Transcript of private session: Mr HH

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

Tuesday, 20 April 2004
11.15 am

Sir William Morris: Mr H, good morning to you, and indeed welcome. We are very informal in our private sessions, and we want to ensure that you are feeling at ease, there is some water there, so make yourself comfortable.

How would you like to be addressed? Would you like to be addressed as H, or Mr H?

Mr H: Whichever you are happy with, sir. My friends call me H, so I would be delighted if you would call me that.

Sir William Morris: Well, H, can I, first of all, say thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this morning and to give some evidence. We do have your written submission, and we want to thank you for that. It is quite full, and we have found it very helpful indeed.

Could I also say that I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses, the process that we adopt can be somewhat daunting, so I thought it might be just helpful if I set out very briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this morning.

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; on my right, as you can see, one of two members, first 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 QC. Anesta is a very eminent barrister, she sits as a recorder and a part-time chairperson in employment tribunals, and she was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

H, 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. We have deliberately decided to focus on the Metropolitan Police Service itself as an organisation, and not the individuals who make up that organisation.

Nevertheless, we need to hear from individuals in order to understand how they are affected by the policies, the practices, the procedures, the conventions that govern the way the Met 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 this is that we are very keen to hear from individuals like yourself who have had problems with the way that the MPS operates, but we also understand that some of our witnesses may feel a little reluctant to answer the questions if they feel that the MPS is listening in.

So we hope that you will find the arrangements that we have made helpful, and we hope, equally, that you feel confident this morning to share your thoughts with us in a full and frank way.

Although we are meeting in private, nevertheless, as I have just said, we are a public inquiry, and that means that it may be necessary for us to seek further clarification from others about what you have said to us in your written submission, and what you tell us today.

If we do decide to seek further clarification, then we will do so without identifying you in any shape or form whatsoever. Also, let me assure you that if we are to seek further clarification, we will do so in a way which causes you the least possible inconvenience, and we will seek your permission before we do that.

The inquiry we are conducting, H, is inquisitorial, we are here to establish facts, to find information, to understand better, so it is inquisitorial, it is not adversarial in any way. We are very keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice, rather than concentrate on making just criticisms.

We have no wish to go back over the details of what has happened to you, because we have read your written submission quite carefully, and we have a clear idea of the events that you have shared with us.

What we now want to do is to ask you some questions which will enable us to understand better and draw on your experience to inform our work. At the end of these introductory remarks, one of my colleagues will lead on the questions to you, and then the remainder of the panel may ask one or two supplementary questions. When we have finished all our questions, I will offer you the opportunity for a brief closing comment, if you so wish.

Can I just draw to your attention, H, that a transcript is being taken so that we have a proper record of all 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 that after we have taken out all references to your name and other personal details, in order to be sure that it contains no information which identifies you or other individuals.

Before I ask Sir Anthony Burden to lead on our questions, just for the benefit of the transcript, could I invite you, H, to introduce yourself formally to the Inquiry?

Mr H: Yes, sir, I am HH, police constable [Redacted], attached to traffic division. I am now employed as a [Redacted].

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. I will invite Sir Anthony Burden to just lead on the questions for us, please.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: H, good morning.

Mr H: Good morning, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: I can see you are a very experienced traffic officer, and from your post nominals, you have undertaken every course, I think, that you could possibly have done and achieved every qualification as an accident investigator, so again, very well qualified in that particular arena.

Within our terms of reference, H, I would like to base my questions around three areas: that is delay in the process, the use of suspension, and welfare support.

In those terms, if I could just give a very brief synopsis of the situation as we understand it – and it is a synopsis, because, as the chairman has said, you have given us a very full submission which we have all been able to read, but the issue started in [Redacted], when you assisted a colleague to take measurements at the scene of a fatal accident, and then later assisted him by preparing plans using surveying equipment which quite basically he was unable to use, so you were doing him a favour, in essence.

Mr H: That is correct, sir, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: And then, after a certain period, during [Redacted] training that he was undertaking, he admitted that he had rushed this particular investigation at the scene, and as a consequence, he was investigated and suspended, but because you had assisted him, and therefore were implicated, you were also suspended.

Mr H: That is correct, sir, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: As we read it, you were not interviewed for 13 months.

Mr H: That is correct.

Sir Anthony Burden: But in that intervening period, you had had several health issues, [Redacted].

Mr H: [Redacted]

Sir Anthony Burden: Right, and as a consequence of being suspended, your health had suffered quite considerably?

Mr H: Yes, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: In [Redacted], you were in fact reinstated to duty.

Mr H: That is correct.

Sir Anthony Burden: And 24 months after being suspended, the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there would be no further action criminally against you.

Mr H: That is correct.

Sir Anthony Burden: And three months later, you were told that there would be no discipline action either.

Mr H: That is correct.

Sir Anthony Burden: So at the end of this very long period, you were completely exonerated.

Mr H: That is correct, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: Now you also very helpfully, H, commented – and you were very complimentary about the support you had received from the occupational health welfare counsellor, which you described as brilliant, but I think it is fair to say that the welfare support that you got was pretty erratic, because welfare officers kept moving or were retired, and people you came to rely on just disappeared from the scene, basically.

Mr H: That is correct, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: I do not think the Federation support that you got always lived up to your expectations either.

Mr H: That is correct.

Sir Anthony Burden: Is that a fair synopsis of where we are?

Mr H: It is, sir, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Now, you say, in relation to delay, that, in your view, the delay was caused by a lack of expertise on the part of the investigating officer. Could you just explain that a bit more?

Mr H: My understanding of investigations that might be outside the normal expertise of the investigating officer is they will call in an expert from another force if need be, and with this one, it was generally accepted that people who were investigating this complaint did not really understand the nature of accident investigation, so I could not understand why they had not just straight away called in someone from the forensic science lab, some expert from another force, or someone who is highly eminent in accident investigation, and I think their failure to do that dragged this out to the extent that it did. That is basically what I mean.

Sir Anthony Burden: Just for the benefit of my colleagues, and for the transcript, could you just explain very briefly what an accident investigator does, and just how technical the job is?

Mr H: Basically, we have to treat each scene of a fatal accident in the same way that a CID officer would treat the scene – a scene at a death, a suspicious death. Everything has to be looked at and weighed up and considered, we have to look at any evidence that would either prove or disprove someone's guilt, and we have to make sure that whatever is there is accounted for.

We basically at that time – it has changed since this incident, but at that time, we as mere PCs actually run the whole operation, and we present the finished item to the coroner. We are acting on his behalf if it is a fatal accident, and our evidence was generally held to be very, very useful to the coroners.

Sir Anthony Burden: And you in fact give evidence as expert witnesses.

Mr H: That is correct, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: So what you are saying, in essence, is to understand all of this, the investigator needed a knowledge, some knowledge of accident investigation techniques.

Mr H: I would have thought so, yes. It is something a little bit unusual, you know, not their normal run-of-the-mill investigation, I would have thought.

Sir Anthony Burden: So that sort of suggests that the investigating officer was left to get on with it, and the fact that it was 13 months before you were even interviewed, there may have been little supervision of the investigation into you.

Mr H: Well, that is right. It is also my understanding that a chief inspector was given the role of being the investigating officer right from the start; it is my understanding that he moved to something else and he was replaced, and the officer who replaced him was ultimately replaced during the whole investigation, which obviously causes problems for them, I would have thought; I would not like to have to take over someone else's part started investigation, and I just think the whole thing was totally badly handled.

Sir Anthony Burden: Now the officer who had made the admission, whilst he was on his course, he was quite properly, I guess, investigated and was finally disciplined.

Mr H: He received a reprimand after three years.

Sir Anthony Burden: So even though he was, in essence, admitting his guilt, if the punishment that he had received reflected the seriousness or the lack of seriousness in what he was admitting – because a reprimand is one of the lowest punishments that you can receive – that would seem to suggest that the treatment of you, being suspended and kept suspended for this length of time was somewhat heavy-handed.

Mr H: That is my belief, sir, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: You will not be aware of this report, and I would not expect you to be, but there is a piece of work now called the Taylor Report, which looked into an investigation in another force which had been prolonged, and it has made a series of recommendations, and several of those, I think, may impact on cases such as yours, in that they recommend frequent monitoring of investigations into complaints against police officers, or internal investigations, to make sure that the investigation is still justified, and that the investigation is proportionate; in other words, it is a balanced investigation.

Do you think that that will be a useful initiative for the future?

Mr H: Most certainly, sir. If it is implemented and carried out along those lines, I think the sooner that happens the better, in all honesty.

Sir Anthony Burden: And what do you think would have been the outcome, had this process been in place whilst you were being investigated, if there had been frequent reviews of the case; do you think it would have continued on for the period that it did?

Mr H: I do not imagine that the whole thing would have lasted for three years, as it did, and I think they would hopefully have recognised at an early stage that I had no criminal involvement, and nothing that justified any further disciplinary action. And they could have reinstated me, even kept me on light duties, as I was when I was suspended in the first place, and they could have had the benefit of my expertise and still carried out the investigation.

Sir Anthony Burden: Let us just have a look at the scenario which I would suggest to you – and these are not your words, but I would suggest is quite a common one, and that is an IO who, in your view, seemed to be out of his or her depth in this particular inquiry, it was around technical matters.

Mr H: Yes, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: If there had been in place a process where that investigating officer was called to account once a week or once a fortnight, around the progress he or she had or had not made, in your case, and they were, by that process of monitoring, kept aware of the urgency of completing the inquiries quickly, and made to do that, would that be an advantage?

Mr H: I think so, sir, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Would it work if that were inside the Metropolitan Police, if it were a senior police officer doing that, or would it need a degree of independence?

Mr H: I think it would need a degree of independence. I now have various opinions of the whole discipline procedure, as you would expect from the experience that I have had, and I am very doubtful that letting it continue to be investigated solely within the police is the right thing to do. I think it needs someone independent with the right degree of expertise to look at things and to give instructions based on what they are being given, if that makes any sense to you.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, it does. So actually somebody who is able to manage the investigation at a higher level.

Mr H: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: And instruct the IO to get on with it, in essence.

Mr H: Yes. I was told that they were reviewed every 28 days, but it became clear to me, when I was ringing up after a certain time, you know, "What has been decided?"; "Oh, nothing, we did not have the meeting", or something like that. So clearly, if I was being told the truth, they were not sticking to what I had been told initially.

Sir Anthony Burden: But there are various ways of undertaking reviews, are there not? There is a tick in the book system, or there is a very rigorous examination of progress or not.

Mr H: Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Would you be in favour of time limits on various stages of an investigation?

Mr H: I do not think that that is really a good idea personally, because I think you would be putting, probably unintentionally, pressure on people to come up with the goods, so to speak. I am not naive enough to think that you can do everything very, very quickly, and some things take longer than others, so I do not know that time limits would be the right answer or the solution to every investigation.

Sir Anthony Burden: No. And, of course, you will be aware, I guess, that the IPCC have taken over from the Police Complaints Authority now, and they have greater powers in fact in monitoring this, so we look to see whether there is any improvement.

If I can move on from this issue of proportionality and have a look at suspension, and the way that suspension was used in your case, do you feel it was justified?

Mr H: At the time, I thought it was totally unjustified. After a few months or so, I began to think about it a bit more reasonably, and I thought, well, based upon what they had been told, I could understand why they had suspended me in the first place, but I thought maybe having done so, I should have been reinstated within two or three weeks or something like that.

As I say, I thought – because I eventually saw what was being alleged. I did not get anything on paper until a long, long time after the investigation started, and when I saw how the alleged evidence was presented to them, I could see why the job had reacted as it did, but, you know, having said that, I thought once they had looked into it – if they had asked me for my involvement, they would have seen at a very early stage that suspension was not justified.

Sir Anthony Burden: So even though the driver pleaded guilty, was the suggestion, then, that the guilty plea was based on the evidence given by your colleague, or the evidence disclosed?

Mr H: I was never called to go to court to give evidence on this anyway, so I only have hearsay as to what actually happened, but I understand that the driver was represented – well, I know he was represented by another expert, and his own expert advised him to plead guilty. You know, even without all the evidence that my colleague presented to the court case, it was apparent from the damage, the debris, the carnage at the scene, you know, what the basic cause of the accident was, so whether the driver had pleaded guilty partly because of the evidence of my colleague, I do not know, but my understanding is that even his own expert advised him that basically, he did not have a leg to stand on.

Sir Anthony Burden: And we will not know, of course, whether that suggestion was made to him as a result of the disclosure of your colleague's evidence.

Mr H: That is right, I do not know that answer.

Sir Anthony Burden: Do you get a sense that decisions around issues such as suspension are taken lightly, or that there is this suggestion that there is a sort of sweep-up approach that one officer is being suspended so they all should be suspended?

Mr H: I had always assumed that to be suspended, it had to involve something serious, you know, and I never ever visualised that I would ever be in that position, and my impression was it was, as you say, "We have suspended this one, he is involved with him, so he will get suspended as well". It did not seem to be a consideration, that I might just be on the periphery and dragged into it by circumstance, not having done anything criminal or dishonest. It just seemed as if, "Well, we will do that because it is a good idea", that is how it appeared to me.

Sir Anthony Burden: In organisations such as the Metropolitan Police, even though you might not have been able to continue to be used as an expert accident investigator during this investigation, as a trained traffic officer, there were other duties that, as you said, you could have undertaken.

Mr H: Yes, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: You comment around suspension that you feel it should be mandatory that contact is maintained by a senior officer whilst suspended; that was not done in your case though?

Mr H: No. As I said, there was a succession of welfare officers. One of them did actually come and see me, but within a short time of seeing me, he retired from the police – you know, within three or four weeks after he had seen me.

He was then replaced by the chief inspector, who was now my own chief inspector, but he never ever came to see me. He made arrangements once to do so, but it was the [Redacted], and he was in charge of traffic in Central London, so that appointment was never kept, and no others were ever made.

So no, no senior officer – my own inspector from the accident investigation unit came out initially two or three times, something like that, but gradually, there was no contact at all, and definitely not from a senior officer.

Sir Anthony Burden: But you feel that that contact, and particularly in the welfare situation, should be mandatory, and again, checks should be made to ensure that welfare visits are being made?

Mr H: Well, I think so, sir. As I have said in there, I believe, [Redacted] [Redacted] my wife's support, and the support from the church [Redacted].

It was just a feeling of despair, by not knowing exactly what was going on. I had never been in that situation before, I did not know anybody that had been suspended, and I just felt alienated. I wanted to know things, and nobody was telling me anything.

Sir Anthony Burden: I guess all sorts of things were going through your mind at that particular time, that had the criminal case continued against you, you were probably looking at perverting the course of justice, with any outcome.

Mr H: That is right, yes. It entered my head that, although I knew I had not done anything, they might come up with something – I started to believe in miscarriages of justice, and I could see everything that I had worked for just disappearing, and I had no control over it.

Sir Anthony Burden: It is quite reasonable to assume, I would suppose, that as you move through a 27-month investigation, which the IO actually did, that there must come stages where they are able to give you information which would ease your mind as to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding you. But that was never done?

Mr H: No.

Sir Anthony Burden: As I said, you classed the support you got from the occupational health welfare counsellor as being brilliant.

Mr H: It was.

Sir Anthony Burden: But the Federation support that you got was not always of the standard that you would have expected.

Mr H: That is right, I was very, very disappointed with that. My own Federation representative, who is based at our garage, he represented my colleague, the one who had – you know, against whom the allegations were made, so it was considered that he could not also represent me, so I had to be given an outsider, a foot duty officer, who again had no understanding of accident investigation, and who I learnt later on was just sort of counting his days down to when he could retire, and he had no interest in looking after my well-being or that of my other colleague, [Redacted]. It was just – we were there, we were one of his jobs that he had been assigned to, and it was just lip service. That is the impression I got.

Sir Anthony Burden: I mean, you comment, in your submission, that you feel the need for support for the family of officers suspended, as well as the officers themselves, and that there is genuine concern around their health and welfare, as well as yours, and the despair that you felt through this lack of information; so you would want to say to us that that is a very big area, in terms of your recommendations to us?

Mr H: Certainly, sir. I think if nothing else comes out of this, they need to look towards the harm, the pain, the despair that they put officers and family members through, just by lack of thought.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes. Now this had gone on for three years, can I just very briefly look at when you returned to duty, and I know that was traumatic for you, and not made easier, I think that is the best way to put it.

Do you feel that there should be some process in place that ensures that officers who have been suspended unjustifiably, such as yourself – that there ought to be a process in place that actually manages reintroduction back into the workplace?

Mr H: Yes, most certainly. Yes, I do. I think the Metropolitan Police, anyway, seem to still have this attitude, "You are a man, you are in a man's job, you do not need looking after, you are whatever age you are, you are adult enough to get on with things", and that is clearly wrong, in my opinion.

Sir Anthony Burden: I think you have already told us around the welfare issues, but I will just ask you, because I want to ask you this, finally: if there were one thing you would ask us to put in the report, coming from your submission, what would it be?

Mr H: To keep the officers informed of what is going on, and to at least give the impression of caring about the officers' families, even if they do not care, give the impression – my wife was devastated at what was happening to me.

Sir Anthony Burden: Okay, H. Thank you very much indeed.

Sir William Morris: Thank you. Sir Anthony has completed his questions; can I invite Miss Weekes, to see whether she has any questions she would like to put to you?

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Just one, thank you, chairman. It relates to whether or not anyone has spoken to you about generally what has happened, so that there could be discussion about the way forward, and how the Met can learn from mistakes. Has there been any discussion in relation to how you now feel about –

Mr H: Well, no. When the investigation was ultimately complete, when my colleague was reprimanded, it was assumed that he was just going to come back and work with myself and other officers at the same place where all this was alleged to have taken place, and my chief inspector, to his credit, came and asked me what I thought about that, and I said, "Well, I do not think I can ever work with the man again". I did not hate him, I have never hated him for what he put me through, I think he was just misguided and unfortunate, but I did not want to be in a position where I had to trust what he was telling me.

So I said this to my chief inspector, and he went and asked several other colleagues, and obviously, we all basically said the same thing, so my chief inspector then went and had a meeting with some of his supervisors, which resulted in this officer being moved somewhere else, but nothing specific – no one has ever sat down with me and said – pretty similar to what we are doing now, which I would have thought would be a good idea, you know, "What do you think? We can learn from this"; nobody has actually said that.

Miss Weekes: So you would like us to bear that in mind, because at the end of every single incident like this, officers are left feeling bad about an aspect of their treatment. It would be nice to sit at the table and say, "This is what I think went wrong, this is what I would like to happen, if ever I was in that situation again"; you would have liked your views to have been –

Mr H: Most certainly. You can learn from any situation you find yourself in, but I think the Metropolitan Police seem reluctant to even consider that.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much.

Questions by SIR WILLIAM MORRIS

Sir William Morris: Just a point or two from me, H. You very helpfully set out a number of recommendations to us, ten, in fact, in your written submission. Which do you see would be perhaps the three most important, if we were minded to see these as issues that we wanted to progress as part of our report? (Handed).

We have touched on the 13 months of investigation, and you go on to talk about the aim being to investigate matters thoroughly but quickly, and there are other recommendations that you have highlighted as well.

Mr H: I think, sir, the very last comment I make, which is not numbered – I think above all, that if I had to pick one thing to concentrate on, you know, that we should be presumed to be innocent, and be treated like human beings, with dignity and respect. I know how I felt and I know how my wife felt at what was happening to me, despite having done what I have done 100 per cent for the job, you know, and commitment, so if I had to pick on one thing, it would be that, but a second thing would be to consider my wife in what was being done to me.

Sir William Morris: The family?

Mr H: Yes, by the Met Police.

Sir William Morris: Well, you have been extremely helpful, and your recommendations have been well noted, and will form part of our general overall consideration, obviously. But, before I bring our discussion to an end, can I just remind you that in my opening comments, I said that when we had completed our questions, I would provide you with the opportunity to make a closing statement or a closing comment, if you so wished. If you do wish to make that closing comment, then this is the moment and the opportunity to do so.

Mr H: Thank you, sir. I suppose – I mean, I know I have already said about my wife being a main consideration, but I think the uniform side of my job has an awful lot to learn from the civilian side. I do not like drawing sort of lines down sides, but it seems clear to me that those involved in this investigation that I had dealings with who were not police officers were professionals, and they were excellent at their job, and I think many of the senior officers who were involved in this have an awful lot to learn from those civilians.

Sir William Morris: Okay, well, thank you very much, thanks for that. Could I just, by way of a concluding comment, say thanks on behalf of my colleagues and myself, thank you for your written submission, which was quite full, and thank you also for coming along this morning and giving evidence to this private session, and thank you for your overall contribution and support for the work of this Inquiry.

Mr H: Thank you very much for listening to me, sir.

12.05 pm
(The short adjournment)

Skip Navigation \| Accessible

Accessibility About the Inquiry Contacts Search
Home News Schedule Transcripts Evidence Report Links
Transcripts > HH (20 Apr 04)
QuickSearch See also On this website: Evidence: HH	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 HH, on 20 April 2004. Sections available here: Transcript of private session: Mr HH 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 HH The name of this witness has been changed, and his submission redacted, to avoid the identification of the individuals and any third parties. Tuesday, 20 April 2004 11.15 am Sir William Morris: Mr H, good morning to you, and indeed welcome. We are very informal in our private sessions, and we want to ensure that you are feeling at ease, there is some water there, so make yourself comfortable. How would you like to be addressed? Would you like to be addressed as H, or Mr H? Mr H: Whichever you are happy with, sir. My friends call me H, so I would be delighted if you would call me that. Sir William Morris: Well, H, can I, first of all, say thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this morning and to give some evidence. We do have your written submission, and we want to thank you for that. It is quite full, and we have found it very helpful indeed. Could I also say that I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses, the process that we adopt can be somewhat daunting, so I thought it might be just helpful if I set out very briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this morning. 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; on my right, as you can see, one of two members, first 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 QC. Anesta is a very eminent barrister, she sits as a recorder and a part-time chairperson in employment tribunals, and she was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry. H, 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. We have deliberately decided to focus on the Metropolitan Police Service itself as an organisation, and not the individuals who make up that organisation. Nevertheless, we need to hear from individuals in order to understand how they are affected by the policies, the practices, the procedures, the conventions that govern the way the Met 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 this is that we are very keen to hear from individuals like yourself who have had problems with the way that the MPS operates, but we also understand that some of our witnesses may feel a little reluctant to answer the questions if they feel that the MPS is listening in. So we hope that you will find the arrangements that we have made helpful, and we hope, equally, that you feel confident this morning to share your thoughts with us in a full and frank way. Although we are meeting in private, nevertheless, as I have just said, we are a public inquiry, and that means that it may be necessary for us to seek further clarification from others about what you have said to us in your written submission, and what you tell us today. If we do decide to seek further clarification, then we will do so without identifying you in any shape or form whatsoever. Also, let me assure you that if we are to seek further clarification, we will do so in a way which causes you the least possible inconvenience, and we will seek your permission before we do that. The inquiry we are conducting, H, is inquisitorial, we are here to establish facts, to find information, to understand better, so it is inquisitorial, it is not adversarial in any way. We are very keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference, so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice, rather than concentrate on making just criticisms. We have no wish to go back over the details of what has happened to you, because we have read your written submission quite carefully, and we have a clear idea of the events that you have shared with us. What we now want to do is to ask you some questions which will enable us to understand better and draw on your experience to inform our work. At the end of these introductory remarks, one of my colleagues will lead on the questions to you, and then the remainder of the panel may ask one or two supplementary questions. When we have finished all our questions, I will offer you the opportunity for a brief closing comment, if you so wish. Can I just draw to your attention, H, that a transcript is being taken so that we have a proper record of all 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 that after we have taken out all references to your name and other personal details, in order to be sure that it contains no information which identifies you or other individuals. Before I ask Sir Anthony Burden to lead on our questions, just for the benefit of the transcript, could I invite you, H, to introduce yourself formally to the Inquiry? Mr H: Yes, sir, I am HH, police constable [Redacted], attached to traffic division. I am now employed as a [Redacted]. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. I will invite Sir Anthony Burden to just lead on the questions for us, please. Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Sir Anthony Burden: H, good morning. Mr H: Good morning, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: I can see you are a very experienced traffic officer, and from your post nominals, you have undertaken every course, I think, that you could possibly have done and achieved every qualification as an accident investigator, so again, very well qualified in that particular arena. Within our terms of reference, H, I would like to base my questions around three areas: that is delay in the process, the use of suspension, and welfare support. In those terms, if I could just give a very brief synopsis of the situation as we understand it – and it is a synopsis, because, as the chairman has said, you have given us a very full submission which we have all been able to read, but the issue started in [Redacted], when you assisted a colleague to take measurements at the scene of a fatal accident, and then later assisted him by preparing plans using surveying equipment which quite basically he was unable to use, so you were doing him a favour, in essence. Mr H: That is correct, sir, yes. Sir Anthony Burden: And then, after a certain period, during [Redacted] training that he was undertaking, he admitted that he had rushed this particular investigation at the scene, and as a consequence, he was investigated and suspended, but because you had assisted him, and therefore were implicated, you were also suspended. Mr H: That is correct, sir, yes. Sir Anthony Burden: As we read it, you were not interviewed for 13 months. Mr H: That is correct. Sir Anthony Burden: But in that intervening period, you had had several health issues, [Redacted]. Mr H: [Redacted] Sir Anthony Burden: Right, and as a consequence of being suspended, your health had suffered quite considerably? Mr H: Yes, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: In [Redacted], you were in fact reinstated to duty. Mr H: That is correct. Sir Anthony Burden: And 24 months after being suspended, the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there would be no further action criminally against you. Mr H: That is correct. Sir Anthony Burden: And three months later, you were told that there would be no discipline action either. Mr H: That is correct. Sir Anthony Burden: So at the end of this very long period, you were completely exonerated. Mr H: That is correct, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: Now you also very helpfully, H, commented – and you were very complimentary about the support you had received from the occupational health welfare counsellor, which you described as brilliant, but I think it is fair to say that the welfare support that you got was pretty erratic, because welfare officers kept moving or were retired, and people you came to rely on just disappeared from the scene, basically. Mr H: That is correct, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: I do not think the Federation support that you got always lived up to your expectations either. Mr H: That is correct. Sir Anthony Burden: Is that a fair synopsis of where we are? Mr H: It is, sir, yes. Sir Anthony Burden: Now, you say, in relation to delay, that, in your view, the delay was caused by a lack of expertise on the part of the investigating officer. Could you just explain that a bit more? Mr H: My understanding of investigations that might be outside the normal expertise of the investigating officer is they will call in an expert from another force if need be, and with this one, it was generally accepted that people who were investigating this complaint did not really understand the nature of accident investigation, so I could not understand why they had not just straight away called in someone from the forensic science lab, some expert from another force, or someone who is highly eminent in accident investigation, and I think their failure to do that dragged this out to the extent that it did. That is basically what I mean. Sir Anthony Burden: Just for the benefit of my colleagues, and for the transcript, could you just explain very briefly what an accident investigator does, and just how technical the job is? Mr H: Basically, we have to treat each scene of a fatal accident in the same way that a CID officer would treat the scene – a scene at a death, a suspicious death. Everything has to be looked at and weighed up and considered, we have to look at any evidence that would either prove or disprove someone's guilt, and we have to make sure that whatever is there is accounted for. We basically at that time – it has changed since this incident, but at that time, we as mere PCs actually run the whole operation, and we present the finished item to the coroner. We are acting on his behalf if it is a fatal accident, and our evidence was generally held to be very, very useful to the coroners. Sir Anthony Burden: And you in fact give evidence as expert witnesses. Mr H: That is correct, yes. Sir Anthony Burden: So what you are saying, in essence, is to understand all of this, the investigator needed a knowledge, some knowledge of accident investigation techniques. Mr H: I would have thought so, yes. It is something a little bit unusual, you know, not their normal run-of-the-mill investigation, I would have thought. Sir Anthony Burden: So that sort of suggests that the investigating officer was left to get on with it, and the fact that it was 13 months before you were even interviewed, there may have been little supervision of the investigation into you. Mr H: Well, that is right. It is also my understanding that a chief inspector was given the role of being the investigating officer right from the start; it is my understanding that he moved to something else and he was replaced, and the officer who replaced him was ultimately replaced during the whole investigation, which obviously causes problems for them, I would have thought; I would not like to have to take over someone else's part started investigation, and I just think the whole thing was totally badly handled. Sir Anthony Burden: Now the officer who had made the admission, whilst he was on his course, he was quite properly, I guess, investigated and was finally disciplined. Mr H: He received a reprimand after three years. Sir Anthony Burden: So even though he was, in essence, admitting his guilt, if the punishment that he had received reflected the seriousness or the lack of seriousness in what he was admitting – because a reprimand is one of the lowest punishments that you can receive – that would seem to suggest that the treatment of you, being suspended and kept suspended for this length of time was somewhat heavy-handed. Mr H: That is my belief, sir, yes. Sir Anthony Burden: You will not be aware of this report, and I would not expect you to be, but there is a piece of work now called the Taylor Report, which looked into an investigation in another force which had been prolonged, and it has made a series of recommendations, and several of those, I think, may impact on cases such as yours, in that they recommend frequent monitoring of investigations into complaints against police officers, or internal investigations, to make sure that the investigation is still justified, and that the investigation is proportionate; in other words, it is a balanced investigation. Do you think that that will be a useful initiative for the future? Mr H: Most certainly, sir. If it is implemented and carried out along those lines, I think the sooner that happens the better, in all honesty. Sir Anthony Burden: And what do you think would have been the outcome, had this process been in place whilst you were being investigated, if there had been frequent reviews of the case; do you think it would have continued on for the period that it did? Mr H: I do not imagine that the whole thing would have lasted for three years, as it did, and I think they would hopefully have recognised at an early stage that I had no criminal involvement, and nothing that justified any further disciplinary action. And they could have reinstated me, even kept me on light duties, as I was when I was suspended in the first place, and they could have had the benefit of my expertise and still carried out the investigation. Sir Anthony Burden: Let us just have a look at the scenario which I would suggest to you – and these are not your words, but I would suggest is quite a common one, and that is an IO who, in your view, seemed to be out of his or her depth in this particular inquiry, it was around technical matters. Mr H: Yes, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: If there had been in place a process where that investigating officer was called to account once a week or once a fortnight, around the progress he or she had or had not made, in your case, and they were, by that process of monitoring, kept aware of the urgency of completing the inquiries quickly, and made to do that, would that be an advantage? Mr H: I think so, sir, yes. Sir Anthony Burden: Would it work if that were inside the Metropolitan Police, if it were a senior police officer doing that, or would it need a degree of independence? Mr H: I think it would need a degree of independence. I now have various opinions of the whole discipline procedure, as you would expect from the experience that I have had, and I am very doubtful that letting it continue to be investigated solely within the police is the right thing to do. I think it needs someone independent with the right degree of expertise to look at things and to give instructions based on what they are being given, if that makes any sense to you. Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, it does. So actually somebody who is able to manage the investigation at a higher level. Mr H: Yes. Sir Anthony Burden: And instruct the IO to get on with it, in essence. Mr H: Yes. I was told that they were reviewed every 28 days, but it became clear to me, when I was ringing up after a certain time, you know, "What has been decided?"; "Oh, nothing, we did not have the meeting", or something like that. So clearly, if I was being told the truth, they were not sticking to what I had been told initially. Sir Anthony Burden: But there are various ways of undertaking reviews, are there not? There is a tick in the book system, or there is a very rigorous examination of progress or not. Mr H: Yes. Sir Anthony Burden: Would you be in favour of time limits on various stages of an investigation? Mr H: I do not think that that is really a good idea personally, because I think you would be putting, probably unintentionally, pressure on people to come up with the goods, so to speak. I am not naive enough to think that you can do everything very, very quickly, and some things take longer than others, so I do not know that time limits would be the right answer or the solution to every investigation. Sir Anthony Burden: No. And, of course, you will be aware, I guess, that the IPCC have taken over from the Police Complaints Authority now, and they have greater powers in fact in monitoring this, so we look to see whether there is any improvement. If I can move on from this issue of proportionality and have a look at suspension, and the way that suspension was used in your case, do you feel it was justified? Mr H: At the time, I thought it was totally unjustified. After a few months or so, I began to think about it a bit more reasonably, and I thought, well, based upon what they had been told, I could understand why they had suspended me in the first place, but I thought maybe having done so, I should have been reinstated within two or three weeks or something like that. As I say, I thought – because I eventually saw what was being alleged. I did not get anything on paper until a long, long time after the investigation started, and when I saw how the alleged evidence was presented to them, I could see why the job had reacted as it did, but, you know, having said that, I thought once they had looked into it – if they had asked me for my involvement, they would have seen at a very early stage that suspension was not justified. Sir Anthony Burden: So even though the driver pleaded guilty, was the suggestion, then, that the guilty plea was based on the evidence given by your colleague, or the evidence disclosed? Mr H: I was never called to go to court to give evidence on this anyway, so I only have hearsay as to what actually happened, but I understand that the driver was represented – well, I know he was represented by another expert, and his own expert advised him to plead guilty. You know, even without all the evidence that my colleague presented to the court case, it was apparent from the damage, the debris, the carnage at the scene, you know, what the basic cause of the accident was, so whether the driver had pleaded guilty partly because of the evidence of my colleague, I do not know, but my understanding is that even his own expert advised him that basically, he did not have a leg to stand on. Sir Anthony Burden: And we will not know, of course, whether that suggestion was made to him as a result of the disclosure of your colleague's evidence. Mr H: That is right, I do not know that answer. Sir Anthony Burden: Do you get a sense that decisions around issues such as suspension are taken lightly, or that there is this suggestion that there is a sort of sweep-up approach that one officer is being suspended so they all should be suspended? Mr H: I had always assumed that to be suspended, it had to involve something serious, you know, and I never ever visualised that I would ever be in that position, and my impression was it was, as you say, "We have suspended this one, he is involved with him, so he will get suspended as well". It did not seem to be a consideration, that I might just be on the periphery and dragged into it by circumstance, not having done anything criminal or dishonest. It just seemed as if, "Well, we will do that because it is a good idea", that is how it appeared to me. Sir Anthony Burden: In organisations such as the Metropolitan Police, even though you might not have been able to continue to be used as an expert accident investigator during this investigation, as a trained traffic officer, there were other duties that, as you said, you could have undertaken. Mr H: Yes, sir. Sir Anthony Burden: You comment around suspension that you feel it should be mandatory that contact is maintained by a senior officer whilst suspended; that was not done in your case though? Mr H: No. As I said, there was a succession of welfare officers. One of them did actually come and see me, but within a short time of seeing me, he retired from the police – you know, within three or four weeks after he had seen me. He was then replaced by the chief inspector, who was now my own chief inspector, but he never ever came to see me. He made arrangements once to do so, but it was the [Redacted], and he was in charge of traffic in Central London, so that appointment was never kept, and no others were ever made. So no, no senior officer – my own inspector from the accident investigation unit came out initially two or three times, something like that, but gradually, there was no contact at all, and definitely not from a senior officer. Sir Anthony Burden: But you feel that that contact, and particularly in the welfare situation, should be mandatory, and again, checks should be made to ensure that welfare visits are being made? Mr H: Well, I think so, sir. As I have said in there, I believe, [Redacted] [Redacted] my wife's support, and the support from the church [Redacted]. It was just a feeling of despair, by not knowing exactly what was going on. I had never been in that situation before, I did not know anybody that had been suspended, and I just felt alienated. I wanted to know things, and nobody was telling me anything. Sir Anthony Burden: I guess all sorts of things were going through your mind at that particular time, that had the criminal case continued against you, you were probably looking at perverting the course of justice, with any outcome. Mr H: That is right, yes. It entered my head that, although I knew I had not done anything, they might come up with something – I started to believe in miscarriages of justice, and I could see everything that I had worked for just disappearing, and I had no control over it. Sir Anthony Burden: It is quite reasonable to assume, I would suppose, that as you move through a 27-month investigation, which the IO actually did, that there must come stages where they are able to give you information which would ease your mind as to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding you. But that was never done? Mr H: No. Sir Anthony Burden: As I said, you classed the support you got from the occupational health welfare counsellor as being brilliant. Mr H: It was. Sir Anthony Burden: But the Federation support that you got was not always of the standard that you would have expected. Mr H: That is right, I was very, very disappointed with that. My own Federation representative, who is based at our garage, he represented my colleague, the one who had – you know, against whom the allegations were made, so it was considered that he could not also represent me, so I had to be given an outsider, a foot duty officer, who again had no understanding of accident investigation, and who I learnt later on was just sort of counting his days down to when he could retire, and he had no interest in looking after my well-being or that of my other colleague, [Redacted]. It was just – we were there, we were one of his jobs that he had been assigned to, and it was just lip service. That is the impression I got. Sir Anthony Burden: I mean, you comment, in your submission, that you feel the need for support for the family of officers suspended, as well as the officers themselves, and that there is genuine concern around their health and welfare, as well as yours, and the despair that you felt through this lack of information; so you would want to say to us that that is a very big area, in terms of your recommendations to us? Mr H: Certainly, sir. I think if nothing else comes out of this, they need to look towards the harm, the pain, the despair that they put officers and family members through, just by lack of thought. Sir Anthony Burden: Yes. Now this had gone on for three years, can I just very briefly look at when you returned to duty, and I know that was traumatic for you, and not made easier, I think that is the best way to put it. Do you feel that there should be some process in place that ensures that officers who have been suspended unjustifiably, such as yourself – that there ought to be a process in place that actually manages reintroduction back into the workplace? Mr H: Yes, most certainly. Yes, I do. I think the Metropolitan Police, anyway, seem to still have this attitude, "You are a man, you are in a man's job, you do not need looking after, you are whatever age you are, you are adult enough to get on with things", and that is clearly wrong, in my opinion. Sir Anthony Burden: I think you have already told us around the welfare issues, but I will just ask you, because I want to ask you this, finally: if there were one thing you would ask us to put in the report, coming from your submission, what would it be? Mr H: To keep the officers informed of what is going on, and to at least give the impression of caring about the officers' families, even if they do not care, give the impression – my wife was devastated at what was happening to me. Sir Anthony Burden: Okay, H. Thank you very much indeed. Sir William Morris: Thank you. Sir Anthony has completed his questions; can I invite Miss Weekes, to see whether she has any questions she would like to put to you? Questions by Miss Weekes Miss Weekes: Just one, thank you, chairman. It relates to whether or not anyone has spoken to you about generally what has happened, so that there could be discussion about the way forward, and how the Met can learn from mistakes. Has there been any discussion in relation to how you now feel about – Mr H: Well, no. When the investigation was ultimately complete, when my colleague was reprimanded, it was assumed that he was just going to come back and work with myself and other officers at the same place where all this was alleged to have taken place, and my chief inspector, to his credit, came and asked me what I thought about that, and I said, "Well, I do not think I can ever work with the man again". I did not hate him, I have never hated him for what he put me through, I think he was just misguided and unfortunate, but I did not want to be in a position where I had to trust what he was telling me. So I said this to my chief inspector, and he went and asked several other colleagues, and obviously, we all basically said the same thing, so my chief inspector then went and had a meeting with some of his supervisors, which resulted in this officer being moved somewhere else, but nothing specific – no one has ever sat down with me and said – pretty similar to what we are doing now, which I would have thought would be a good idea, you know, "What do you think? We can learn from this"; nobody has actually said that. Miss Weekes: So you would like us to bear that in mind, because at the end of every single incident like this, officers are left feeling bad about an aspect of their treatment. It would be nice to sit at the table and say, "This is what I think went wrong, this is what I would like to happen, if ever I was in that situation again"; you would have liked your views to have been – Mr H: Most certainly. You can learn from any situation you find yourself in, but I think the Metropolitan Police seem reluctant to even consider that. Miss Weekes: Thank you very much. Questions by SIR WILLIAM MORRIS Sir William Morris: Just a point or two from me, H. You very helpfully set out a number of recommendations to us, ten, in fact, in your written submission. Which do you see would be perhaps the three most important, if we were minded to see these as issues that we wanted to progress as part of our report? (Handed). We have touched on the 13 months of investigation, and you go on to talk about the aim being to investigate matters thoroughly but quickly, and there are other recommendations that you have highlighted as well. Mr H: I think, sir, the very last comment I make, which is not numbered – I think above all, that if I had to pick one thing to concentrate on, you know, that we should be presumed to be innocent, and be treated like human beings, with dignity and respect. I know how I felt and I know how my wife felt at what was happening to me, despite having done what I have done 100 per cent for the job, you know, and commitment, so if I had to pick on one thing, it would be that, but a second thing would be to consider my wife in what was being done to me. Sir William Morris: The family? Mr H: Yes, by the Met Police. Sir William Morris: Well, you have been extremely helpful, and your recommendations have been well noted, and will form part of our general overall consideration, obviously. But, before I bring our discussion to an end, can I just remind you that in my opening comments, I said that when we had completed our questions, I would provide you with the opportunity to make a closing statement or a closing comment, if you so wished. If you do wish to make that closing comment, then this is the moment and the opportunity to do so. Mr H: Thank you, sir. I suppose – I mean, I know I have already said about my wife being a main consideration, but I think the uniform side of my job has an awful lot to learn from the civilian side. I do not like drawing sort of lines down sides, but it seems clear to me that those involved in this investigation that I had dealings with who were not police officers were professionals, and they were excellent at their job, and I think many of the senior officers who were involved in this have an awful lot to learn from those civilians. Sir William Morris: Okay, well, thank you very much, thanks for that. Could I just, by way of a concluding comment, say thanks on behalf of my colleagues and myself, thank you for your written submission, which was quite full, and thank you also for coming along this morning and giving evidence to this private session, and thank you for your overall contribution and support for the work of this Inquiry. Mr H: Thank you very much for listening to me, sir. 12.05 pm (The short adjournment) Internal links On this website: Evidence: HH Evidence provided by and documents referred to by HH, in his appearance at the Inquiry.
	Previous Next
Transcripts > HH (20 Apr 04)
© Copyright 2004, The Morris Inquiry. Standards compliant HTML. Designed and maintained by Netfundi