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 It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.

This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the private session with MM, on 26 April 2004.

Sections available here:

• Transcript of private session: Mr MM
  • Questions by Miss Weekes

This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering.

Transcript of private session: Mr MM

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

Monday, 26 April 2004
10.30 am

Sir William Morris: Mr M, good morning and indeed welcome. We are very informal in these hearings, this surrounding is very informal, as you know. Please make yourself comfortable, there is water there.

How do you like to be addressed, Mr M, M, or what?

Mr M: Whichever you feel is most appropriate, sir.

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

Let me say that I appreciate that for some of our witnesses, any process of this nature may seem somewhat daunting, so I thought it would be helpful if I set out very briefly how we propose to conduct the inquiry this morning.

But first, let me introduce myself and the other members of the panel. My name is Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, and I have been asked to chair the inquiry. 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.

On my left is Miss Anesta Weekes QC. Anesta is an eminent barrister, she sits as a recorder and part-time chairperson of industrial tribunals; she was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

Mr M, as you know, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent inquiry into professional standards and workplace matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. Our focus is the MPS as an organisation and not the individuals who make up the organisation.

Nevertheless, we need to hear from individuals in order to understand how they are affected by the policies, the practices, conventions and procedures that govern the way 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 this is that we are very keen to hear from individuals like yourself, who have had some issues about the way the Met operates, at first-hand experience.

But we also understand that some of our witnesses may feel a little reluctant to answer questions if they believe that the Met is somehow listening in. I hope, therefore, that you find these arrangements not just helpful but sufficient to give you confidence in order that you can speak freely to us this morning.

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

However, if we do decide to seek further clarification, we will do so without in any way identifying your good self.

Let me also assure you that we will try to cause you the least possible inconvenience if we have to come back and seek any additional confirmation, and we would not do so without first seeking your permission.

The inquiry we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial in character or indeed in its content. 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 in the Metropolitan Police Service, rather than indulge in sheer criticism of the MPS or individuals.

We have no wish to go back over the details of what has happened to you, because you have given a very full written submission. We have carefully considered what you have to say, and we are very clear about the events.

What we now want to do is to ask you some questions which will enable us to draw on your experience to inform our work.

At the end of these introductory remarks, one of my colleagues will lead on our questions to you, and then the remainder of the panel may seek to explore, by way of supplementary questions, one or two of the issues that have been raised. When we have finished our questions, I will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment.

It is fair that I should just draw to your notice, Mr M, 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 that after we have taken out all references to your name and any other personal details that may be contained within your submission.

We want to do that in order to be sure that your submission contains no information that identifies you or indeed any other individuals.

But before I ask Miss Weekes to lead on the questions, for the benefit of the transcript, I wonder whether you would mind formally introducing yourself to the Inquiry.

Mr M: My name is M M, I am a serving detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police, and I have very recently been posted to the [Redacted], working out of [Redacted] police station.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed for introducing yourself to the Inquiry formally. I now move straight across to Miss Weekes, asking her to lead on the questions that we want to put to you as a panel. Thank you.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Mr M, good morning. Can I thank you very much for your extremely helpful submission, which has detailed the difficult time that you experienced when you went through disciplinary hearings.

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: Luckily and thankfully for you, you were exonerated on two occasions --

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: -- given back your rank, and, as you have told us, you now presently serve on the [Redacted] at [Redacted]. Can I summarise, if I may, for you, so you are confident that I have read the detail of your submission, the main disciplinary, which is what I call case A?

Because I am particularly keen and anxious to explore with you, because you have gone through this experience, how you can help the panel in its duty to make recommendations about the disciplinary system, which you are clearly not happy with, and it may be that you are still not happy with it, because I think it requires more changes; I think you would agree with that, would you not?

Mr M: I would.

Miss Weekes: You have an impressively long service, because you have been in the police force since [Redacted].

Mr M: That is correct, ma'am.

Miss Weekes: You are very proud of the fact, and I think it is a good thing, that your father was also in the police force and was a very well respected officer himself.

Mr M: He was, ma'am, yes.

Miss Weekes: He was not subject to any disciplinary matters.

Mr M: None whatsoever.

Miss Weekes: And it is clear that you wanted to follow in his footsteps. Part of the first disciplinary matter against you arose out of a close relationship that your father had with a man called Mr [Redacted].

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: As far as you were concerned, there was nothing wrong with that friendship or relationship, and because you had known him since the age of [Redacted], you followed through with that relationship and respected [Redacted], because you knew nothing bad about him.

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: He came under suspicion at some point, and, as a result of that, it would appear they began to link you to him. To cut the story short, in their investigations to root out corrupt officers, various [Redacted] that might have come from you were found in his possession at some point, when there were searches being made.

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: You have always felt there was no proper investigation of [Redacted], and that you were not really at the time given a proper opportunity to give full explanation, and if you had been, you say you probably would not have been charged.

Mr M: That is quite correct. I think, when you look at it in the overall terms, when something like that comes to light, you have to be, like I would be, very sure about what you are going to go into, and how you are going to go about it.

Miss Weekes: Yes. In any event, you were charged with corruption, along with [Redacted], and you were also charged with the second matter of perverting the course of justice.

Mr M: I was arrested on suspicion of corruption and perverting the course of justice. There were no formal charges laid.

Miss Weekes: No formal charges, but the disciplinary was around those two matters, correct?

Mr M: That is how it was instigated, and, as you already know, after a very short period of time, all criminal matters were then dispensed with.

Miss Weekes: Dispensed with; they were dropped, effectively. I think there were at least [Redacted] attempts to speak or consult with the CPS, but no charges were brought in the end.

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: You did not go through a criminal trial, but you did go through a disciplinary, and that took quite a while; three years?

Mr M: Just short of three years; two years and nine months.

Miss Weekes: And eventually, you appeared before [Redacted] [Redacted], was it not?

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: And he reinstated you, and gave you back your rank.

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: The other matter was a drink driving case, you were required to resign; but again, you were reinstated.

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: I think the same [Redacted] dealt with it, did he not?

Mr M: Yes, and it was dealt with -- the drink drive matter was dealt with first, prior to the other matter.

Miss Weekes: The history of your case throws up a number of very interesting matters for us, and the first is proportionality, if I may deal with it.

Your wording in your submission is that, to your mind, the disciplinary process used a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: And there could have been a more constructive, simpler approach to the matters which they were concerned about.

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: You do not disagree that the Met should be concerned as to whether their officers maintain integrity of the highest level.

Mr M: I am very much in support of that.

Miss Weekes: And you do not disagree that, if they suspect an officer is not quite of that right level, they have the right to investigate and look into it.

Mr M: I wholeheartedly agree.

Miss Weekes: But you want to know, and what you would like to see, is a system which is fair and proportionate.

Mr M: Yes, that is correct. I have said from the very outset that corrupt and dishonest police officers have no place in our organisation at all, and I wholeheartedly agree with the Metropolitan Police's stance on it, but obviously, there are other areas, like myself, where there is obviously some kind of discrepancy; perhaps not now, but certainly was.

Miss Weekes: Yes. One of the things that we are now familiar with as a panel is the implementation of the recommendations from the Taylor Review; are you familiar with the Taylor Review?

Mr M: Not fully.

Miss Weekes: I will briefly tell you what it is about, so I can get your comments. This was a review of high level corruption outside of the Metropolitan Police, but the outcome of that review produced a number of extremely sensible and very important recommendations: for example, when an officer is investigated for serious disciplinary matters, and corruption clearly is serious, there should be a proper approach to the case.

There should be case management, right at the outset of such an investigation, there should be very clear terms of reference, "What are we looking into? Why are we looking into it? What is the evidence we have, and where are we going with it?"

Now, does that sound sensible to you?

Mr M: It does. I mean, that is quite straightforward, in any kind of investigation of a criminal matter.

Miss Weekes: And if that were done with your case, the results might have been different.

Mr M: I feel that would be correct.

Miss Weekes: Yes, might have been. I am not going to go into the merits, because you know that is not our job. And even if it were not different, it definitely would have been much fairer, would it not?

Mr M: I believe it would. I mean, you have to take into account the background of it.

Miss Weekes: Absolutely. The other thing that the Taylor Review will undoubtedly bring into play is that, as you go along, you go back and you review it, so if you have been investigating a man for some three or six months, you ought to go back and have another look and say, "Well, how far have we got? What have we got? Is it credible, the evidence we have got? Does it still meet the original terms of reference?"

Now, that is a good idea, is it not?

Mr M: Well, it is. You must always make sure or confirm what it is that you have started out with, and to see whether or not your suspicions, or anything that is intelligence led, is leading you to that view.

Miss Weekes: A final other recommendation -- I am not going through all, just the ones that I think may help us today in our conversation -- is that you keep in mind all the time what the reasonable sensible sanction is likely to be, because if, in the end, what may be sensible is that this officer may be sent away for some intense training, you may want to wrap up the investigation a bit quicker, if it looks as if that is what he needs, and it looks as if this is what the disciplinary is all about.

Mr M: Yes, there is a number of areas where you could improve something like that. I think because this matter, like mine, went on for so long, it was at a time when there was a great deal of change, and I never got the benefit of knowing anything about that change, the Human Rights Act came in, RIPA came in, and there were other fundamental changes to procedure, and when I came back to work, I just came back to work.

Miss Weekes: Well, we must bear in mind that the difficulties that your disciplinary raised, and many others, you are not alone, should now be dealt with by a strict approach and adherence to the recommendations of the Taylor Review.

Mr M: Certainly.

Miss Weekes: And that also relates to delay, but I would like to talk to you a little bit about the delay. It is one of the worst things, no doubt, for an officer to wait three years for a decision.

Mr M: Absolutely, far too long.

Miss Weekes: Your welfare suffers, and that of your family, and you have made that clear in your submission, that that is exactly what happened to you.

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: One of the other matters that we are looking into is a process by which cases will no longer be left on a desk for one year, two years, three years. We are investigating and asking a number of witnesses about what their views are about having a process which will allow both parties, the Department of Professional Standards who run the investigation and collect the evidence and the officer under the complaint, to come to an independent person, who is legally qualified perhaps, to give an account for how the case will progress. How does that grip you as an area of reform?

Mr M: Yes, I am very much in agreement with an independent overall assessment. On the one hand, you may have something that indicates that perhaps an officer may be corrupt or dishonest or in some ways unethical, but in the longer term, that might not be the case, as it was in mine; there might be an area where there was an error of judgment, which I agree is probably what happened in my respect, so you have to take that into account, and, if you had that in place, that would, at the very early stages, point you in the right direction.

Miss Weekes: I should make it clear, this is slightly different to the review that one is asking for under the Taylor recommendations; this is about ensuring that the party who has the duty to investigate and to collect the evidence and the witnesses does not take three years to do it.

Mr M: Absolutely right.

Miss Weekes: So this process is about timeliness, it is about bringing people to book, at certain stages along the way, where they will have to give an account for why things are not ready within six months, one within year; do you like that idea?

Mr M: I do, certainly. I mean, it is very similar to the way that criminal cases are presented.

Miss Weekes: Absolutely. You know, as an officer, and so do I, as a part-time criminal judge, that it would be almost -- I am not going to say it would never, but it would almost be unheard of for a case to sit in a Crown Court building somewhere for three years without somebody saying, "What are you doing about this case? What is going on?"

You would agree with that, would you not?

Mr M: Absolutely, ma'am, yes.

Miss Weekes: In fact, by the time you get to the Magistrates Court, if you have not got your witnesses together as a police officer -- you will know this -- the magistrate says, "Well, case dismissed. You have not got your evidence, case dismissed".

So you would like to see some form of statutory process -- statutory, because it means everybody has to do it.

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: And that there is a decision-maker who allows adjournments or does not allow them.

Mr M: Depending on the circumstances.

Miss Weekes: You cannot have a strict, fixed time, because that does not work.

Mr M: No.

Miss Weekes: Because some investigations may be complex, others may involve sensitive witnesses who take a while to be encouraged to give their evidence, so it is a matter of having someone who will bring the parties to the table periodically to say, "Now where are we going with this case, and can we ensure that it is fixed for a disciplinary date within 12 months?"

Mr M: I think that is very fair.

Miss Weekes: And if you cannot, what is your reason, and if it is a good reason, give you a bit more time.

Mr M: Yes, I think 12 months, probably, in the more serious cases, and perhaps on matters that are not that serious or have become, for want of a better word, downgraded, then perhaps an earlier time.

Miss Weekes: An earlier date. Well, we are exploring that avenue, and it is quite clear that you, having gone through your experience, would very much support that.

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: We do not know who would do it, we do not know where this person would be, who they would be answerable to, but we are exploring that option, because it seems that other outside public bodies fix their cases and move them on much quicker than the internal disciplinary for the Met.

Mr M: They do.

Miss Weekes: So that deals with proportionality and delay. You are now aware that the IPCC has taken up its official role.

Mr M: Yes, ma'am.

Miss Weekes: It was not there when you had your disciplinary.

Mr M: No, it was not.

Miss Weekes: I do not know whether you know, but the IPCC has the power to review internal disciplinary complaints, just like yours.

Mr M: I was not aware of that.

Miss Weekes: They are not just about dealing with the public complaints, although that is their flagship area.

Mr M: Right.

Miss Weekes: So again, that may have made a difference to your position; it may have.

Mr M: It would certainly have given them an opportunity to delve into it, and to voice any concerns that they may have had.

Miss Weekes: Because corruption is the sort of case that they would take on to oversee.

Mr M: It is. I mean, it is a very complex area, and I appreciate that, in some circumstances, it is difficult.

Miss Weekes: I want to move on to two areas about how the evidence is gathered: one deals with disclosure and the other one deals with sensitive material that an officer should or should not see. Can I deal with the first, which is disclosure?

Mr M: Certainly.

Miss Weekes: You have again, very sensibly, raised it in your submission. You were rather concerned that you may not have seen everything that related to the reason why you were being disciplined.

Mr M: That is correct.

Miss Weekes: And I do not know whether your barrister, solicitor or trade -- I had better be careful what I call them: your representative from the Police Federation -- made any request for disclosure; do you remember whether they did?

Mr M: I think in respect of the disciplinary circumstances as they applied at that time, once the DPS or CIB, as it was named then, were ready to serve papers, then you would be asked to attend and serve them, but it was a case of finding out when they were going to be ready, and that just went on and on.

Miss Weekes: Well, even if you are served with papers, there may well be other matters which you would like to bring forward in your disciplinary; documents or evidence that may help you to establish your integrity.

Mr M: It would. I mean, obviously, when you view papers, like any barrister would, they will want other areas to be explored.

Miss Weekes: And do you feel that the system at the moment allows you to do that?

Mr M: No.

Miss Weekes: What is your recommendation for how we might look at that area? What sorts of things would an officer who is under disciplinary want to know about? What other documents may they want disclosure of?

Mr M: Well, you must take each case as it comes, because they are all different, but if there are areas of concern that need to be addressed about how they came by certain evidence, or anything along those lines, then obviously, to apply for that and have it dealt with as you would in a normal criminal case.

Miss Weekes: Again, this is mirroring the course of every other member of the public who is charged with a criminal offence.

Mr M: Yes, I mean, that is correct, but obviously, disciplinary action, when it is deemed as such, is not therefore a criminal investigation, so obviously, there must be certain other limits or guidelines that must be fixed.

Miss Weekes: But do you say there is very much difference between an officer under disciplinary for corruption charges, where he is liable to lose his job, and someone charged with a criminal offence who might be sent to prison? Both consequences are quite serious, are they not?

Mr M: They both are, because they could potentially both end up in prison, because if the recommendation is charging, the officer, if he is found to be guilty, will go to jail, there is no question of that. So you must deal with all the matters, I think, regardless of whether it is going to be discipline or criminal, in the same way.

Miss Weekes: Do you say there is room in the disciplinary process for a hearing that allows the parties to come again before an independent person, to ask for the disclosure, to justify documents that that complainant or the person complained against may want?

Mr M: Yes, I think --

Miss Weekes: You may not get it, but you can justify why you want it.

Mr M: Yes, certainly, I think I have aired it in my report.

Miss Weekes: Yes, you have.

Mr M: In respect of applications that I made for reinstatement that were not forthcoming surrounding my continued suspension, but I think that would also happen if you have not had all the necessary detail surrounding the particular allegations that you have got.

I mean, again, without going into my specifics, there were a number of requests for the movement of things on the way forward that were just not answered.

Miss Weekes: You were not given it?

Mr M: No.

Miss Weekes: So that is an area that you think is open for improvement?

Mr M: It is always open for improvement.

Miss Weekes: Let us move to the sensitive issues. You have already agreed with me that the Metropolitan Police must have a system and must -- and I use the word "must" deliberately -- be able to investigate officers whom they, on proper grounds, suspect may be corrupt.

Mr M: I have no problems with any investigation along those lines.

Miss Weekes: So you would not expect the Met to tell that officer what they are doing?

Mr M: No.

Miss Weekes: Or to disclose documents?

Mr M: Certainly not.

Miss Weekes: But is there an area that we should look at, which is: what is the process of collating that information, and who makes sure that it is being done by the book?

Mr M: Well, I think any criminal investigation, which is what it would be, and particularly the very serious area of an officer being corrupt and dishonest, I think you must deal with that in the same way that it probably is being dealt with at the moment. It is a sensitive issue, it is a sensitive investigation, and there are quite rightly firm guidelines in how you approach that.

It can be any major criminal investigation, and there will be very sensitive issues, and because it is an officer who has access to varying levels of intelligence and access to witnesses, et cetera, things like that, you must be very, very -- what is the correct word? Very, very thorough, and precise in what you do, and I think, overall, in Metropolitan Police investigations at that level, I think we certainly are --

Miss Weekes: You think it is okay?

Mr M: From my side of it, and I mean, the level that I have done it in the past, but obviously, I have never been party to -- been an officer engaged on an internal investigation, so there is going to be different levels of access to the various intelligence, but as long as that is documented, and is dealt with in the correct way, certainly along the lines of sensitive disclosure and listed as such, then I think they are on -- pretty much on the right lines.

Miss Weekes: Do you think that the rank and file are confident with this confidential system?

Mr M: Again, this is something that is very close to my heart. I think at the stage when it is purely a discipline only, and is not subject to a high degree of intense overall view, I think there should be a case where, if there are issues that surround, say, just for example, meetings with senior officers who are discussing whether or not the suspended officer should remain suspended or reinstated, I think you should have access to any decision-making process that might be made, if your career is not under threat.

Miss Weekes: Yes. I have asked you these questions because we, as you know, have received one or two high-profile cases, and within one or two of those cases, it is clear that there has been a high level of fishing expedition, or the possibility of a fishing expedition.

How would one be assured that the confidential investigation into corruption is not about a fishing expedition, but it really is by the book? Who checks up on how those sorts of investigations are carried out; do you happen to know?

Mr M: I would not know, but I would suggest it is dealt with at a very high level.

Miss Weekes: Because that has everything to do with professional standards, does it not, and maintaining them?

Mr M: Well, it does. You must, obviously, appreciate that on a high level issue such as investigating police officers who are under suspicion, initially, and who may be the subject of criminal charges or unethical practices, there has got to be a high level process to enable that the senior officers know, and who should know, and then it is obviously downgraded -- I do not say that in a disrespectful manner, but it should then come down to levels of management whereby those that are in seniority can rely on the integrity of those officers, but it is very difficult in a very large organisation for that to take place all the time.

Miss Weekes: If I can move to two final points, you were understandably very concerned about welfare and how you were treated during the period of your disciplinary process. What would you see to be a good system, or a better system, for providing the minimum level of welfare coverage to officers who are left waiting for three years?

Mr M: Well again, the welfare -- the time, in itself, was grossly inappropriate. Contact; again, in other spheres, in other departments similar to mine, officers were not allowed to have any contact at all.

I think, under the circumstances --

Miss Weekes: When you say "contact", what do you mean?

Mr M: Either personal or verbal. I had relatively little contact with the majority of people that I worked with. I certainly had contact with people who put themselves out to contact me. There was no -- I do not think there was any blanket, "No, you cannot speak to him", but I think, once you were put in that position, I think -- policemen are very set in their ways, in that, you know, they just get on with their life, and if you are out of sight, you are out of mind.

I have no complaint against any individuals or department, it is just how people, in their own characters, will put themselves out to speak to people, but on a general, overall, internal police situation, it was not an everyday occurrence that people would ring you up, or just to see how you are.

I mean, they did deal with me very well when they could, when certain aspects of my -- certainly my finances and other situations came to bear on me, and I was very grateful for that.

I think it is a very difficult area, certainly for the immediate line managers, because they may well have been informed from a senior level as to the amount of contact that may have been accredited to me, and what, in essence, the Metropolitan Police could do for me in welfare terms, because I do have my own responsibilities as far as finances go, and you have to juggle those before they can step in.

Miss Weekes: And finally this: the aftermath of suspension. Were you given a suitable reintroduction back into the work of being a police officer?

Mr M: No.

Miss Weekes: What would you say should have happened?

Mr M: Again, it depends on the amount of time and the level that you were at.

Miss Weekes: Well, you had three years on suspension.

Mr M: Certainly, I had three years, some very fundamental changes came into place, and I had no reintroduction into that.

Miss Weekes: You would have expected some training and support?

Mr M: Yes, I would have expected to go on some kind of an update, and certainly on the things that were very, very crucial, in human rights and RIPA. Officers have two or three days' assessment on those, or some kind of course, or whatever, certainly seminars, just to go through the basis, and how one Act has obviously changed the way we approach the whole of our investigations, so that was very fundamental.

Miss Weekes: Finally, what is the most important thing that you want us to remember about your submission? What is the most important point, do you think, that we should bear in mind?

Mr M: There are a number of areas, it is very difficult to assess, but everybody should be dealt with fairly, depending on the circumstances, and I think, in respect of mine, I do not think I was.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much, Mr M.

Mr M: Thank you, ma'am.

Sir William Morris: Mr M, thank you very much indeed for your help. We have finished the questions that we wanted to ask of you, but you will recall that in my opening statement, I said we would offer you the opportunity for a brief closing comment, if you wished.

If you do wish to make a brief closing comment, can I invite you to do so now, please?

Mr M: Yes, sir, thank you very much. From the outset, in respect of my service within the Metropolitan Police, I have no problems whatsoever with the Metropolitan Police or any other police force rooting out corruption, and I have stated that.

I am an officer who has conducted himself impeccably over the last [Redacted] years, and in respect of my predicament that was presented to me back in [Redacted], it has knocked me back probably about [Redacted] years, in terms of my professional standing, and I have only just been able to get back to the level that I was at, that was taken away from me [Redacted] years ago.

Things that I would like to be put in place are along the lines that we have already mentioned: a more refined level of concern in respect of, firstly, the person, secondly, the offences, and how they are investigated and then reviewed, because I think leaving somebody in total isolation for a period of three years, or more in some cases, will effectively write some people off.

I think I was very strong in my mental character, to help me survive, because I do not think that -- if I did not have that mental attitude, I would not have got through it.

I wholeheartedly agree with this Inquiry, and I hope that the recommendations that are put forward will only go to improve certainly the aspects of internal investigations, and how they are dealt with and approached in the future, because unless that happens, we are not going to move forward.

Sir William Morris: Okay, well, can I first of all, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, Mr M, thank you very much indeed for sparing the time to come along and respond to our questions this morning. Thank you for your submission, and finally, we say thank you for the contribution that you are making to our work. Thank you very much.

Mr M: Well, I hope it has been of use.

Sir William Morris: It certainly has, thank you.

On this website:

• Evidence: MM
  Evidence provided by and documents referred to by MM, in his appearance at the Inquiry.