?

Mr F: I think so too, sir. It would be absurd to think there is no mechanism for dealing with people who have contacted witnesses. I am sure it is there somewhere. They know what the statutes say, it is there, but they are not enforced. Oftentimes, we do have adequate laws, but the question is: do we have the will to enforce them?

Sir Anthony Burden: Because it is known that things leak and become known on boroughs and in departments, that that might deter some people from making genuine complaints?

Mr F: Oh yes, sir. I mean, at the [Redacted] case, I was not the only witness there to what I saw, because my matter was twin-tracked with a grievance complaint, a grievance issue, and also a formal complaint of bad behaviour there, but I was not a witness there. People were concerned, they would not speak.

Sir Anthony Burden: That brings me on to your recommendation that you need dedicated grievance managers; would you like to enlarge on that?

Mr F: I was thinking in terms of the issue of delays.

Sir Anthony Burden: Right, delays.

Mr F: The issue of delays. If it helps to have officers whose role – principal job or principal role is to deal with grievances, so be it. Because oftentimes – one of the excuses I was given was again that the manager is involved in a case somewhere, or that he has a meeting somewhere else, therefore this is cancelled. I had many cancelled appointments with my grievance manager, and that sort of tended to prolong the investigation.

If there are cases which they are dealing with, these are genuine cases, which, of course, take priority to my matter, I have to live with it, but if you had an officer who is tasked to deal with grievances, that might help to cut down these delays.

Sir Anthony Burden: Are you aware of the new Fairness at Work policy that has been introduced in the Met?

Mr F: I have heard of it, but I do not know the full details, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: Well, that takes the grievance procedure and brings more discipline to it, and I think to a certain extent, answers your concern around this point, maybe not completely so, but they have got Fairness at Work advisors that are there to assist, and Fairness at Work co-ordinators to ensure that grievances – I think they are still grievances – are dealt with more speedily.

That, you think, will be helpful?

Mr F: Yes, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: I mean, why do grievances, in your experience – why do they just languish in people's in-trays and not be dealt with speedily? Is it a lack of confidence on the part of managers to actually deal with these things, or are they not trained to deal with conflict in the workplace? What is it, do you think?

Mr F: Well, sir, I am only a constable, let us not forget, I do not know how well they are trained, but I expect they should be trained, ie you should have confidence in them to be trained for it. I still insist that it is a matter of will to deal with these things, sir, it is a matter of the will, and there are too many interests in not dealing with issues.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, you come back to the point you made at the very start, that they would rather it was all swept under the carpet.

Mr F: Absolutely. If I may just give an example, sir, if you raise concerns about overtime abuse, it affects everybody. Well, I am sorry, not everybody, but it affects many officers of different backgrounds, you know, race immaterial, and also, senior officers, from sergeant to inspector to chief inspector, who and who approved, so they all tend to coalesce and try to see that things do not get dealt with in a timely manner.

Sir Anthony Burden: Of all the very useful suggestions and recommendations that you have made, if there was one that stands out above all others that you would say to us, "Please make sure that you pursue that and put it in the report", which one would it be?

Mr F: Could I take a look at my report, sir?

Sir Anthony Burden: By all means do. The page you want is page 8, I think, where you list the recommendations. (Pause). I mean, if they are all important, then say so.

Mr F: I will just identify a couple, sir. One, number 5, the positive action clarification, you need to clarify that.

Sir Anthony Burden: And that is being taken forward by the Black Police Association at this very moment, as I understand it, as an issue.

Mr F: I hope so, sir, I was not aware anyway. I have been out of the country most of the time, sir, I am presently on a career break anyway. The other one being the no special treatment/immunity declaration, that is very important to me, sir. These two.

Sir Anthony Burden: Okay, thank you very much indeed.

Sir William Morris: I will pass you straight over to Miss Weekes, who has one or two questions to put to you.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Yes, thank you. I am interested in going back to one area, and it is the question of what happens when you expect something to be held confidentially, and it is not. Perhaps for me, one of the most serious matters you have raised with us is the recent complaint that you have raised; it happens to involve black officers, but you expected it to be kept confidential and it was not, because it is quite clear to you, you have been spoken to and your witnesses have been spoken to.

In a criminal context, that would amount to perverting the course of justice.

Mr F: That is correct, ma'am.

Miss Weekes: That is obviously why you are very upset about it.

Mr F: Without question.

Miss Weekes: If you cannot answer this question, then do tell me, but let me tell you why I am asking it: I do not necessarily want to know the names, but I do need to know the nature of the complaint, because I would like to know why it has been dealt with in the way it has been dealt with, and why there have been no sanctions against officers talking to you. That is where I am going to go with it, just so you know.

So can you summarise what the nature of your complaint is against those officers?

Mr F: What is the word for it now? It had to do with overtime claims at the [Redacted] investigation. At a certain point, we were told that we had run out of money, therefore, there was no more overtime money, and therefore, officers who needed to stay longer to deal with matters had to go home early.

But being there for long enough, I knew that things were happening that should not have happened, and there was what I thought to be tacit encouragement from an inspector, with knowledge of the chief inspector, I would say the – what are they called now, the senior investigation officers, officers who work for perhaps four hours and claim eight hours, or, you know, not work for a weekend and then claim for the weekend.

I just found it very uneasy, basically, and people were making boasts of how much they have saved in the last month or whatever, and against the background of the case we were dealing with at the time, you know, the [Redacted], I could not deal with it, I could not live with it.

This was one of the key issues which I raised at the time, but there were – when I then spoke to the investigation unit, they asked me further questions, other matters came out, like misuse of vehicles, taking vehicles home, and some of us had to go to work by bus, or go to [Redacted] to investigate issues on the train. That was the nature of it.

Unbeknown to me, there was also another complaint by somebody I do not know in a different department about a surveillance team that had claimed money for work not done, and it appeared to be the entire team, and it appeared to be with knowledge of an inspector, I do not know who they were, but they were being dealt with differently, they had been brought in to help us on the team, but gone away, and after they maybe – perhaps, I do not know the facts of the matter, maybe after they had been redeployed, they continued to claim.

At the time of the investigation, the Commissioner made it very clear that money was no object, you know, "[Redacted], I will pay anything for it", so the investigation was like a magnet for people who wanted overtime claims, you know, if you have friends on board, get yourself in there, and the attraction became the overtime money, as far as I could see it. This, I think, is a summary of what happened.

Miss Weekes: Just so that we are clear here on the Inquiry panel, you would not want the summary of what you have just told me to be made public.

Mr F: I am not indifferent to your decisions on that, ma'am.

Miss Weekes: So you are going to leave that up to us?

Mr F: Entirely up to you. I will not insist, but if you do so, it does not bother me at all.

Miss Weekes: I just need to know, because we want to be careful by you, we do not want to cause you any difficulties.

Mr F: No, ma'am, if you are to serve – again, the thing you want to bear in mind as well too, because during my negotiations – at one point, we had to negotiate with the Met, and had to resolve the matter.

There are concerns around [Redacted], you know, if he becomes aware of certain matters that may cause him more upset, that was why I backed down at the employment tribunal matter, I did not want to go further on that date, so that was another matter of concern for them, well, for all of us. He is not aware of this.

Miss Weekes: Now that I have understood the summary of what you have said, which clearly puts it into an extremely serious category, I just want to go back to the reason for my question. You have been a victim of making a legitimate complaint which you felt you could back up with evidence, you requested that that be kept confidential for obvious reasons, and it was not.

Mr F: No.

Miss Weekes: Who did you go to to say, "Look, I went to the department of professional standards, this is a very delicate matter, I asked for your confidentiality, now I have been spoken to, my witnesses have been spoken to"; did you complain?

Mr F: Yes, ma'am, I did complain to – at the time, he was Chief Superintendent [Redacted], he was the grievance manager at the time. I complained to him. That was when I requested for [Redacted]to be shown a copy of my report.

[Redacted] was the person who first spoke to me directly at the BPA conference. One of the other officers concerned also spoke to me as well. Then I told Mr [Redacted], I said, "This is what happened", but I did give Mr [Redacted] some room to say perhaps he was generally concerned about officers being involved in this kind of matter; if he is in doubt, do show him a copy of my report, in order to understand the seriousness of what is going on, which he did, but throughout the entire matter, I felt that his position was not impartial, not impartial at all.

Miss Weekes: Whose position?

Mr F: Mr [Redacted]'s position, and I felt disappointed at that, because I am a member of the BPA, but I still do not see the BPA as a cover – I joined the BPA to meet black officers, I joined the BPA to see how I can re-engage my community with the police service, I joined the BPA for support, you know, within the police system, but I do not expect that the BPA should provide me with any extra immunity.

If I do anything wrong, then I should pay for it, that is how I see it, but clearly, clearly, clearly, it is happening all the time, some members of the BPA have been doing things, and these two officers were also members of the BPA, they were doing things and getting away with it all the time.

You find some white officers, even white investigators, who will tell you, "I am sorry, I cannot deal with that, it is not worth the bother".

Miss Weekes: Because they are black officers?

Mr F: Yes, because they will kick up a fuss, the BPA will get involved, and it goes nowhere. I do not understand that; I simply do not understand it, I refuse to accept it as a valid explanation not to deal with the matter.

Miss Weekes: What is going to happen to this complaint? Because you have made the complaint.

Mr F: What happened?

Miss Weekes: What is going to happen to it? What do you think is going to happen?

Mr F: The matter has already been resolved. It has been closed.

Miss Weekes: Who closed it?

Mr F: [Redacted]

But as things developed, I was being pushed out of the events, the Commissioner got interested, and he said, "I want this developed into something more substantial", and what we call the politicians in the system took over basically, and I got pushed out. I did not mind being pushed out, I did not mind being – because I was quite busy with the investigation myself, but where I felt offended was where an account of the history of the association was being given; there was no mention of my role at all, and I said, "No, sir, that is incorrect, the history is not correct, I want it amended", and that became another sub-investigation itself.

It took one year to resolve this matter, one year before Mr [Redacted], the (inaudible) to the Commissioner, then wrote a letter to me to say, "Thank you, F, we appreciate your efforts"; not part of my grievance.

Then the other matter of the criminal aspect, I have now been told officially that it is not my matter, I am just an informant, and they will deal with it, and the result I was told was that it has been investigated exhaustively, and nothing came of it, but that is not true, and I told them so.

Miss Weekes: So no charges have been preferred against any of the officers which –

Mr F: No, not at all.

Miss Weekes: So from your point of view, you would feel dissatisfied with both the complaints department and, indeed, no doubt you will say you feel rather let down by the Black Police Association?

Mr F: The BPA and the DPS.

Miss Weekes: Both together?

Mr F: Yes, both together.

Miss Weekes: After your leave, will you be – you have a career break, I understand?

Mr F: Yes, ma'am.

Miss Weekes: Do you intend to come back to the Met?

Mr F: I do indeed.

Miss Weekes: Do you consider that you will settle in adequately, or would you need protection, some assistance?

Mr F: No, ma'am, I do not think it is that dramatic. I will cope. I have already made enquiries as to where I need to go back to.

Miss Weekes: And that is in hand at the moment?

Mr F: Yes, ma'am.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much for your help.

Sir William Morris: Thank you. Mr F, can I just remind you that when I made my opening introduction, I promised that at the end of our questions, you would be given an opportunity to make a closing statement if you so wished; if you do, then let me invite you to make that statement now.

Mr F: Thank you, sir. Firstly, I would like to thank you for inviting me, giving me the chance to express myself. It is a great relief that I can speak and say what I have said to you so far. Of course, you will be aware from my submission that two years ago today, I did submit a report to the Commissioner that talked of many of the issues that we are dealing with today.

That report which I submitted earned me a sanction, because the Commissioner invited me to speak to him in his office, but I was banned from seeing him by, again, officers who were at the time allied against me for the views which I had expressed.

What I would like you to do, sir, you know, or what I would like you to bear in mind are my concerns, firstly, are as follows: that the unity of the MPS is paramount, the unity of the MPS police officers is paramount. We are police officers first and foremost, and that is our responsibility. Anything else is immaterial. All other forms of loyalty, whether to your race, to your club, to your association, to your fraternity is immaterial. If it comes into conflict related to the job, then there is a problem there somewhere, sir. [Redacted]

Secondly, I hope that you can allay the fears of all sides with your report, the fears of all sides in this issue, and all sides being, we black officers, female officers, gay officers, white officers, senior and junior officers, because I feel – I think that we are now broken down into different camps in the Met Police.

I hope you will also find – I think we talked about that already, about some confidence-building mechanisms such as the IAG for staff associations, that is one of them, and you will also find others as well too.

We also need to – again, one of the points I raised earlier, and this should be a key point, I hope, for you, denial of cover for wrongdoers in the MPS, of any form of cover; rank, race, sexuality cannot be in any circumstance a defence for anyone, until the matter has been thoroughly investigated and proven to be baseless, he can then refer to his race or his sexuality as an issue.

Also – I think that is about it, sir, what is relevant to you, sir, is what I have just told you now. Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: Well, thank you very much indeed. We found your contribution to our work of immense value. Can I just say, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, formally, thanks for your submission, thanks for the responses that you have made this afternoon, in terms of the oral session, and thank you for the overall contribution to the Inquiry and our work.

Mr F: Thank you, sir. God bless you.

4.40 pm

Skip Navigation \| Accessible

Accessibility About the Inquiry Contacts Search
Home News Schedule Transcripts Evidence Report Links
Transcripts > FF (19 Apr 04)
QuickSearch See also On this website: Evidence: FF	Previous Next	Views Print Accessible Actions Send
	Archive note Important note: This is an archive of the website that was formerly at www.morrisinquiry.gov.uk. It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information. Page summary This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the private session with FF, on 19 April 2004. Sections available here: Transcript of private session: Mr FF Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Questions by Miss Weekes Alternative versions This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering. Content Transcript of private session: Mr FF The name of this witness has been changed, and his submission redacted, to avoid the identification of the individuals and any third parties. Monday, 19 April 2004 3.50 pm Sir William Morris: Mr F, please make yourself comfortable, have some water, and we will start when you are ready. Mr F: At your time, sir. I am ready now. Sir William Morris: Can I, first of all, thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this afternoon to give some evidence, and thank you also for letting us have your written submission, which we found extremely helpful. Can I say also that my colleagues and I fully appreciate that for some of our witnesses, a process of this nature can seem somewhat daunting, so I thought it would be helpful if I set out, very briefly, how we propose to conduct the hearing this afternoon. But first, let me introduce myself and the other members of the panel. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, but as you can see, there are two other members of the panel: on my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary after a very long and distinguished career in the police service. And on my left is Miss Anesta Weekes, who is an eminent barrister. Anesta sits as a recorder and part-time chairperson of employment tribunals, and she was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry. As you know, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. Our focus is one which indicates that we will be paying due attention to the MPS as an organisation, and not the individuals who make up the organisation. Nevertheless, we want to hear from individuals in order to understand how they are affected by the policies, the practices and the procedures which govern the way that the Metropolitan Police Service operates. Although we are a public inquiry, we have decided to conduct this hearing and some others, where we hear from individuals, in private. The reason for that is that we are keen to hear from individuals like yourself, who have had problems, who can provide information on the way the MPS operates, but we also understand that some people might feel somewhat reluctant to answer questions if they feel that the Metropolitan Police is listening in, so to speak. I hope that the arrangements that we have offered you will find helpful, and you will feel confident to speak as freely as we hope you will. Although we are meeting in private today, as I have just said, we are a public inquiry, and that means that it might be necessary for us to seek further clarification from others about the evidence that – your written evidence, and indeed, whatever you might say to us today. If we do decide to seek further clarification, then we will do so in a way that does not identify you in any shape or form. Also, let me assure you that we will try to ensure that any additional information or clarification we seek is done in a manner which causes you the least possible inconvenience, if any at all, and we will not do so without seeking your permission first. The inquiry that we are conducting is inquisitorial, it is not adversarial in any way. We are seeking to get evidence, we are seeking to get information, and we are seeking to find facts. We are keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice within the Metropolitan Police Service, rather than be critical of the service or its individuals. We have no wish to go back over the details of what might or might not have happened, because we have your written submission, for which we are grateful, and the thoughts that you want to offer are very clearly set out in your written submission. What we want to do is to ask some questions which will enable us to draw on your experience in order to inform our work, and to help us in our task. At the end of these introductory remarks, one of my colleagues, in this instance Sir Anthony Burden, will lead with some questions, at the end of which, myself or Miss Weekes might have one or two supplementary questions that we might want to put to you. When we have finished our questions, I will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing statement or comment if you so wish. Just for the record, let me draw to your attention that a transcript is being taken, so that we have a proper record of the evidence given by all our witnesses. We are hoping to publish this transcript together with your written submission on our website in the next few days, but we will only do so after we have taken out references to your name and other personal details, in order to ensure that it contains no information which identifies you or any other individuals. But before I ask Sir Anthony to start our questions, for the benefit of the transcript, could I invite you, please, to formally introduce yourself and indeed your colleague, if you wish, to the Inquiry? Mr F: Thank you very much, sir. Again, my name is FF, I have been a police officer for about [Redacted] years. The first quarter of that was spent in [Redacted], where I was [Redacted] and I joined the MPS in [Redacted]. My colleague today, or my friend today, is Ms I, she is assisting me as a back-up team, basically. She is a confidant, sir. Sir William Morris: You are both welcome. I would ask Sir Anthony to lead straight into the questions we would like to put to you this afternoon. Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Sir Anthony Burden: Good afternoon, Mr F. Mr F: Good afternoon. Sir Anthony Burden: As the chairman has said, thank you very much indeed for a very full submission. I found it particularly helpful. You have already set the scene; as you said, you served in the Metropolitan Police as a constable, having previously served in [Redacted], and, indeed, you are [Redacted], I think? Mr F: Yes, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: Now, during your service with the Metropolitan Police, you have had reason, on three separate occasions, I think, to complain about or challenge the behaviour or professional standards of colleagues, and you say, in your submission, that on two of these occasions, the handling of these complaints fell below the standard you would have expected from an organisation which claims to hold integrity so dear to its heart. That is correct; I have given a correct synopsis of what you said, is that right? Mr F: That is correct, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: And indeed, on page 2 of your submission, you say, in relation to these complaints: "In one instance, relevant documents in a file were removed and later declared lost in a subsequent official report. This brought the investigation which spanned across two years to an end with a ... letter of apology addressed to me. On only one occasion so far and only in the recent years did I have a matter brought before the employment tribunal for resolution." So these must have been fairly serious matters, I would suggest, that you have brought to the notice of the Metropolitan Police. Mr F: Yes, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: Did you feel that the complaints that you made were treated seriously? Mr F: I think the process appeared to be serious, but the question of whether the intent was genuine is what I doubted. All the mechanisms were there, I met several officers, and I was interviewed, the right forms were filled, but as the months went by, I could see – I began to have a sense that perhaps the truth, if discovered, was too uncomfortable to handle, and therefore nobody wanted it, as a matter of fact. Sir Anthony Burden: Right. There seems to be building a picture, from other witnesses we have spoken to, of inordinate delay, insensitivity in the way that complaints were handled; is this something that you have found? Mr F: It varies from one case to the other, out of the three cases which I referred to. If I can deal with the last and most recent, which I think was the most serious of the cases, I would not say that insensitivity was part of it, but clearly, inordinate delays were part of it, it spanned across three years, but I think it took about 24 months on the whole, from [Redacted ]up until last year, [Redacted]. Sir Anthony Burden: And you were the complainant, basically, in his case? Mr F: Yes, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: Were you treated like a complainant, or did you become also a victim of the process? Mr F: If you refer to being a victim in terms of being investigated, I was not investigated at all. I felt patronised; I repeatedly tried to draw their attention to what the facts were, what the issues were. I did not think it was necessary to do that, but each time I had a meeting, other issues that were not relevant to the matter had been brought in, and I said, "No sir, this is the point, if you have not addressed it at the last one, let us deal with it now", and it got to a point, I was seen – I was having meetings perhaps twice a month, I met – I do not know how many officers I met, and at each stage, I felt that the attempt was perhaps to persuade me to rethink my position. Sir Anthony Burden: So you were left with a feeling that they would like you to withdraw your complaint – Mr F: Without question, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: – so it could all be finished? Mr F: Without question, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: You have made some very interesting points in your submissions, and some issues that you have identified. There are, however, four that I would like to go into in some detail, if I may, that are directly relevant to our terms of reference, and they are recommendations you make, firstly, around the introduction of a police staff association independent advisory group; secondly, the need to review high-profile prosecutions of black and minority ethnic officers; thirdly, the need for enhanced protection for reporters of wrongdoing; and finally, the recommendation you make about creating dedicated grievance managers. So those are the four I would like to concentrate on, if I may. Firstly, your suggestion for a police staff association independent advisory group; would you like to give us a bit more detail of what your thinking is there? Mr F: I was a member of the [Redacted] investigation team, and also a member of the gold group steering committee, where we had the benefit of members of the public who were members of the IAG. All through the process of the investigation, every now and then, you would get some feeling from the community that things were not going quite right, but their own people were on board with us, and they could go back and say, "Well, at least I think the police are doing their best, from what I can see so far, and we are also part of the decision-making process", and that helped, I think, to contain the issues around tensions in the community. Now with police investigations into police officers, clearly we have seen that many members of the staff association – the BPA, for example, of which I am a member, appears to have lost confidence in the ability of the Met to investigate its own members impartially or fairly. This has gone on for quite a while. The Met thinks it is doing its best, the BPA does not think it is doing its best, and I would have thought that perhaps if we have a member of the BPA on board these investigations, a police officer, of course, to oversee what is going on, of course, he will be bound by the usual codes of confidence about investigations, and see if it is true. If there is any area of doubt to an investigation, he can point it out there and then, not post-mortem afterwards. And during one of my issues with the – during my last grievance issue, one of the officers who I eventually had to complain against had acted on the impression that I had issues against him. What I did at the time was to ask the grievance manager to bring him on board, you know, that was the chairman of the BPA, so I said, "Bring him on board to see what is going on, let him understand the seriousness of what is being discussed, please let him have a copy of my grievance report", and he was given a copy. When he then saw that, he appreciated that what I was saying was quite serious, and he approached me and said, "I am sorry, F, I was not aware it was that serious". So I felt, if he was on board the investigation to oversee, because some of the officers that I complained against were his members too, BPA members, and he was an interested party in that sense, so on that strength, I feel that having IAG members who are staff association members will help, certainly will help. Sir Anthony Burden: So you fundamentally see a problem for black and minority ethnic officers within the process more than would apply to their white colleagues? Mr F: My case – the last one is very peculiar, because the officers I complained against were black officers, if you see what I mean, they were black officers, they were members of the BPA, and so was I, and the BPA chairman's intervention did not help matters, from my point of view, if you see what I mean. Sir Anthony Burden: Yes. Mr F: And some white officers, who were also involved in what I complained against, now took refuge under the cover of the black officers, and hence the system kept on talking about, "The fear factor, hot potato, we cannot deal with it." If the matter was investigated adequately, I think it might have affected the careers of many officers, a couple of black officers, but many more white officers, and I think that they used this issue in a very cynical manner to cover themselves. So I do not know the answer to your question, whether black officers find more problems within the given system or whether whites do, but I can only speak from my own experience. The issues around white officers or black that I have heard are only hearsay, what I have heard them say in the press, but I do not know anybody who has come up to me. Sir Anthony Burden: Can I just bring you on to this fear factor issue? Because I think it is important for us – it has been referred to quite frequently in evidence given to us that whenever the issue of race or diversity comes on the agenda around grievances or workplace conflict, that managers seem reluctant to manage that conflict locally, and they are more inclined to either push it to the directorate of professional standards or to central personnel departments; is that something that you have experienced? Mr F: Yes, sir, I think the whole system goes haywire, it completely goes haywire, if there is a black officer involved as a witness, or as the accused person or whatever, it just goes haywire completely. I think I mentioned that in my report, where I had a matter that was nothing at all to do with race, it was a sergeant's behaviour, and I complained about it, but I was forced to go beyond the panel over race. Sir Anthony Burden: Because of a reluctance locally to want to get involved, basically? Mr F: In this case I see it as a reluctance to deal with the officer's criminal behaviour; it was not about race, it is just that it is there – I think race is not just being abused by some black officers, it is also being abused by some white managers, if you see what I am trying to say, sir. If I complain about the behaviour of a white sergeant, done something nothing to do with race, the fact that I am black gets brought in, and I am saying "No, his behaviour is a discipline issue, or a criminal matter, deal with it." Sir Anthony Burden: It is not about race. Mr F: Yes, deal with it. Sir Anthony Burden: This issue of having independence: do you think that independent person or persons should also have a role to manage the way that complaints or grievances should be handled in a more timely fashion, that they should be able to monitor the speed with which complaints or grievances are actually handled? In other words, any delay should be reported through to this advisory group or whatever, and the advisory group should be able to have some say in speeding up the process; would that work, do you think? Mr F: I do not know how far that would work, sir, but the role I envisage for this advisory group is not – they would not get involved with the investigation itself, but they would manage, like you said, the issues of time, the issue of the direction of the investigation, the issue of the quality of the evidence, and if there is a review, subsequently, of the investigation, their position would become crucial. I think their presence on the investigation would prompt the investigating officers to do things in a timely fashion. I am not saying that they will set deadlines for an investigation, I am not saying so, but where there is an extension, it needs to be justified by the investigating officer, it needs to be accurately justified, why it has been extended. And most officers are reasonable people; if you tell the IAG member, "This is why we need to extend this investigation", and have it documented, I do not see any issues there at all. Sir Anthony Burden: You mentioned time limits; from your experience with grievances and complaints, would you wish to see statutory time limits in place? Mr F: No, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: You would not? Mr F: No, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: Can you tell me why? Mr F: It might hamper the cause of justice. Ultimately, what we look for here is the truth, and justice. If it takes ten years to find it, then so be it. The [Redacted] case or investigation, I think, was one that was hampered by this issue of enforced time limits. It should have lasted longer, a year, two, three, four, if necessary, to find the [Redacted]. There is no point setting time limits and losing the case in court. I do not at all endorse time limits, not at all, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: But if there is delay – and I think what you are saying is, you want the job done properly, and that may mean some delay, and may mean some public criticism that the thing has not been brought to a conclusion. Do you feel that there should be some body or some person to whom delays must be reported and justified so that at least somebody is managing those delays? Mr F: Yes, sir, without question. Perhaps a senior officer outside the investigation, at some level or the other, without question. Sir Anthony Burden: That brings me on, then, as to who should do this. Would it work if it were somebody internally in the Met doing that, or should it be completely independent, do you think? Mr F: I do not think I am equipped with the necessary facts to give an honest answer to that question, sir, but I just think there needs to be somebody you need to report to, who will monitor events. Sir Anthony Burden: So in terms of delays, there must be accountability to somebody. Mr F: Absolutely. Sir Anthony Burden: Right, that is fine. That is very, very helpful. Can I bring you on to your second point, and that is the need to review failed high-profile prosecutions of black and minority ethnic officers, and of course there have been several examples, and several examples recently. Can you give us an insight into your thinking here, with this recommendation? Mr F: I think I was – I may have referred to the Ali Dizaei case, and my thinking was based on the fact that some of us – I did feel disappointed with the outcome of the case. I felt disappointed by the fact that – I mean, I tried to see it from a junior officer's point of view, and also from the point of view of a Londoner. Something went wrong there, we do not have the full answers to it, we do not have all the answers to it. I felt that the Met and the officer had done a deal to sort of keep both sides (inaudible) in public, but this is a matter of public interest, we need to know where the Met failed in this investigation, because they did fail, as far as we are concerned. Well, how did they fail? But I also feel that the officer himself needs to be asked some questions about his behaviour, outside the areas where he has been told no case to answer, but all the areas that were untouched; but by that deal which they have done now, no further discussion, but there are victims out there, I believe, victims being some of the witnesses or some of the informants who brought the matter before the police in the first place, and the officers who need to work with him as their supervising officer, and when an officer – in my view, when an officer's integrity is damaged, there is a problem of how he can enforce – for example, if there is an issue similar to what he has done, how would he enforce discipline to a junior officer? I would find that difficult myself. But by calling for review of these cases, I felt that this question needed to be answered, it needed to be answered to the satisfaction of the public and of the community. It will also help in that, in future, officers who are brought before a discipline hearing will stick to the facts of their behaviour, and where they need to, apologise and say, "I am sorry, I got it wrong". For many of us black officers, and although I am not an official of the BPA, but for many of us in the BPA, we are often embarrassed when race is brought in, and, we think, inappropriately, by an officer who ought to answer questions about his conduct; in this case, some of us think so. Sir Anthony Burden: Well, that is a very balanced answer. You will not be aware of this report, and there is no reason why you should, but there is a report in existence now called the Taylor Report. It actually came about as a result of complaint inquiries elsewhere in the UK. But that report actually now requires complaints to be monitored through the investigation to ensure that the investigation remains justified, and that it is proportionate, and I guess if evidence has not being gathered to prove criminality or a discipline charge, that the inquiries and the investigation could cease as a result of that review. Would that be an improvement to the current process, do you think, and maybe would have assisted in some of the high-profile cases that you are referring to? Mr F: In all honesty, sir, I was not even aware of this report you are talking about, the Taylor Report. I have not seen it. Sir Anthony Burden: I do not expect you to be, but that sort of review process, that makes people sit down once a month – Mr F: It certainly would help. Sir Anthony Burden: – and say, "Is what we are doing still justified?", and that might happen three months into the inquiry, rather than get to the end of three years and for people to turn round and say, "That was a complete waste of time and an unjustified complaint". Mr F: I agree entirely, sir, it would help. Sir Anthony Burden: So you agree that would be useful. Can I come on to your third point; you mention enhanced protection for reporters of wrongdoing and witnesses as well. Has that recommendation come out of some bad experiences that you have had, or others have had? Mr F: My experience, sir, and the experience of some of my colleagues also, black officers as well. Well, the protection is there in print, but in reality, it is not there. If you report a matter to the DPS, you do not expect anybody in the station to know, but they do know, and in my case, they knew. In my case, for example, the officers I complained against had their proxies contact me; I was spoken to at the BPA conference, I did not need to be spoken about at the BPA conference. The BPA chairman spoke to me about it, I was not happy with it. My witnesses were contacted, I was not happy with it. I complained about it to the investigating officer, and nothing came of it. So that enforced my recommendation that we need more protection, you know, more protection for witnesses and complainants as well. Sir Anthony Burden: What would you have, a more formal process of protection? Mr F: Let me see how – I would think, for example, if a witness – if it is made clear that contacts with a witness is a serious offence – it is an offence, but somehow, it is taken lightly. It is a serious offence. Regardless of rank, you do not speak to a witness, you just do not do that. I was outraged by that; why should I have phone calls about a matter where I have been assured by the DPS that this is confidential, and I get a phone call, or my witnesses get phone calls, and they change their minds? I felt it was not just a question of the officers who were doing it, but I felt that the entire system, the entire MPS structure was happy with their efforts, it might get me or my witnesses to drop their case, because my case was linked very closely to the [Redacted] [Redacted] investigation, and that is why everybody was very panicky about it, but I still felt, "I am a victim here", and I also felt the truth often (inaudible) course of justice, so why not let us hear it? Sir Anthony Burden: I mean, is it the case that there are policies in place which should control that sort of behaviour, but the policies are not taken seriously? Mr F: I think so too, sir. It would be absurd to think there is no mechanism for dealing with people who have contacted witnesses. I am sure it is there somewhere. They know what the statutes say, it is there, but they are not enforced. Oftentimes, we do have adequate laws, but the question is: do we have the will to enforce them? Sir Anthony Burden: Because it is known that things leak and become known on boroughs and in departments, that that might deter some people from making genuine complaints? Mr F: Oh yes, sir. I mean, at the [Redacted] case, I was not the only witness there to what I saw, because my matter was twin-tracked with a grievance complaint, a grievance issue, and also a formal complaint of bad behaviour there, but I was not a witness there. People were concerned, they would not speak. Sir Anthony Burden: That brings me on to your recommendation that you need dedicated grievance managers; would you like to enlarge on that? Mr F: I was thinking in terms of the issue of delays. Sir Anthony Burden: Right, delays. Mr F: The issue of delays. If it helps to have officers whose role – principal job or principal role is to deal with grievances, so be it. Because oftentimes – one of the excuses I was given was again that the manager is involved in a case somewhere, or that he has a meeting somewhere else, therefore this is cancelled. I had many cancelled appointments with my grievance manager, and that sort of tended to prolong the investigation. If there are cases which they are dealing with, these are genuine cases, which, of course, take priority to my matter, I have to live with it, but if you had an officer who is tasked to deal with grievances, that might help to cut down these delays. Sir Anthony Burden: Are you aware of the new Fairness at Work policy that has been introduced in the Met? Mr F: I have heard of it, but I do not know the full details, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: Well, that takes the grievance procedure and brings more discipline to it, and I think to a certain extent, answers your concern around this point, maybe not completely so, but they have got Fairness at Work advisors that are there to assist, and Fairness at Work co-ordinators to ensure that grievances – I think they are still grievances – are dealt with more speedily. That, you think, will be helpful? Mr F: Yes, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: I mean, why do grievances, in your experience – why do they just languish in people's in-trays and not be dealt with speedily? Is it a lack of confidence on the part of managers to actually deal with these things, or are they not trained to deal with conflict in the workplace? What is it, do you think? Mr F: Well, sir, I am only a constable, let us not forget, I do not know how well they are trained, but I expect they should be trained, ie you should have confidence in them to be trained for it. I still insist that it is a matter of will to deal with these things, sir, it is a matter of the will, and there are too many interests in not dealing with issues. Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, you come back to the point you made at the very start, that they would rather it was all swept under the carpet. Mr F: Absolutely. If I may just give an example, sir, if you raise concerns about overtime abuse, it affects everybody. Well, I am sorry, not everybody, but it affects many officers of different backgrounds, you know, race immaterial, and also, senior officers, from sergeant to inspector to chief inspector, who and who approved, so they all tend to coalesce and try to see that things do not get dealt with in a timely manner. Sir Anthony Burden: Of all the very useful suggestions and recommendations that you have made, if there was one that stands out above all others that you would say to us, "Please make sure that you pursue that and put it in the report", which one would it be? Mr F: Could I take a look at my report, sir? Sir Anthony Burden: By all means do. The page you want is page 8, I think, where you list the recommendations. (Pause). I mean, if they are all important, then say so. Mr F: I will just identify a couple, sir. One, number 5, the positive action clarification, you need to clarify that. Sir Anthony Burden: And that is being taken forward by the Black Police Association at this very moment, as I understand it, as an issue. Mr F: I hope so, sir, I was not aware anyway. I have been out of the country most of the time, sir, I am presently on a career break anyway. The other one being the no special treatment/immunity declaration, that is very important to me, sir. These two. Sir Anthony Burden: Okay, thank you very much indeed. Sir William Morris: I will pass you straight over to Miss Weekes, who has one or two questions to put to you. Questions by Miss Weekes Miss Weekes: Yes, thank you. I am interested in going back to one area, and it is the question of what happens when you expect something to be held confidentially, and it is not. Perhaps for me, one of the most serious matters you have raised with us is the recent complaint that you have raised; it happens to involve black officers, but you expected it to be kept confidential and it was not, because it is quite clear to you, you have been spoken to and your witnesses have been spoken to. In a criminal context, that would amount to perverting the course of justice. Mr F: That is correct, ma'am. Miss Weekes: That is obviously why you are very upset about it. Mr F: Without question. Miss Weekes: If you cannot answer this question, then do tell me, but let me tell you why I am asking it: I do not necessarily want to know the names, but I do need to know the nature of the complaint, because I would like to know why it has been dealt with in the way it has been dealt with, and why there have been no sanctions against officers talking to you. That is where I am going to go with it, just so you know. So can you summarise what the nature of your complaint is against those officers? Mr F: What is the word for it now? It had to do with overtime claims at the [Redacted] investigation. At a certain point, we were told that we had run out of money, therefore, there was no more overtime money, and therefore, officers who needed to stay longer to deal with matters had to go home early. But being there for long enough, I knew that things were happening that should not have happened, and there was what I thought to be tacit encouragement from an inspector, with knowledge of the chief inspector, I would say the – what are they called now, the senior investigation officers, officers who work for perhaps four hours and claim eight hours, or, you know, not work for a weekend and then claim for the weekend. I just found it very uneasy, basically, and people were making boasts of how much they have saved in the last month or whatever, and against the background of the case we were dealing with at the time, you know, the [Redacted], I could not deal with it, I could not live with it. This was one of the key issues which I raised at the time, but there were – when I then spoke to the investigation unit, they asked me further questions, other matters came out, like misuse of vehicles, taking vehicles home, and some of us had to go to work by bus, or go to [Redacted] to investigate issues on the train. That was the nature of it. Unbeknown to me, there was also another complaint by somebody I do not know in a different department about a surveillance team that had claimed money for work not done, and it appeared to be the entire team, and it appeared to be with knowledge of an inspector, I do not know who they were, but they were being dealt with differently, they had been brought in to help us on the team, but gone away, and after they maybe – perhaps, I do not know the facts of the matter, maybe after they had been redeployed, they continued to claim. At the time of the investigation, the Commissioner made it very clear that money was no object, you know, "[Redacted], I will pay anything for it", so the investigation was like a magnet for people who wanted overtime claims, you know, if you have friends on board, get yourself in there, and the attraction became the overtime money, as far as I could see it. This, I think, is a summary of what happened. Miss Weekes: Just so that we are clear here on the Inquiry panel, you would not want the summary of what you have just told me to be made public. Mr F: I am not indifferent to your decisions on that, ma'am. Miss Weekes: So you are going to leave that up to us? Mr F: Entirely up to you. I will not insist, but if you do so, it does not bother me at all. Miss Weekes: I just need to know, because we want to be careful by you, we do not want to cause you any difficulties. Mr F: No, ma'am, if you are to serve – again, the thing you want to bear in mind as well too, because during my negotiations – at one point, we had to negotiate with the Met, and had to resolve the matter. There are concerns around [Redacted], you know, if he becomes aware of certain matters that may cause him more upset, that was why I backed down at the employment tribunal matter, I did not want to go further on that date, so that was another matter of concern for them, well, for all of us. He is not aware of this. Miss Weekes: Now that I have understood the summary of what you have said, which clearly puts it into an extremely serious category, I just want to go back to the reason for my question. You have been a victim of making a legitimate complaint which you felt you could back up with evidence, you requested that that be kept confidential for obvious reasons, and it was not. Mr F: No. Miss Weekes: Who did you go to to say, "Look, I went to the department of professional standards, this is a very delicate matter, I asked for your confidentiality, now I have been spoken to, my witnesses have been spoken to"; did you complain? Mr F: Yes, ma'am, I did complain to – at the time, he was Chief Superintendent [Redacted], he was the grievance manager at the time. I complained to him. That was when I requested for [Redacted]to be shown a copy of my report. [Redacted] was the person who first spoke to me directly at the BPA conference. One of the other officers concerned also spoke to me as well. Then I told Mr [Redacted], I said, "This is what happened", but I did give Mr [Redacted] some room to say perhaps he was generally concerned about officers being involved in this kind of matter; if he is in doubt, do show him a copy of my report, in order to understand the seriousness of what is going on, which he did, but throughout the entire matter, I felt that his position was not impartial, not impartial at all. Miss Weekes: Whose position? Mr F: Mr [Redacted]'s position, and I felt disappointed at that, because I am a member of the BPA, but I still do not see the BPA as a cover – I joined the BPA to meet black officers, I joined the BPA to see how I can re-engage my community with the police service, I joined the BPA for support, you know, within the police system, but I do not expect that the BPA should provide me with any extra immunity. If I do anything wrong, then I should pay for it, that is how I see it, but clearly, clearly, clearly, it is happening all the time, some members of the BPA have been doing things, and these two officers were also members of the BPA, they were doing things and getting away with it all the time. You find some white officers, even white investigators, who will tell you, "I am sorry, I cannot deal with that, it is not worth the bother". Miss Weekes: Because they are black officers? Mr F: Yes, because they will kick up a fuss, the BPA will get involved, and it goes nowhere. I do not understand that; I simply do not understand it, I refuse to accept it as a valid explanation not to deal with the matter. Miss Weekes: What is going to happen to this complaint? Because you have made the complaint. Mr F: What happened? Miss Weekes: What is going to happen to it? What do you think is going to happen? Mr F: The matter has already been resolved. It has been closed. Miss Weekes: Who closed it? Mr F: [Redacted] But as things developed, I was being pushed out of the events, the Commissioner got interested, and he said, "I want this developed into something more substantial", and what we call the politicians in the system took over basically, and I got pushed out. I did not mind being pushed out, I did not mind being – because I was quite busy with the investigation myself, but where I felt offended was where an account of the history of the association was being given; there was no mention of my role at all, and I said, "No, sir, that is incorrect, the history is not correct, I want it amended", and that became another sub-investigation itself. It took one year to resolve this matter, one year before Mr [Redacted], the (inaudible) to the Commissioner, then wrote a letter to me to say, "Thank you, F, we appreciate your efforts"; not part of my grievance. Then the other matter of the criminal aspect, I have now been told officially that it is not my matter, I am just an informant, and they will deal with it, and the result I was told was that it has been investigated exhaustively, and nothing came of it, but that is not true, and I told them so. Miss Weekes: So no charges have been preferred against any of the officers which – Mr F: No, not at all. Miss Weekes: So from your point of view, you would feel dissatisfied with both the complaints department and, indeed, no doubt you will say you feel rather let down by the Black Police Association? Mr F: The BPA and the DPS. Miss Weekes: Both together? Mr F: Yes, both together. Miss Weekes: After your leave, will you be – you have a career break, I understand? Mr F: Yes, ma'am. Miss Weekes: Do you intend to come back to the Met? Mr F: I do indeed. Miss Weekes: Do you consider that you will settle in adequately, or would you need protection, some assistance? Mr F: No, ma'am, I do not think it is that dramatic. I will cope. I have already made enquiries as to where I need to go back to. Miss Weekes: And that is in hand at the moment? Mr F: Yes, ma'am. Miss Weekes: Thank you very much for your help. Sir William Morris: Thank you. Mr F, can I just remind you that when I made my opening introduction, I promised that at the end of our questions, you would be given an opportunity to make a closing statement if you so wished; if you do, then let me invite you to make that statement now. Mr F: Thank you, sir. Firstly, I would like to thank you for inviting me, giving me the chance to express myself. It is a great relief that I can speak and say what I have said to you so far. Of course, you will be aware from my submission that two years ago today, I did submit a report to the Commissioner that talked of many of the issues that we are dealing with today. That report which I submitted earned me a sanction, because the Commissioner invited me to speak to him in his office, but I was banned from seeing him by, again, officers who were at the time allied against me for the views which I had expressed. What I would like you to do, sir, you know, or what I would like you to bear in mind are my concerns, firstly, are as follows: that the unity of the MPS is paramount, the unity of the MPS police officers is paramount. We are police officers first and foremost, and that is our responsibility. Anything else is immaterial. All other forms of loyalty, whether to your race, to your club, to your association, to your fraternity is immaterial. If it comes into conflict related to the job, then there is a problem there somewhere, sir. [Redacted] Secondly, I hope that you can allay the fears of all sides with your report, the fears of all sides in this issue, and all sides being, we black officers, female officers, gay officers, white officers, senior and junior officers, because I feel – I think that we are now broken down into different camps in the Met Police. I hope you will also find – I think we talked about that already, about some confidence-building mechanisms such as the IAG for staff associations, that is one of them, and you will also find others as well too. We also need to – again, one of the points I raised earlier, and this should be a key point, I hope, for you, denial of cover for wrongdoers in the MPS, of any form of cover; rank, race, sexuality cannot be in any circumstance a defence for anyone, until the matter has been thoroughly investigated and proven to be baseless, he can then refer to his race or his sexuality as an issue. Also – I think that is about it, sir, what is relevant to you, sir, is what I have just told you now. Thank you very much. Sir William Morris: Well, thank you very much indeed. We found your contribution to our work of immense value. Can I just say, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, formally, thanks for your submission, thanks for the responses that you have made this afternoon, in terms of the oral session, and thank you for the overall contribution to the Inquiry and our work. Mr F: Thank you, sir. God bless you. 4.40 pm Internal links On this website: Evidence: FF Evidence provided by and documents referred to by FF, in his appearance at the Inquiry.
	Previous Next
Transcripts > FF (19 Apr 04)
© Copyright 2004, The Morris Inquiry. Standards compliant HTML. Designed and maintained by Netfundi