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 It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.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 public session with Chief Inspector J Pendry on 26 May 2004.

Sections available here:

• Transcript of public session: Chief Inspector J Pendry
  • Questions by Sir William Morris
  • Questions by Sir Anthony Burden
  • Questions by Miss Weekes
  • Closing comments by Miss Pendry

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

Transcript of public session: Chief Inspector J Pendry

This transcript has been redacted to avoid the identification of individuals and any third parties.

Wednesday, 26 May 2004
10.30 am

Sir William Morris: Good morning everyone, and good morning Miss Pendry and your colleague from the Federation.

Can I start by saying thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this morning, and indeed to let us have some evidence. Thank you also for letting us have your written submissions, which we have found extremely helpful.

I do appreciate that for some of our witnesses the process that we adopt may seem at times to be somewhat daunting, so I thought it would be 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 my panel. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. On my right is Sir Anthony Burden, he also has 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. She is an eminent barrister and she sits as a recorder and part time chairperson of employment tribunals and she was in fact counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

Miss Pendry, as you know, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent Inquiry into professional standards and employment matters of the Metropolitan Police Service. In addition, we are required by our terms of reference to identify lessons to be learned from recent high profile cases, and as you know we have decided to treat your experience as one of the high profile cases.

The Inquiry we are conducting is inquisitorial, it is not adversarial in nature or indeed in character. Our focus is the MPS as an organisation and not the individuals who make up the organisation. Nevertheless, we need to hear from individuals who have been involved in high profile cases in order that we can understand how they were treated and how the policies and practices of the Metropolitan Police Service operate, and indeed to learn the lessons from their experience in order to inform the future.

We are very keen to enquire into the issues raised by the terms of reference so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice, rather than concentrating on making criticisms for its own sake.

Whilst we want to hear what is wrong with the Met, naturally, we also want to hear what is right with it, but most importantly, we would like to hear from all our witnesses what needs to be done to make it better. We have no wish to go back over the details of your experience because you have given us a full written submission and we have read it most carefully, but we have also commissioned a report from an independent investigator, which you have seen, and that gives us a very clear view of the events.

We are asking you to focus on particular areas, and these are also mirrored in the issues that we ask our independent investigator to address. Against that background, what we want to do this morning is to ask you a few further questions to enlighten us and to focus on the issues where you can help us most.

At the end of these introductory comments, one of my colleagues will lead on the questions to you, followed by the remainder of the panel, who may or may not want to ask you one or two supplementary questions. When we have completed the questions, I will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment.

Let me say also that a transcript is being taken so that we have a proper record of the evidence given by all our witnesses. We want you to be able to speak freely and confidently and frankly about your experience in order that we can identify any lessons there are to be learned, and, as I have said, our remit is the way that the organisation operates and not the details of other individuals whose experience forms part of your story.

Whilst we are publishing the transcript of these hearings, together with your written submission and our investigators' report following this session, we will only do so after we have taken out all references to the names and other details of others, because in publishing the transcript we are very clear that we do not wish individuals that you may mention to be identified as such.

I am sure that you will understand that it may be necessary also to seek further clarification from others about which you may or may not in your submission comment on whatever you say to us today. Before we begin the question, for the benefit of the transcript, I wonder if you would mind formally introducing yourself to the Inquiry?

A. Good morning, I am Julia Pendry. I am the Chief Inspector now serving at Brent borough.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. Miss Pendry, before I invite my colleagues to start the questioning, can I first refer again to our investigators' report, a copy of which was provided to your good self.

As you will have seen, we have not asked the investigator to conduct a full case review, merely to provide us with answers to those questions that we wanted to ask about insofar as they affect our terms of reference as a high profile case.

Whilst I do not intend to go into the details, nevertheless it would be helpful if you could just let us have your overall impression of our investigator's report and indicate whether you consider it to be a fair analysis of the events as you have offered to us in your own submissions?

A. I think overall it is a very fair report. There are some concerns that I have regarding it. Certainly in the fact that – in fact it probably will be easier for me if I go through it piece by piece.

The first thing is when it discusses about the proportionality of obviously how I was dealt with, and they then mention [Redacted] who was at Guru Nanak last year, and he was ill after Guru Nanak, and what actually happened, and he has spoken to me on the phone, is that when he was spoken to by the DPS, he was not asked, "Were you ill following Guru Nanak?", he was asked if he reported sick. He did not report sick, he did not need to report sick; he was member of my staff. So where [Redacted] mentions the fact that maybe I could have received words of advice or whatever on that, that would have been completely unfounded because the officer did suffer from illness following Guru Nanak, which I can prove.

The other issue I have is the fact that I have some concerns in that there seems to be some things missing, and certainly some sort of disclosure things. I could have got things forward to you but one of the things that your colleague highlights is that lots of things were not available to you as a panel to actually look at, so that gives me some concern.

I also have another concern in that he says as far as he is concerned he does not see that I was discriminated against racially during this investigation, which I consider I was.

Other than that, I think I cannot obviously remember this report verbatim. I am sure other things may come to me during the course of it. Other than that, I do think it is a very fair assessment of the case.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. As I indicated earlier, it was not a full case review. It was orientated around those areas and falling within our terms of reference, which we felt we needed additional information about. But thank you anyway for your response.

Can I now invite Sir Anthony Burden to lead for us on the questions that we want to put to you this morning.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Good morning, Miss Pendry.

A. Good morning, sir.

Sir Anthony Burden: If I could just, for completeness, give a very quick synopsis of the facts relating to the matter you have brought to our attention. This refers to 2nd November 2003 when the Metropolitan Police was to police a parade to mark a Sikh religious festival, Guru Nanak, in the borough of Ealing. As we understand it, two briefings took place at Southall police station, with approximately 50 staff, and you have responsibility for bronze procession on that particular day. Your part in the briefings related to tactics, as we understand it, the posting of officers and health and safety.

A. Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: It was during the first of these briefings that it was later alleged you had made comments which were incorrect and racist. The allegations relating to your comments were not brought to the attention of senior officers until 23rd November, and a formal complaint was made by the [Redacted] on 30th November. In December, the decision was made to formally investigate this matter and an investigating officer was appointed.

Enquiries commenced during which you were formally interviewed and as a consequence of being subject to this enquiry your promotion to chief inspector was put on hold. The inquiry concluded at the end of February this year, and I think it is fair to say that in your opinion with many issues outstanding and not satisfactorily resolved.

The way in which this inquiry was handled has been reviewed, as the Chairman has said, and I would like to explore this morning certain aspects of the inquiry, really with a view to lessons being learned from the way in which this inquiry took place and to seek your views as to how similar Inquiries might be handled in the future if similar circumstances were to occur again.

The areas that I would particularly like to address with you is, firstly, the opportunity in your case for early resolution, and was that opportunity lost. Secondly, the failure to provide adequate welfare support during the investigation phase. Personnel considerations, which came to light when your promotion posting was being considered, and what facts were actually under review at that time in relation to your personal life, and finally I would like to explore your experiences of trying to get satisfaction through the Fairness at Work process.

So, if I may start with the issue of early resolution and to gain your views, please, as to whether you agree with the reviewing officer that a golden opportunity was indeed lost?

A. Yes, sir, absolutely. Obviously, as I said in my response to my 163, which was obviously delayed as well, the fact was that had I said something that could be resolved at the time I would like to have sat down with the officers, discussed the issues, and, if necessary and if appropriate, apologise. I do not feel in this case I had to apologise but I would have had to have heard what they said first of all.

Considering the fact that the officer who made the first complaint was on duty on the same day as his mentor who made the official complaint against me, and they also worked for the next three days together, there seemed no reason at all why the supervising officer, [Redacted] could not have come forward and spoken to my manager, [Redacted] who was at the briefing, or my superintendent. We could have sat around the table and talked about it, which would have been an absolutely perfect way forward. I could have explained what I meant by Health and Safety and my responsibilities as a manager and I am sure we could have cleared up all the issues.

Sir Anthony Burden: If such a process, or consideration was given to inclusion within the process for early resolution, mediation in the future, have you any thoughts as to what sort of model might be adopted?

A. Well, the thoughts that I have is obviously that I feel in my case it was – certainly the gold group I am sure we will discuss later on, but there has to be a model that is fair for everybody, and certainly I think you have got to have some management present. Associations are fine, I have no problems with associations being present, but you have to have a fair model that everybody actually has somebody there to consider their welfare and their needs and the fairness. I could not say who should be there but there should also be somebody from outside. I do not think it should be dealt with on borough; I think it needs to be dealt with by somebody who comes to the borough who is an independent person.

Sir Anthony Burden: We have heard that consideration is being given to training a number of mediators within the MPS that would bring an independence to such a process. Would that sort of process, do you think, have the confidence of staff, knowing that the mediators actually come from within the Metropolitan Police itself?

A. No, I do not, because I think what would happen is they would just be in fear of doing the right thing and what they should be doing, certainly for senior managers, and not doing anything that would possibly cause them any issues, certainly when it comes to racist issues which this was. I think there would be a cowardice to actually deal with anything properly, and it would not be independent, as far as I am concerned.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I just come on to that for the moment, because we have heard a lot of evidence that suggests that whenever race or gender comes on the table, some senior managers freeze, and there is a reluctance to deal with issues locally and it becomes very official very quickly. Can I ask your comments on that?

A. I absolutely agree with the people before – I have read all the transcripts previously. There is what I would say now institutionalised cowardice within the Metropolitan Police Service and the issues we have now is that everybody is in fear. Yes, some people obviously are still willing to stand up and be counted but generally speaking there is a fear of dealing with things in case of publicity: what is going to happen? Are you going to be considered a racist or a sexist or whatever else, a homophobic, if you deal with something properly and effectively?

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I ask what has created such a situation in your organisation.

A. I think obviously following the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry and diversity issues, and the recommendations were absolutely superb and quite right, we must eradicate racism within the Service. However, we must also remember such things as equal opportunities and not let those just drift by.

I also think there is a concern now – people say "What is diversity? And it is about dealing with individual needs of individual people, obviously depending on their needs. That is fine but there must also be equality for everybody regardless of their colour, race, gender, sexuality, and that seems to be missing now. It just seems to be, if it is a race issue or a gender issue, everything is dealt with one way, but in my perception, if it is a white officer that is actually being investigated now, there is no thought at all about how they are dealt with and how they are discriminated against.

Sir Anthony Burden: That is a disastrous situation, is it not, for the Metropolitan Police Service, if what you say is true?

A. I think it is a very sad and disappointing situation because I think it is going to cause more problems in the future and I think you could end up with managers who are in fear of dealing with officers for fear of being like I am now. And obviously we talk about this being a high-profile case; there are issues because people have contacted me, and not just non-ethnic minority officers. Visible ethnic minority officers have spoken to me about their fears that if this continues what will happen. Everybody must be treated fairly and equally.

Sir Anthony Burden: Yes, because surely it is in the interests of female staff and black and visibly ethnic minority staff that in certain circumstances matters be dealt with and resolved quickly, I would have thought.

A. Absolutely.

Sir Anthony Burden: If the circumstances are right.

A. It was absolutely right that I was investigated for this matter. I am not saying I should not have been investigated. If somebody makes a complaint it should be investigated, quite rightly. It was the manner in which this investigation took place which I have obviously power to criticise. Yes, of course people need to be dealt with, but you cannot forget also other officers out there who – my feeling at the moment is that a lot of officers are completely ignored now because they do not come under race, sexuality and gender issues. As a big organisation we must all be treated fairly, and that includes my male white colleagues.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I just move on to the proportionality around the investigation that took place and what was actually put into place and into action.

What seems, on the surface, to be a fairly clear-cut allegation was, however, managed through a gold group process. In your opinion, was that a proportionate response?

A. I think it was an atrocious – an appalling way of dealing with this. It ended up with a gold group being set up which was held at my police station when I was on duty; it had nine people on it, all men, there was no Federation, no female representative, the complainant was on the gold group and able to sit in judgment of me and my career, another officer [Redacted] was able to sit on it, and a witness to the actual alleged incident, a [Redacted] who was at my briefing, was sitting there as well. It was completely and utterly disproportionate and an appalling way of managing a case.

Sir Anthony Burden: If there was a need for a gold group in the right circumstances, have you any personal views as to the way that gold group should be formed and who in fact should be present?

A. Yes, I do. Obviously you need the members of the community. On the gold group that I sat on there was [Redacted] and from what I gather he was actually very supportive and very sensible and useful to the gold group. I do think you have got to see how many people from associations are there. Certainly one member of the [Redacted] I would agree with; two, certainly not. And you have to have a Federation representative or somebody there for the welfare of the officer to ensure that their welfare is being considered on the group.

Also, again, it has to be independent. It ends up with the gold group with [Redacted] being on it, and [Redacted] being on it at one stage, his [Redacted] being on it. If [Redacted] and you have to have an overall strategic view of everything on the borough, how can you possibly look at the case and be totally fair and honest in what you are doing, because he has to also consider the community.

Community threat assessments are important obviously, but I know the community were not aware of this at all. It was not until people took it into the community that it became an issue; beforehand it was a private police briefing. There were no members of the public there, there was no reason for the public to ever know about it.

But yes, gold groups are right in the right circumstances, obviously.

Sir Anthony Burden: But gold groups, surely – and please correct me if I am wrong – are about the community involvement and potential community issues?

A. Yes. And quite rightly so, obviously. If there are going to be community issues and community tension, but the gold group met and sat before the results of the community threat assessment. I have spoken to the officer who carried out the threat assessment or community impact assessment, who said there was not any impact on the community at that time.

Sir Anthony Burden: And yet when you had various discussions with various people, the impression given to you was that this was an extremely serious issue, and that I do not take issue with, in terms of the allegation, but it had far-reaching implications and ramifications, I think.

A. Yes, [Redacted] informed me that it was international seriousness that had reached India, yet they allowed me to lead a Sikh procession in January whilst I was being investigated. So if it is international seriousness, and this seriousness was the fact that people were feeding information to the Sikh Times and other newspapers, which should have been dealt with as well, then that is fine, but surely you cannot say that I am of such international seriousness that I cannot be promoted, I cannot do anything, yet allow me to lead a Sikh procession through the streets of London few weeks later.

Sir Anthony Burden: I think it is fair to say that whilst this inquiry was taking place you were performing acting chief inspector responsibilities at some stages.

A. Yes, sir, I was. This happened in November, obviously, and I found out in December, and then during the annual leave period over Christmas I was acting chief inspector. In the January I was acting chief inspector and acting superintendent, and I was obviously still conducting my duties as – I was inspector of operations at the time and I was still conducting my duties as bronze on the borough.

Sir Anthony Burden: If we could just get this absolutely right for the record: once an inquiry was established in December, you were served with a Form 163, Regulation 9 notice indicating that an allegation had been made against you and an inquiry would then be pursued. After the service of that notice, even though you were qualified for the rank of chief inspector, and you were being denied substantive promotion, and it had been made perfectly clear to you that this was being treated as a serious matter, you were asked to undertake acting chief inspector, as you say, acting superintendent responsibilities during that period.

A. Yes, sir. On numerous occasions I was actually the highest ranking officer on the borough whilst the rest of the senior management team were away.

Sir Anthony Burden: You refer to media attention, and of course that is something which is within our terms of reference, as to how the media is used in high profile cases.

Can I ask you quite openly: did you at any stage personally go to the media over the inquiry, or the circumstances of the inquiry?

A. Absolutely not.

Sir Anthony Burden: Are you aware of how suddenly this issue became an issue publicly and how reference was made to the inquiry, or about the inquiry in the media?

A. Have you seen a copy of the Sikh Times front page –

Sir Anthony Burden: I have seen some.

A. The front page of the Sikh Times which says "Inspector Guilty" actually has a quote from the then chair of the Sikh Association which did give me some evidence that they had possibly been in touch. And also photographs were given to the Sikh Times of visits of senior police officers to the Gurdwara. I have no doubt about it. Also there were quotes regarding [Redacted], which seemed quite interesting. Obviously there was a leak to the press but certainly it was not done by anyone I knew because it had nothing positive at all about what was happening to me.

Sir Anthony Burden: Were you invited to make any comment, or were you approached to bring any balance to the article itself?

A. Not at all. I actually had to phone up – I found out that I was in the press by somebody phoning me from Liverpool to say that they had read The Guardian and I was in The Guardian, and they recognised me. Although I was not named, we must obviously remember that as a senior female officer on borough there are not many of you and I was the only female inspector on the borough, so it did not take too much for anybody to work me out. They phoned me and I was actually forced to go out myself and buy a copy of the Evening Gazette and whatever the other local paper was to find it out.

I knew that the senior management team were informed because they had it faxed to them. Whilst I was in charge of the borough they were reading these newspaper articles and nobody contacted me, there was no press strategy. I actually contacted the Press Bureau myself, specially when the Sikh Times paper came out because that obviously really offended me because I was named and it upset my family, and the Press Bureau said they did not know anything about it, although they obviously had a press statement, and nobody gave me any guidance for if the press approached me. I really did not know what to do, if the press had approached me outside the police station – because obviously I was named about where I was working as well – what I should have said.

Sir Anthony Burden: How do you think the media issue should have been handled by your organisation?

A. There should have been a press strategy meeting including me; my Federation representative; certainly at the beginning, obviously, the borough that I was on, and I obviously moved boroughs; when I went to my new borough, including my managers of that borough, because it obviously impacted on the borough you were going to move to as well. We should have sat down and had some sort of press strategy if anything should happen.

The reason I did not say anything to the press is because I am a conscientious officer and I basically do what I am told. But a of lot of people could have gone out there and spoken to the press and it could have been disastrous if I had gone out and said what I would have liked to have said at the time to the press.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I move on, if I may, please, to the issue of welfare support and your personal views about the level of support in fact that you were given.

A. I suppose the first thing I can say is what support? I was not offered any support at all. I was not offered any occupational health. I was told on the eve of the Christian Festival of Christmas, for want of a better way of describing it, that my promotion was going to be withheld. Nobody gave me any support inside, I obviously had no idea what was going to happen to me.

On 27th December I was duty officer and I actually asked to see the force medical officer, who came to the station because I at the time thought I was about to suffer a stroke and I had a pounding headache and he examined me and said I was suffering from stress and I was offered absolutely no support at all.

But I will say, and I think this is very, very important, I was offered no official support but there have been people who have been truly, truly loyal and kind to me. One of them was at my new borough, [Redacted] and [Redacted] at the new borough contacted me and offered me support but they could not do it officially because obviously I was not their borough staff. And also [Redacted] the [Redacted] showed me friendship but unfortunately she was a prosecution witness so she could not be in an official role, in an official capacity, because she obviously had to make a statement for the prosecution, so I had no other support.

Sir Anthony Burden: Looking at the stress and trauma that this caused you, what do you feel you should have rightly expected in terms of the organisation responding from a welfare viewpoint?

A. It would have been nice if the gold group had considered my welfare needs in the first place, rather than just thinking about everybody else's needs. The wrongdoing policy does not mention anything at all about officers' welfare who have had allegations against them; it is all about the person who reported the wrongdoing. So there is no system in place for anybody to say, "Right, we must follow the policy of reporting of a wrongdoing".

What should have happened on borough is somebody should have been nominated who was completely independent from the inquiry who would have been my welfare support, and that person would have been able to then obviously been present with me if I needed them, been in contact with me; certainly when I was off sick for three weeks nobody contacted me at all in an official capacity.

There has to be somebody there for you, because if I did not have obviously a very close family – my mother and father are very supportive, the Federation have supported me and some loyal trusted friends, if I was on my own, officers could really, really suffer, specially over the Christmas period, a family time when you are going through such enormous stress. Occupational health should be involved, and to this day occupational health has not been offered to me; I have actually had to seek it myself.

Sir Anthony Burden: In fact I think you were formally introduced on 23rd December.

A. Yes, I was.

Sir Anthony Burden: After that process, which in itself must have been fairly demanding, there was no support at all over the Christmas period.

A. Absolutely nothing, sir. Other than the fact that I had to go into work and do the duty officer over the Christmas period.

Sir Anthony Burden: Sure. It may be an unfair question of you, but from your personal experience of other officers who have faced similar circumstances to yourself, is this lack of provision of welfare support a common experience for officers, do you know?

A. I do not know, sir. I think it is unfair for me to say whether it is or not. Obviously I speak to individuals who say there is a big lack of welfare concerns and certainly the Federation would support that, so it must be the case, but I do not know of many officers. Certainly the profile that my case was, I do not know that many people who have been investigated like I was.

Sir Anthony Burden: Looking at the fact that the issue was resolved towards the end of February, do you feel that the inquiry was expedited as speedily as it might have been?

A. I think, obviously – the beginning of the Inquiry was obviously on 2nd or 3rd November. When the complaint was made, there was too long a period until I was informed. I was informed, unofficially, that I was being investigated by an Asian officer who stopped me in the corridor at the police station to tell me he had been up to complaints and been interviewed about me and asked if he thought I was a racist, which is obviously poor.

I think that the fact that my case was dealt with so quickly and so expeditiously actually makes it even worse, because if it was not a race issue I would not have even been interviewed by now. So in fact, they treated me differently by the speed that they conducted this investigation because it was all being whipped up by very, very senior managers.

Sir Anthony Burden: I know, and I said that there are some issues, and I know the panel is aware of the action that you are taking personally to pursue this matter, but can I ask you, in relation to the Fairness at Work process, you have tried to access that process without much satisfaction, as we understand it. Could you describe for us your experiences of this new policy which is now in place.

A. Yes. On 27th February, straight after I had met with [Redacted] I stepped across the corridor into [Redacted] office to put in a Fairness at Work about questioning about my past personal relationships. I put it in, and the reason I did not put it in on borough was, I could not put it in at Ealing borough because obviously [Redacted] was involved, and I could not put it in at my new borough because it involved the [Redacted] so I thought the best way to deal with this would be to do it at Westminster.

I put the form in, heard nothing, and it took – I think it is supposed to be two days. If I can just, please, refer, because I have got numerous e-mails from the Fairness at Work adviser – or the head of Fairness at Work. I put it in on 27th February, after I had seen [Redacted] then I heard nothing for weeks, and then I had an e-mail from [Redacted] saying that it was not a Fairness at Work.

So I obviously spoke to my Federation representative, and we also sought legal advice and resubmitted it. It came back again saying that it was not a Fairness at Work because it was to do with discipline. Well, it was following the investigation – after the investigation was complete that [Redacted] obviously spoke to me, so I could not quite understand why it was part of the investigation.

Also, the fact that I am supposed to have been given words of advice that I had not had yet, I could not appeal, so there was no process for me to appeal because you cannot appeal about words of advice. So I had no way of having anybody to listen to me and try to resolve the issues.

It continued and continued, and then on 1st April I resubmitted the Fairness at Work, and I had no response until 23rd April, where I actually e-mailed [Redacted] and said, "Could I please have a response". I e-mailed two members of his staff and they said that they would get in contact with him and I still had no response, and on 27th April I got an e-mail saying that [Redacted] had been informed of my case. And then on 30th April he sent me an e-mail saying he would contact me – so that was 29 days after my second time trying to put this in – and I heard nothing for six days then. And then on 5th May I received an e-mail saying that they were still refusing to appoint a FAW adviser.

I then sent an e-mail back saying that I had no choice but to go to an employment tribunal because I wanted to try and resolve these issues. I was patronised by being informed that this was not about punishment. I was a first contact officer, I know all about grievance and Fairness at Work. It was all about me trying to speak to somebody about the issues I had, to try and reach a resolution.

On 10th May, not surprisingly, I had an e-mail saying – obviously I had said about an employment tribunal – saying that, "Oh, by the way, now we can deal with this." What was quite interesting, he said that my application was now distinctly different. Well, I have got both applications and they are exactly the same, I think about two words have been taken out, so they are not distinctly different at all.

So on 10th May I e-mailed back saying that I was not going to resubmit it, "You had my submission, you had all my e-mails, could you please just appoint a Fairness at Work adviser for me", and it is now 26th May and I am still waiting.

Sir Anthony Burden: So that is as far as the process has gone for you?

A. It is three months tomorrow sir, I have received no – I have nothing. I am still fighting for it to be heard.

Sir Anthony Burden: What were your expectations, realistic expectations, about what the Fairness at Work process should have provided?

A. An independent person who could sit down with me, discuss my humiliation at being questioned about a past previous relationship and discuss how it could be resolved, and a resolution that had obviously been around possibly an apology, lessons learned, never to be done again. ACPO officers do make mistakes and they also have to be informed of the mistakes they make, obviously, like the rest of us make mistakes. I was not looking for an awful lot, just somebody to sit and talk to and say, "Is this right? Is it fair? Is it appropriate to discuss a past personal relationship with an officer and, because of that, try and block their promotion and stop their transfer to a borough?" I thought it was atrocious, and I had to – I just wanted to talk to somebody.

Sir Anthony Burden: And in fact, indeed, if it is operated effectively, in the right circumstances, that is exactly what Fairness at Work should provide, is it not?

A. Well, that is my understanding, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I, please, without wishing to refer to personal matters, just deal with the issue which raised the Fairness at Work concerns from you, and that was an issue about a past personal relationship which seemed to be coming into the equation being considered about whether you should be promoted, and promoted to a particular borough.

A. Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: From what you have already said to us, you obviously do not feel that that was a discussion which should have fairly taken place when your future career was being considered; is that correct?

A. Well, it should not take place because it is not necessary to take place. And also, if they are going to hold a process like that, it means that every officer – every officer and every member of police staff within the Metropolitan Police Service is questioned about their past previous relationships and not posted to boroughs, units, or whatever else, where they have known somebody personally, and there would be an awful lot of transfers going on the following week if that were to be the case. That is the concern I had.

Also, it is so patronising to think that two senior officers could not work together appropriately and effectively because they used to know each other. There was nothing sordid or nasty, obviously press-related, that we could not do it, because it would be a wonderful press scandal. I was told by [Redacted] at the time – and I was with my Federation representative – that there were people out there, mischief makers, who may possibly try to cause me trouble. We must stand up and fight mischief makers. Me must not sort of try to appease them, we must fight them.

You know, I am a female officer. I have been a police officer for 21 years. It is obvious that most of your life, when you work as a police officer, you are going to socialise with police officers; that is the way that it works. If I am going to be discriminated against and treated differently because I once used to go out with somebody, then I think that is very unfair and discriminatory behaviour.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I ask, because I do not know, within the Metropolitan Police Service, are those the sort of issues that would be recorded on an individual officer's personal file?

A. I would think not or there would be very long files. Also, you do not have questions asked when you go for promotion or transfer. There is not a ticking the box: have you had a relationship with anybody on this borough? Which would be the only way to actually find out if people had been involved.

Sir Anthony Burden: So in your 21 years' service and your frequent postings, that has not been an issue that has been raised with you before?

A. Well, what I would like to say is that some years ago, rather than talk about all my previous relationships, I was actually married and my husband at the time was a supervising sergeant on my team, so it did not appear to be an issue then and we worked extremely effectively together. So I do not see any reason why, now that I am a senior officer, that I should not be able to work effectively with a past relationship person that I was involved with.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I, finally, from me, if I may, come back to the very first point that I raised with you, and that is the issue of early resolution. I asked you whether you felt that such a system would have confidence if mediators came from within the service. You gave reasons why you did not feel that that was adequate.

Could I just ask whether you have given consideration to the type of individuals, where those individuals should come from, that might be able to undertake that task satisfactorily, with the confidence to do it.

A. Well, working in partnership, obviously, at the moment that we do with our community – we have people who are in IAG and other members, and we have got MPA now that we obviously work with – I see no reason why people from MPA, IAGs and such like could not be trained as mediators; at least they would come in with an open and transparent way of dealing with these issues.

Sir Anthony Burden: Would an organisation such as ACAS, do you think?

A. Yes, possibly. There are many organisations, obviously, that people could come in. It has got to be somebody who is not frightened of standing up for what is right because they fear that if they do they possibly will not get promoted or they will not be selected or they will then be in trouble. It has got to be somebody who really, really is not concerned, and almost bullied at the moment, as I feel the Metropolitan Police Service is doing with people, into making decisions which will suit what is a high priority at the time.

We must also remember that a couple of weeks before my issues and such like was the The Secret Policeman, so it seemed to fit into a time where racism within the service was a very high priority again.

Sir Anthony Burden: You seem to be suggesting, Miss Pendry, that in your opinion there is something very wrong with the culture in the Metropolitan Police at the moment which would prevent mediation from occurring within, and you have given the reasons that you feel people are frightened to do it. Is that because, in your view, a blame culture still exists within the MPS?

A. Absolutely, and the blame culture has now ended up with, as I said earlier, institutionalised cowardice, where people are too frightened to do something. I am obviously a manager and I want to manage my staff regardless of their colour, their sexuality, their gender. I want to manage all my staff equally and fairly, and the problem with it is that you are put under such pressure now because, are people going to make complaints, are people going to escalate complaints on their behalf, that there is a certain fear.

An example that I can give is when I first went to Brent I had to interview an officer following – he was a probationer and he was a Sikh, and I had palpitations, I was nervous, sweaty palms, thinking: I do not want to speak to this officer, say he makes a complaint about me, and I was only saying to him, "Well done, you have spent 18 months in the police; are you enjoying yourself?" And I had to really, really sit down and give myself a talking to, the fact that I either had to lead, and continue being a leader, or say now, because of what I have been through – and I could not go through this again, and I do not think my family could again – "I am sorry, I cannot deal with officers who are ethnic minority officers because I am in fear now of everything I do being scrutinised", and that must be wrong.

Sir Anthony Burden: As you say, you are now a senior manager in the organisation with a great deal of responsibility. If you were sat down with the management team of the Metropolitan Police Service, and you were discussing the way forward, how to shift the culture to a non-blame, risk taking culture where people are not frightened to say as they feel, what would you want to put in place? What can be done about this?

A. There has got to be some sort of training and guidance, there has got to be some discussions with associations, but we must stop appeasing them – we must work alongside them but not appease them – and there has to be guidance to managers. If you look at things that – we obviously have police discipline, we have 163s, we have police staff discipline issues, ineffective workings and such like. We do not get any training on it, so what happens is that if you actually want to – I have 130 members of staff, many of them are police staff. My knowledge of dealing with police staff issues and discipline is not particularly good because I have not had any training, so I had to go and seek support from my personnel department.

There really should be workshops and seminars so that senior managers especially know what they can do, know how they can do things and instigate things, and how they deal with officers and development plans and such things. You get promoted, there is no course that you can go on when you become a chief inspector. On the Friday you are an inspector, on the Monday you are chief inspector, expected to have 100-odd members of staff. So we do need to be guided, we do need to be trained, and we need to learn.

Sir Anthony Burden: So on the operational side of policing, your experience and your training equips you well, but as you progress through the ranks and your management responsibilities of people, finance and support systems becomes greater, the preparedness for that, in your view, is inadequate.

A. I spent, I think, four weeks on a sergeant's course, a couple of weeks on an inspector's course and nothing on a chief inspector's course. There is something there missing. There is, obviously, an attitude that we should, possibly at my level, be looking at self-development, which is understandable. Yet, if I went to a workshop or a seminar where people could discuss issues regarding discipline and issues regarding ethnic minority officers, culture, faith, then that would be very, very useful, so I know that when I deal with something I would have a background and understanding. So I think there should be some training, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much indeed.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed, Sir Anthony. I will pass you straight over to Miss Weekes for her questions.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Can I, if I may, follow up two quite important issues which have arisen in your very helpful presentation today, and it is the issue of training and back to the independent support for an officer who may be in your position again, because complaints will always arise when you are in the police force; I think you would agree with that, would you not?

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: We have heard a good deal of evidence about the availability of training, how much of it is taken up and how much time is given to it. Can I just have from you, if I can, your overall assessment of the balance that is given to training that is compulsory, that you have to take up, training that you do not have to take up and training that do you but in fact the operational duties override it. Do you see where my question is going?

A. Yes. Obviously there is the compulsory training, life support training and officer safety training, which officers have to do up to, I think, the rank of chief inspector. After that we have what we call borough training, so officers we have have to conduct borough training, and most of the training there comes from centre. So obviously things will come out – I do not know, say it is about terrorism or whatever, stop and search, whatever the issues are, they come out to our borough trainers who present it. I do not know how it works with other units within the service; I am very much a borough officer.

But all of a sudden with promotion – and what we have done at Brent, which I think is a really good way forward, and for that we do have a very good senior management team at Brent, is we discuss the issues with actually training people.

When I turned up at Brent I had issues in the criminal justice unit, and lots of the sergeants in custody were having problems around custody issues, changes to pace and changes to all sorts of issues, and I identified the fact that you cannot possibly expect everybody to know everything, but we do not set aside training, certainly on borough, for officers of different ranks. You are all in together – or do you not separate, possibly, detectives to uniformed officers. We are all thrown in the pot together and some things you might pick out which are useful to you and some things do not.

I think we need to be more streamlined, and what we will be doing at Brent from now on is looking at rank, looking at issues, looking at the jobs that you are doing, possibly, like I say, CID/uniform, and try to streamline a training to actually deal with the issues that everybody has.

As regards to senior management, then I think that has to come from centre, and there does need to be something put together, certainly, a package when you become a senior manager; something to get you to understand where – people have different experiences. Some people have not been on a borough for years and they go to a borough.

I will say for the Association of Senior Women that – and I have just finished three courses on inspirational leadership – they have actually paid for courses for senior women to go on about inspiration issues. That is good, but those courses must also be open to my male colleagues so they have got, obviously, a chance to go on these courses, which are actually very good.

Miss Weekes: You will not be surprised to know that you are not the first person who has identified the issue in relation to the management of sensitive issues, like race or gender, or any other sensitive issue in the workplace requires additional training.

Can you help: is this a message that is not getting to those who are responsible for training? I mean, why is it that it is constantly being raised but appears to be not resolved?

A. Obviously I can only speak for myself, and I actually am a trained trainer. The issue with training is that it seems to be a thing that, once you have done something, you tick the box and you have done that. A few years ago diversity training was the training at the time, and people went on courses – I cannot remember how many days it was now – and when that seems to be done, nobody looks back and says, "Well, hang on, we have done it, how are we going to now revisit it and rediscuss things and look at things, lessons learned?"

Look at my case now; my case would be an ideal case to put before people as a sort of example of how we could do things better. That will not be done. It will not be until the next disaster – we seem to do most of our training following disasters, and then we come up and say, "Oh, we had better do some training on that", whereas we should keep progressing training continually.

Miss Weekes: And who should be taking the lead in, as it were, having an overall view of where the Metropolitan Police is in relation to training needs? And if you are right that the whole sensitivity of how race issues are being dealt with must now go back onto the table for a proper discussion of the way forward, who should be doing that?

A. We have obviously got training, we have got HR, but we have also got the DCC. We have got lots of different departments. We have got DOIT. I do not know where it should lie because I do not know enough about all the different parts of the organisation to be able to say, but certainly it has got to start in training because training obviously has to be delivered.

We also have to look at cost. You cannot afford to keep putting out very expensive training. And we have other issues like getting police officers out on the street to reassurance and reduction of crime.

So it is difficult. We cannot keep training our officers because we would have no officers left to police, but I think that we have to look at somewhere from centre, in association with the DOITs and the other associations, about how we move forward.

Miss Weekes: You have mentioned your Federation representative. I want to just ask a little bit more about the role of the Police Federation. They are a representative group, are they? They represent the interests of individual police officers?

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: Have they ever gone to the centre, or senior officers, to say, "We are the Police Federation; we receive membership fees from almost every police officer; we now appreciate there is an unhealthy sensitivity about how managers manage certainty issues; now we want a priority for training"? Have your Police Federation ever done that?

A. Ma'am, I do not know, but obviously my Federation representative –

Miss Weekes: I just want to know from you personally, whether you are aware of it.

A. Honestly, I have absolutely no idea.

Miss Weekes: In relation to your individual case, for example on the issue of what you referred to as the reporting wrongdoing policy, you have identified that there was no independent representation of you on the make-up of the gold group panel. Is that something that your representative, the Police Federation, could have taken up on your behalf?

A. Well, he attempted to. An e-mail was sent by [Redacted] to [Redacted] asking if he could be represented on it; we have no response. I e-mailed my borough commander and asked for – they were having a meeting, another gold group meeting, and I asked if [Redacted] could be on it because she is a female, just so that there would be a female, or a representative; nobody replied. So every time I asked and I said, "Please, I feel that I really have concerns about the make-up of the gold group and the bias of the gold group, and people are sitting in judgment of me, some of them with their own agendas", that I wanted somebody sitting there considering my needs and my welfare needs, and also fairness. So we asked and we were just ignored.

Miss Weekes: Do you see why I ask? Of course, let us have another independent person, but should we not carefully analyse what we have got already? Would that independent person overlap the role that a Police Federation can play?

A. Yes, possibly.

Miss Weekes: So is it that the Police Federation are not effective enough, they are being ignored too, which is why you are saying, "Well, actually, I do need this other completely different independent person", because the Police Federation in your case appears not to have done what you would have wanted?

A. No. The Police Federation have been absolutely fantastic with my case –

Miss Weekes: Right. But you still want an independent person?

A. The Federation are looking at what has happened to the officer, but they also have to look back into the organisation when it comes to rank. We are a disciplined organisation.

Interestingly, my Federation representative is a constable, and I have chosen a constable because actually I want somebody who knows what they are doing and is good. Rank is not an issue when it comes to it. However, if a constable is sitting on a gold group with a commander, and having sat and been patronised by a senior officer – [Redacted]– the difficulty is, is a constable having enough clout to be able to say, "Hang on a second, I do not agree with what you are doing." If it was a member of the community or somebody else, I think they might have a bit more – I do not see that you would be able to patronise or outrank an independent person. So rank is an issue, obviously, within our organisation.

Miss Weekes: Right. So this independent person, member of the community, there would not be that issue with the senior officer on the gold group?

A. I think it would be more difficult, because you obviously would not be able to outrank them, and I think that a member of the community may actually question if they felt that they were being undermined on a gold group.

Miss Weekes: So there is, then, an issue of the possible ineffective role of a Police Federation rep if there is rank?

A. Yes. As I say, I have a constable. I contacted the Inspectors Federation originally, and I am not sure how the Inspectors Federation works, to be honest with you. It has got to be role not rank, and I think what has got to be identified by the Metropolitan Police Service is that they will say, "It does not matter about chairs of associations; they can be sergeants, they can be PCs, they are inclusive", yet as Federation representative there are issues, yes, around – well, my belief – I cannot, obviously, speak for anybody else – my belief, yes, there are going to be issues around rank.

What it needs to be is, the Metropolitan Police Service must say, "This is the Federation representative; rank does not come into it. That person is trained, they are effective, they are efficient and they are there for the right reasons". That would be fantastic, and it would be lovely if the lesson learned from this is that that is one of the things that does happen.

Miss Weekes: What is the most important point, from your experience, today that you want us to consider?

A. Equality, treating everybody fairly. Stop appeasing people; stop trying to whip up some sort of frenzy because it is about race; stop witch-hunts, and try and treat everybody fairly so that everybody has an opportunity to be heard and has an opportunity to be found guilty, not have to prove their innocence.

There is going to be a situation where, if I am found guilty – if I had have done what I was alleged to have done, I should have been sacked. I would not sit here today if I was guilty of anything. But if somebody is innocent, the Metropolitan Police Service have got to stand up and have the strength to say, "Sorry, this person has not done anything wrong".

Obviously I will have an opportunity at some stage to say something, but I was given – I was not given – allegedly I was given words of advice, that I have not received because they were inarticulate, and I asked for them to be in writing. Rather than appeasing an association and saying, "Okay, we cannot say nothing has happened; this officer has been found unsubstantiated, she has done nothing wrong, let us move on", it is around appeasing: "Well, let us do something, it keeps everybody happy". You cannot treat anybody like that because it is wrong, fundamentally wrong.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: Okay. That takes us to the end of the questions that we wanted to put to you, Miss Pendry, but you recall that in my introduction I said that at the end of the questioning we would indeed offer you the opportunity to make any closing comments, if you so wish. If you do want to make any closing comments, this is your moment.

Miss Pendry: Thank you very much, sir. I promise I will be short and succinct.

Sir William Morris: Take what time you need.

Miss Pendry: As this case has all been around perceptions, I will be reading from a piece of paper.

Sir William Morris: That is fine.

Closing comments by Miss Pendry

Miss Pendry: I am sitting here before you today because a constable with only [Redacted] experience of policing and no experience in policing processions completely misunderstood what I said at a briefing. An officer, who at the time was [Redacted], then escalated this complaint. I was then subjected to a harrowing ordeal where I found myself facing possible suspension and discipline.

During this time, [Redacted] [Redacted] were all baying for my blood, all of them ignoring Recommendation 1 of the 2001 MPA Virdi Inquiry report. The reason I was subjected to such atrocious behaviour by some very senior officers is, in my perception, due to their institutionalised cowardice when facing a complaint connected with race. They failed to support me and allowed me to be used as political pawn.

My feeling of isolation and humiliation further escalated when the gold group was not only held at the station where I worked but the complainant was allowed to sit on the group in judgment of me and my career. [Redacted] He stated:

"Lots and lots of problems which we have come across are very, very minor problems which become major problems because of the lack of handling. If there was a mechanism whereby people could actually sit around a table and sort it out at a very, very early stage, then people can sort it out, people can talk about it, like I said, the whole process becomes the big thing."

I am astounded that he could [Redacted] say one thing yet in practice do another. He could and he should have resolved this misunderstanding at the time. This was his responsibility as a supervising officer.

All allegations against me were unsubstantiated, as they should have been, yet [Redacted] still felt it necessary to appease [Redacted] and decided that I should receive words of advice on a perception of my words alone. This has never been done before.

As this had never been done before, [Redacted] requested that legal advice be sought; this was denied. At my meeting with him he was unable to articulate the words of advice. I therefore asked for them to be given to me in writing. To this day, I do not know what the words of advice were for and I am still waiting to receive them in writing. As far as I am concerned, I have been given words of advice for stating that my children do not always wash their hands, which I find bizarre.

At the end of the investigation I was subjected to an hour and three quarter interview with [Redacted] of the gold group, where I was forced to justify a past personal relationship. My private life was then scrutinised by him in an attempt to block my promotion and transfer, and this came about because a member of an association challenged the fact that I was going to be promoted and posted. I find this absolutely appalling.

Finally, I remain appalled, horrified and disappointed by the treatment accorded to me by the Metropolitan Police Service. I have 21 years' unblemished service and have displayed total dedication and loyalty to the MPS since I was 17 years old. I can also evidence numerous occasions throughout my service where I have challenged inappropriate and racist comments, attitudes and behaviour. To be put in a position where I have been branded a racist and have been forced to fight to prove my innocence has completely altered my view of the Metropolitan Police.

Thank you.

Sir William Morris: Well, that brings us to the end of your contribution this morning, but can I, before you leave, take the opportunity to thank you for your written submission and for taking the time to come and give us some evidence this morning and to thank you for your overall contribution to our work. Thank you very much indeed.

Miss Pendry: Thank you sir. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here.

Sir William Morris: We will adjourn the hearing until 2 pm this afternoon.

11.40 am
(The short adjournment)

On this website:

• Evidence: Chief Inspector J Pendry
  Evidence provided by and documents referred to by Chief Inspector J Pendry in her appearance at the Inquiry.