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 It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.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 Deputy Assistant Commissioner B Paddick on 26 May 2004.

Sections available here:

• Transcript of public session: Deputy Assistant Commissioner B Paddick
  • Questions by Sir William Morris
  • Questions by Miss Weekes
  • Questions by Sir William Morris
  • Closing comments by Mr Paddick

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

Transcript of public session: Deputy Assistant Commissioner B Paddick

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

Wednesday, 26 May 2004
2pm

Sir William Morris: Mr Paddick, good afternoon to you. Good afternoon, everyone, welcome back.

Could I, first of all, say thank you very much indeed for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this afternoon and to give evidence. Thank you also for letting us have your written submission, which we have found extremely helpful.

I do appreciate that perhaps not your good self, but for some of our witnesses the process that we follow might seem 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 afternoon.

First, let me introduce my members of the panel. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. On my right is Sir Anthony Burden, again recently retired Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary, after a very long and distinguished service in the post. On my left is Miss Anesta Weekes. Anesta is an eminent barrister and sits as a recorder and part-time chairperson of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

Mr Paddick, you know that we have been tasked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent Inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in 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 recent experience as a high profile case.

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

We are very keen to enquire into the issues raised by our terms of reference in order that we can make the appropriate recommendations for further good practice rather than concentrate on merely making criticisms of the MPS as an organisation and the individuals within it.

Whilst we want to hear what is wrong with the Met, if anything is wrong with it, we also want to hear what is right with it, and we are satisfied that there are some things that are right with it. But more 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, Mr Paddick, because we have read your written submission most carefully and we have also commissioned a report from an independent investigator, which you have seen, I hope, and so we have a very clear idea of events.

We wrote asking you to focus on particular areas and these were also mirrored in the issues we asked our independent investigator to address.

Against that background, what we want to do this afternoon is to ask you a few further questions so that you and the panel can focus on the issues where we believe you can help us most.

At the end of these introductory remarks, one of my colleagues will lead on the questions to you, followed by the remainder of the panel if there are any supplementary questions that we feel might be relevant. When we have completed asking all our questions, I will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment, if you so wish.

Let me just point out to you, for the purpose of the record, that a transcript is being taken for the purpose of ensuring that we have a proper record of the evidence given by all our witnesses. We want you to be able to speak freely to us about your experience so we can identify lessons for the future, but, as I have said, our remit is, by the way, pointed at the organisation, how it operates, and not the details of other individuals who form part of your experience.

Whilst we will be publishing the transcript of this hearing, together with your written submissions and our investigator's report shortly, following this session, we will only do so after we have taken out all references to the names or other details of others which may be mentioned to us. We will then publish the transcript but in a form which does not identify other individuals.

I am sure you will understand that it may also be necessary for us to seek further clarification from others about what you have said to us in your written submission and what you may tell us today.

Before we begin our questions, for the benefit of the transcript notes, I wonder whether you would mind formally introducing yourself to the Inquiry?

A. My name is Brian Paddick. I am now a Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, working in the territorial policing business group.

Sir Bill, I wonder if I can just make a couple of points to begin with.

First is to congratulate you on your EMMA award. Very well deserved.

Sir William Morris: Thank you.

A. I was somewhat dismayed to receive the "independent consultants' report" from the Inquiry. It did seem to me to be rather bizarre, in an Inquiry where some people would suggest the Police Service does not know how to deal with diversity effectively, that the Inquiry is employing retired police officers to carry out investigations into these cases; that is a general point.

The second point is that in this particular report, there are a number of inaccuracies. For example, in the introduction it says that the alleged criminal offence that I was accused of –

Sir William Morris: Could I help you here, because I will be going on to the point of inviting you to give your assessment of our investigator's report.

A. Right, fine.

Sir William Morris: So we will take it at the appropriate point.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Thank you, in any event. But might I just start, first, by referring again to the report to which you have just made reference and to formally say that a copy was in fact provided to you. As you will have seen, we have not asked the investigators to conduct a full case review; that was not their task. We asked them merely to provide us with answers to those questions that we wanted to ask about each of the high profile cases. So I repeat again, it was not a full case review.

Whilst I do not intend you to go into the details, nevertheless I think it would be helpful if you could let us have your overall impression of the report and indicate whether you believe it is a fair analysis of your case and the experiences which underpins that.

A. Thank you. The first point to be made is that the substantive criminal offence of which I was accused was actually possession of cannabis and smoking cannabis, not allowing premises to be used; that was a secondary issue. And therefore in that important respect, to begin with, it is not accurate.

In order to support a point about whether or not the allegations formed a proper basis for investigation, and in order to support the police authority's view that the matter should be investigated, the consultant talks about a newspaper article published in the Daily Mail on 25th April 2002 "Paddick Whitewash" as saying that this just shows that a formal investigation was necessary because, and I quote:

"Mr Paddick will also be aware that after the investigation was completed and he was formally cleared, a national newspaper still published that headline."

That headline was published some six months before the investigation was concluded and the result was made known. My argument would be that it matters not whether or not there is a formal investigation of these allegations, the newspapers will publish what they will in any event.

Overall, my impression is that the major points that I made in my submission around the relative unfairness, the lack of understanding of minorities by the Police Service, are not addressed in this report; nor would I expect them to be by a retired police [Redacted] who, presumably, has considerable experience in the Police Service.

There appears, at least at the moment, to be an overall lack of understanding and even a fear of dealing with people from minority groups, whether it is my own, [Redacted] or any other minority group. And therefore the whole essence of my submission appears to be missed by this report.

Sir William Morris: Thank you for your response. We note the points you have made. Let me just repeat again that this was not a full case review, and your submission, as you have indicated, is an extremely informative document, insofar as the issues are relevant to our terms of reference, and we sought to have areas on which we wanted to develop further clarity by asking specific questions of the investigators and they have addressed those.

Insofar as the press report is concerned, again, your point is well registered. Press reports have arisen within the evidence that we have heard from other witnesses, and it is an issue which has yet to be explored not in the context as a specific witness but in the overall context as part of the public information, the right of the public to know, and the contribution that the press makes to detection and prevention of crime. So we have not dismissed the relevance of the MPS's relationship with the press in respect of cases, but that is an issue in which further exploration will take place, but we do note and take your points.

Could I invite Miss Weekes to lead off for us on the questions relevant to the areas to be covered this afternoon.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you.

Mr Paddick, can I begin by making it clear that the factual background to the allegations, allegations of a criminal nature, allegations of misconduct brought against you in 2002, are really very well-known and very well publicised, so I am not actually going to go back to the detail. But just for the purposes of today's hearing I am actually going to read from your submission because I believe you have very succinctly and adequately summarised it in three sentences.

It will come up on the screen for you, it is BXP13, down to the bottom of the page, paragraph 21:

"In summary, a series of relatively minor, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated criminal and disciplinary offences were alleged against me by a jilted ex-partner with an axe to grind who was paid £100,000 to make them."

That is really it in summary, is it not? That is the beginning of what was a very unpleasant time for you in the Metropolitan Police Service.

Can I summarise, if I may, the main points only of the investigative procedure, the main points only.

Those allegations were thoroughly investigated. The result was no criminal proceedings or charges, no disciplinary misconduct proceedings; that is right, is it not?

A. That is right.

Miss Weekes: During the investigation you were removed from your post and not allowed to return to it even though you were vindicated.

A. That is correct.

Q. You say, again adequately and succinctly in your submission, that where the allegation of misconduct matters were investigated, they were investigated immediately, but where there were allegations made by – I will refer to them as a member of the public, and there were two of them – to the press, the investigation was quite exhaustive; that is the word that you have used.

Where those allegations to the press were false and malicious, you invited the Metropolitan Police Service to investigate the source but there was no investigation. That is just the main summary of the process that you went through.

The purpose of my questions today is to elicit a number of very important issues arising from your experience at being on the receiving end of a complaint, but also, quite importantly, your present experience of having survived that experience to remain in the service, rising now to the rank of Deputy Assistant Commissioner. How long have you been in that post of Deputy Assistant Commissioner?

A. I was promoted in January of this year.

Miss Weekes: January of this year. Which leads me on to a question which rather reflects something the Chairman said: we are here also to find out what is good about the Metropolitan Police and not just what is bad about it. Despite your experience, you clearly have not left the force, you have now been promoted to a very senior rank. It may seem an odd question to ask, but I hope you will understand why I ask it. What have you enjoyed about your time at the Metropolitan Police and why have you still remained, despite what happened?

A. I think the reason why I have not, on a number of occasions, pursued an alternative career, because that is what I felt I had to do, was because I believed that by leaving the service I could not be as effective a change agent as I could by remaining. There were lots of things that I thought were wrong, particularly in the way that we dealt with people, particularly the way we dealt with people from minority backgrounds, and I felt that I had something significant to contribute around dealing with people more fairly, and so I decided to stay in the service for that purpose.

What I have really enjoyed about the service is that people recognise – it is a double-edged coin, I am afraid – people recognise when you deal with people fairly, and you get a reputation, particularly amongst rank and file officers, for being fair, and people ask for cases to be adjudicated by you because they are confident of a fair outcome.

The other side of the coin is that it is an indictment of the Police Service that somebody who treats people fairly is singled out for praise, whereas it should be the norm for the whole organisation.

Miss Weekes: I am very grateful for that comment. It is obvious from what you say that you would agree with me that there are pockets of good practice and there are pockets of bad practice.

A. Yes, I would say that was the case.

Miss Weekes: I want to come back to that in almost all the areas we are going to cover, and the first is the whole question about the need for an independent person to bring to bear another view of why people are charged with allegations of misconduct and/or discipline, and that the decision around do you investigate, is not always left to police officers on the inside.

Am I right? I think your submissions raise that very point?

A. Yes, I have suggested that, even at a relatively minor and junior level, where a supervisor is making a decision whether or not to invoke a formal discipline procedure or deal with the matter informally, there should either be access for that senior officer to independent advice around that decision and/or the ability of the officer accused to challenge the decision made; for example, if it is to go to formal discipline, where the officer feels the matter could and should be dealt with informally. And there are a number of reasons why I believe that should be the case.

Miss Weekes: Perhaps we will deal with your reasons as you are going on to them now. Please feel free to say what they are.

A. There is an issue where some officers in supervisory positions are afraid to deal with people from minority backgrounds. They would rather not make the decision themselves; they are concerned about either making the wrong decision or being seen to be overly liberal, or exercising favouritism towards people from minority groups. Giving those officers the confidence of independent advice would help the right decision to be made. Clearly, it would be better if we had an organisation where people felt confident and comfortable enough to make the decisions no matter what the background of the accused officer was, but that is not the situation that we are in.

At a more senior level, and if we look at the high profile cases that I know you are going to be looking at, including mine, then issues around politics, issues around the reputation of the service come into what should be, in my view, a decision purely made on the basis of fairness, justice and the facts. And it is very difficult for senior officers who are charged with guardianship of the reputation of the Police Service to make a completely independent, objective decision on the basis of the facts. They are looking at the same time at, well, what is the public reaction going to be? What is the press reaction going to be if I say, for example in my case, that these allegations are clearly malicious? I am not going to say that they should not be investigated, or that the officer should continue exactly in the role and in the rank that they are currently in whilst the matter is being investigated.

They are not in a completely independent position where they can make that decision. They have these other factors to take into account. And if they were able to pass that decision to somebody completely independent – and I am afraid to say the Police Authority is also in a similar position in terms of defending the reputation of the Metropolitan Police Service, albeit one removed from it – there are again political considerations to play. If you have a completely independent person that those very difficult decisions can be referred to, then the decision can be made purely on the basis of fairness, justice and the facts.

Miss Weekes: Thank you for that. I want to come to practically how this will work and where one is going to find this independent person in a moment. But may I just test a little of what you have just said.

If what you say is right, is that an indictment against the Metropolitan Police, that there are not sufficient individuals within it who can be independent, who can bring to bear independence of thought, although they are serving senior police officers, when decisions are made about the very important issue of who is disciplined or not? Because if that is right, that is what the indictment is, is it not?

A. What I would say is that senior police officers are charged with, amongst other things, upholding the reputation and public confidence in the Police Service of which they are responsible, in which they are at a high rank, and it is as much of their responsibility, their formal responsibility, to defend, come what may, that reputation as it is to make absolutely the right decision for that particular individual accused of that particular thing. And it is something that they have to balance.

There are a lot of senior officers, and people outside the Police Service, who would say that the overriding responsibility is to protect the reputation of the Police Service even if it means that an individual has to go through a very unpleasant, and what some people would say is a very unfair, treatment. That is where the rub is. I think you need to have somebody who does not have to think about those issues of public confidence and public reputation of the Police Service, who can make those decisions purely on a judicial view.

Miss Weekes: But, of course, you will know that a number of large public organisations outside of the Metropolitan Police go through this process all the time, every day, every month. Surely the Met are capable of doing that?

A. I think people in senior positions in the Met are absolutely capable of making a decision purely based on what is fair and right for the individual, but they would see that they have another responsibility which in certain circumstances may override that.

Miss Weekes: Is your real complaint that often the balance of what the public expect, standards of professional behaviour, protecting the reputation of the Metropolitan Police and the individual fairness, justice and due process, is often not quite right? Is that not the real meat of your complaint?

A. I would say that was the case.

Miss Weekes: All right. Because you would not want anyone to say that, as a Deputy Assistant Commissioner, you could not bring a balance in a decision-making process when you have got to consider the reputation of the Metropolitan Police and individual fairness.

A. I would take an alternative view, and I would say that the way in which to enhance the public confidence in the Police Service is being seen on every occasion to treat every individual fairly and justly.

Miss Weekes: Well, let us go to who it would be, because suggestions for reform, suggestions to improve the system do not work if they are simply left on paper; they do need to have practical application, they need to be workable and they need to fit in with the operational duties and service commands of the Metropolitan Police. So where do you suggest the independent persons will come from to make decisions on often a large number of allegations and complaints made against police officers of all ranks?

A. I think the volumes are something that need to be explored. What I am looking at, really, is not the majority of cases. What I am looking at is cases particularly involving minority staff where supervising officers or more senior officers find themselves in need of some independent advice. And so the process would be on the basis of the officer making the decision about whether something should be formally investigated or whether it should go to formal discipline or not, or an officer who feels aggrieved that the thing is going to formal discipline but the accused officer does not believe that it should go to formal discipline. It is only in those cases that the cases are actually referred to the independent body. And it may be that an expansion of the Independent Police Complaints Commission to provide that additional service in addition to the ones that they already provide may be a way forward.

Miss Weekes: Okay. And at what stage would you say it would be appropriate for that source of independence to be accessed, as it were? We know that all investigations must produce an investigating officer's report before the decision is made as to whether or not charges of misconduct and/or discipline are brought. Would that be an appropriate stage to disclose the investigating officer's report to all parties, and if there is then a complaint raised by the officer complained about, you can draw in your suggestions of independence.

A. It is interesting because my reading of the history that arrives at the point of the Morris Inquiry is not necessarily about people who, at the end of an investigation, have been charged where they should not have been, or indeed that police disciplinary tribunals of senior officers are coming to the wrong conclusions, are finding people guilty who are in fact innocent. The issue is around whether or not something should be formally investigated or not, and the nature and extent of that investigation, particularly a view that some investigations against certain people are disproportionate to the allegation that is made.

Therefore, the intervention of the independent person would be at the time that the initial allegations are put to the accused officer. At that stage, where the supervising officer at whatever level has to make a decision, "Do I appoint an investigating officer to deal with this or do I deal with it informally?" or, once that decision has been made, if the officer believes, "Well, this is ridiculous, this is a sledge hammer to crack a nut to appoint an investigating officer with all that that entails, months and months of investigation and so forth", for that officer to have access to an independent review of the decision to send that matter to investigation.

Miss Weekes: I see. Of course, we must not forget – and correct me if I am wrong because you will be much more familiar with the procedure – once an allegation has been made, there is an onus on the Metropolitan Police to investigate; you agree with that. That officer is not going to know one way or another whether indeed to appoint somebody to investigate unless he knows the nature of the allegation.

A. Hmm.

Miss Weekes: There will have to be some sort of requirement that every officer speaks at that stage and says, "Now let me help you, this allegation is baseless and I will tell you why; here is my full explanation on where I think it has come from". You and I both know that not all officers will wish to give an explanation at that stage, so you are leaving your investigating officer, or the officer in charge of doing something with the allegation, high and dry. He needs some help.

A. Sure, and I think that would have to be part of the process. An officer cannot appeal against a decision for an allegation to be formally investigated. Clearly, there are legal obligations if the complaint is made by a member of the public, as opposed to an internal discipline, and a lot of the problems, a lot of the complaints have been around internal discipline issues rather than complaints from members of the public. But clearly, if an officer does not co-operate at that stage – and when you are served with a notice outlining what the allegations are, you are given the opportunity either then or within a period of time to fully respond to the allegations and explain, "Look, this is the score, this is where it has come from, and that is why it should not be investigated", which is what I did. That was decided not to be adequate, an eight month investigation, to come to the conclusions that I put very early on in the process.

Miss Weekes: Yes. So, clearly, your suggestion will work very well where all officers are immediately of assistance by giving a full and frank explanation?

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: But they, at the moment, have their rights, they are entitled to legal representation, legal advice.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: So the system may not even work at that stage with your very helpful – and I perfectly understand them – suggestions for change.

A. And indeed, I had [Redacted] as my friend, my formal friend in this process, and [Redacted] is of the view, and I am of the view that as serving police officers, notwithstanding our rights, there is also an obligation to explain our behaviour. So when allegations are made, to give an explanation. And therefore throughout this investigation, we were completely open with our explanation of what had taken place.

Clearly, if an officer decides, as they quite rightly do, and often it is the advice, sometimes I think unhelpfully, from the Police Federation or the legal people who advise the Police Federation, not to say anything at all, then clearly it would be very difficult for anybody to make a decision not to formally investigate that matter. I think failing to account for behaviour at that early stage would necessarily mean a formal investigation.

Miss Weekes: Yes. How can we improve on that? Because one has to respect the rights of the officer to remain silent, if that is the legal process which we have. Do you suggest that is changed?

A. I think there is a bit of chicken and egg here. If officers and the Police Federation formed the view that following the implementation of the recommendations that you will make as a result of this Inquiry they can have more confidence in the police complaints and discipline system, there may be more willingness to be open with investigating officers at an earlier stage. But it has to be made clear to officers that, yes, they do have the right to remain silent, and it is a bit like somebody who pleads guilty in court rather than contesting it and whether any credit is given to a person who admits an offence early on. We would not want to unfairly encourage officers to give up their right to remain silent. On the other hand, if they have nothing to hide, then why should they not foreshorten the process, obviate the need for a formal investigation by, at a very early stage, offering a very full explanation for what took place.

Miss Weekes: Again, on the same lines of the independence of the process someone may ask this question: well, why do you need an independent person to have a look at the decision whether or not to investigate when you have a Police Federation? You pay your dues to the Police Federation; why do they not play that role, Mr Paddick?

A. Because the Police Federation do not have sway in order to decide whether a formal investigation goes ahead or not. They are seen as playing a part in an adversarial system where their job is to get the person off the charge and it is the management's responsibility to make the charge stick, and in that sort of adversarial system an application from the Federation that this matter should not be investigated for this, that and the other reason would not necessarily be convincing to the investigating officer. Whereas if it was a completely independent person who is looking at the allegation and the explanation, then I would have thought it would be a far more defensible position for that independent person to make that position than the Police Federation.

Miss Weekes: What about the role of the Police Federation in relation to the process of discipline and the process of investigation? We heard from a witness this morning – you may or may not have read the transcript; it is not quite on yet, but perhaps you were here, I do not know – when she had received a complaint against her, she requested the attendance of her Federation representative. He was not in fact allowed in to a gold group meeting, and in any event, this particular female officer had great reservation as to whether or not his views would be given due respect because he was a sergeant and the person in charge of the gold group was at commander level.

Does that meet with your experience of the role played by representatives like the Police Federation and the issue of rank?

A. I would say not. The chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation is much lower rank than the Commissioner and yet the Commissioner listens very intently to what the chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation says. I think it is more around nervousness and lack of trust –

Miss Weekes: Nervousness on whose behalf?

A. On behalf of senior officers, who are very concerned about people from the Federation being party to those sort of sensitive discussions.

I take a slightly different, my colleagues might say naive view that these people are performing a professional role and that they are to be trusted until proved otherwise.

Miss Weekes: Of course I want to make it clear that I know you would not have been in your senior rank represented by a Federation member; would that be right?

A. That is right, I am not a member of the Federation, yes.

Miss Weekes: I wanted to ask the question generally, not in relation to yourself.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: Just moving on from the question of independence, I am very grateful for your views on that, I want to, again, deal with the whole question of discipline and complaints in relation to the Taylor Review. Are you familiar with the Taylor Review? William Taylor was formerly the chief inspector of the Constabulary of Scotland and he was asked to look at the Lancet series of cases and to review them and to make recommendations as to how such cases, which were serious allegations of corruption, should be dealt with, and he made a number of recommendations. Just because I know you would not have looked at them recently, we are just going to bring that up so that we can take on board your views in the light of what should now be in place.

The Metropolitan Police have told us that they have adopted these recommendations. You have very helpfully referred to the immediate initial stage when an allegation is received and a decision has to be made about what happens to it, and I am now looking at 7.2:

"Just as with any allegation of crime, irrespective of the alleged offender, the initial action is critical to a successful outcome, whether that be to confirm or not actual criminality; sometimes described as the golden hour. It is vital that well established and practiced mechanisms are in place to guide what action should be taken at the point of reporting or discovering of a possible criminal offence or serious misconduct."

If we just go over, if we may, to 117/24, we will see here – yes, we have got it here, "The Scope of the Allegation". If we can move and look at 10.1:

"While emphasising the importance of appropriate early and preemptive action, it is also recognised that it is vital to scope the allegation. Experience gathered over a period of time, particularly from those forces that have investigated substantial dedicated resources, suggest that an initial assessment should be made prior to launching a full-scale investigation into serious allegations."

Just cast your eye over to the recommendation:

"It is recommended that a model be developed to guide the scope and scale of a complaints investigation similar to the framework applied in murder investigations."

I thought it right, Mr Paddick, just to put that on the table whilst we discuss the importance of your views about how one might improve discipline and complaints investigations.

Are you aware as to whether or not these recommendations are being adopted? Because it may be that you do not deal with discipline and complaints, so please tell me if you do not and I will not pursue the line of questioning.

A. I do not deal with the investigation of complaints; I only sit on police discipline tribunals.

Miss Weekes: Okay. Are you aware, because these recommendations go back some two years now – 2002 – are you aware as to whether or not there are very clear signs that this is the new approach being taken to decisions to investigate misconduct and discipline?

A. I do not think it has been made blatantly obvious to those outside of complaints and discipline investigation. I certainly have not heard of it.

Miss Weekes: Right, although, as I say, it has been in existence for about two years. Well, that is quite an important comment that we will bear in mind.

Having briefly read what I have read, would you agree that that is a good way to approach all issues of complaints and allegations against officers and staff?

A. Yes, indeed.

Miss Weekes: And if that were in place when your situation arose, you may well have thought you were dealt with in a much fairer way.

A. Yes, to some extent, in terms of appropriately evaluating exactly what the nature and extent of the allegation is, the credence that should be attached to it and so forth. However, it would not deal with the issue of considerations that senior officers have to take into account, and even the Police Authority have to take into account, which are nothing to do with the facts of the allegation but refer to the reputation of the Police Service and other political considerations which go beyond what the allegation actually is.

Miss Weekes: I want to come to a very important aspect you have raised and I intended to raise with you about the sensitivity sometimes said to be overly so when managers deal with issues of race, gender, religion, sexuality, disability. I just want to refer to what you yourself have said about this, if we can turn to your page BXP1/5, paragraph 30:

"Another reason for apparently unfair decisions being made to investigate allegations of misconduct may arise out of fear of difference. A culture has developed within the MPS where many staff are wary of becoming involved with any case, particularly those involving complaints and discipline issues, that involve minority staff. As a consequence, such cases are automatically and often inappropriately dealt with by way of formal investigation since this course of action passes the decision-making responsibility to someone else."

And this is your suggestion:

"A CPS type process where wholly independent advice can be provided to line managers as to whether a misconduct case is appropriate for informal disposal should stop the inappropriate resorting to formal discipline and provide reassurance to all parties that an appropriate conclusion has been reached."

Before coming to this CPS type approach, someone may say to you, "Well, come, come, are you not moving the responsibility for managing staff away from managers?" After all, if you are in a position to manage, that is what you should do. Is that not a valid criticism?

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: Well, why can managers not manage? And if they do not manage, why does not somebody do something about it?

A. I think there needs to be a step change in the culture of the Police Service, including, if not particularly, amongst senior police officers, before we are in a situation where minority staff can feel confident that they are being treated entirely appropriately, not in the same way as majority group officers; that is not appropriate. But the fact that there is this culture of fear around difference that has developed within the Metropolitan Police Service, I have to say that that is my only experience, I cannot talk about other police services. I do not know how long that would take to do if and when the most senior officers in the Metropolitan Police Service decide that such a change needs to be made.

I do not know what damage might be done in terms of how minority staff feel about the way they are being treated in the intervening period.

So, in an ideal world, what we would want is supervisors who are making these discipline decisions to be absolutely confident in their dealings with minority officers and therefore making exactly the appropriate decisions at every level.

But in any event, it still might be helpful to have access to independent advice. At the end of the day, it is very difficult for anybody who is not from the minority group in question to fully understand the position that the minority member of staff is in.

Miss Weekes: Well, let us just see. There are 14 staff associations which cover the breadth of minority groups that you would expect to be in the Met, and it rather mirrors the minorities outside of the Met in ordinary life. Well, any line manager has access to any one of those staff associations, do they not, for advice?

A. I am sure any line manager who approached any of those associations for advice, the association would be more than willing to help them.

Miss Weekes: That is a form of independent advice, is it not?

A. Well, there are two things to say about that. One is, where there is a climate of fear in dealing with difference, then there are very few line managers who would have the confidence to approach a staff association, particularly when they were considering a disciplinary issue against a minority member of staff, to approach them for advice. The second issue is that there is still the possibility of the staff associations, the support organisations, being seen in a similar way to the Federation is seen, as being on the other side in an adversarial process, and therefore the perception may be that they are not entirely independent.

What I would say was, if I had a very difficult decision, if I did not know what to do about a Caribbean-origin member of staff that I had to make a decision on as far as discipline was concerned, then I would enquire with the Black Police Association as to what their view was to balance what might be my inappropriate understanding of all the relevant factors pertaining to that minority member of staff.

Miss Weekes: Well, let us deal with the officers who have genuine fear. I use the word "genuine" because it seems to me that that is what I should use at this stage, not being able to comment any differently about where that fear comes from.

Many officers in the police force, and some will say particularly after the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, have genuine fear and reservations about dealing with race issues, gender issues, women and ethnic minority people. It is unacceptable and unhealthy for that fear to remain. So I take on board your views about access to independent advice, but if that officer does not go for the independent advice, the fear remains locked and the damage can be done.

So what are your views about how we can release the fear?

A. Well, it is simply a question of taking the issue of diversity more seriously than the Metropolitan Police Service has up until now. We have done some things, and the progress that we have made, for example in the way that we deal with victims of crime who come from minorities – victims of hate crime, for example – we have made extraordinary progress on those issues.

But when it comes to dealing with perpetrators, whether it is members of the public who were accused of committing criminal offences or whether it is members of staff who were being accused of a discipline offence, then that is a neglected area, and we need to really do something serious around changing the culture of the Metropolitan Police Service away from this trend has been done around: well, you have got to be sensitive around wearing your boots in a prayer room, which is important information but that is not the essence of giving officers confidence to be able to deal appropriately with people; it is more around getting away from – it is just a complete change of mind-set is required.

Miss Weekes: May I put what might be the words of a line manager who is frightened and who actually deep down does know that he or she does not always deal very well with it because they are frightened. They might say this: "Well, of course I know that there are these policies that deal with diversity, and in fact I hear nothing but diversity all the time; it is the biggest, most publicised policy in the Met. But when it comes to the day-to-day, and when I face the issue, I am not actually sure how I should play it because no one has actually told me. The leadership in the middle and the borough commanders simply say, 'That is the policy, it is really important, get on with it', but nobody to date has actually helped me about practically how I do it."

Would that be a wildly wrong comment that a line manager might make?

A. I think that would be very accurate.

Miss Weekes: Well, what actually is the leadership then doing about dealing with those who genuinely get it wrong and want to genuinely get it right?

A. That is a very good question.

Miss Weekes: Who manages the managers in the Met?

A. Managers manage the managers, so more senior officers manage the managers.

Miss Weekes: Do you think that process is adequate?

A. In terms of the effort that is applied to certain areas, yes, and if you look at the performance of the Metropolitan Police Service against crime, for example, some extraordinarily good results are being produced, and the leadership that is given from the very top of the service down through the ranks is producing excellent crime reduction results. If a similar amount of effort, or an appropriate amount of effort was given to leading in that way around diversity issues and treating people fairly, then I think you could achieve similarly spectacular results in terms of the way minority staff are being treated.

Miss Weekes: I have two others issues, if I may, which arise which are quite important. Just generally, the use of police efficiency regulations; you are familiar with that regulation. We have had a number of people say that it is underused. This may be a way of dealing with the performance of managers on any issue, whether it be dealing with some of the sensitive issues we have raised. Do you agree that it is underused?

A. I would agree that it is underused. If you are suggesting that the inefficiency procedures are used against managers who do not appropriately deal with minority staff, then the people who are going to be making those decisions to invoke those procedures, who are themselves frightened to death of putting a foot wrong around diversity, are hardly in a position to implement the inefficiency procedure, which is generally not used very appropriately, but they are certainly not going to go anywhere near that one. You know, it almost magnifies the issue.

You are asking me, for example, to invoke the inefficiency procedure against a chief superintendent where I am not comfortable dealing with race issues, for example, and I am going to take them to task for not dealing with things appropriately?

Miss Weekes: Well, is there a way out of that difficulty?

A. You have got to start taking diversity issues seriously.

Miss Weekes: The press is the last topic I want to look at. I know that there is not very much one can do when a member of the public goes to the press with an unfounded allegation; that is always going to happen, whichever century you live in.

But, much more importantly, I would like your help with whether or not you think since the Virdi recommendations about the press strategy – shall I bring it up on screen just to remind ourselves of what those recommendations were, because steps have been taken to look at it.

Number 8, to the right:

"Press strategy should be adopted that explains how to deal effectively with race-specific and high profile cases using the learning from critical incident training. Includes the principles contained in the National Union of Journalistic Guidelines on Race Reporting. Does not compromise the principals of natural justice."

Again, just so that we are fair and we have put ourselves up to date, we have received a written submission from the Director of Public Affairs, and we will bring that up onto the screen, if we may, DXF1/2. If we move on to pages 1/2 – it should be the next page, I think – we see there, right at bottom of the page – I just want to summarise the policies in place at the moment. Here we are:

"The policies setting out the framework for the MPS handling of the media and the detail of our operating procedures are contained in three key documents..."

The National Association of Chief Police Officers' Media Guidelines, over the page. The second is the media policy. And over the page is the DPA Press Bureau instructions.

If we go down to "Strategy", paragraph 13:

"We work on a presumption that information should be made available to the public but recognise that sometimes this has to be balanced against other interests, including those of security, the due legal process and the rights of individuals involved."

You do not disagree with that?

A. No.

Miss Weekes: "We will not disclose information that would prejudice an investigation or the right to a fair trial and seek to balance the rights of an individual and victim against the wider public interest."

Do you think that that is what is done?

A. Not on every occasion, no.

Miss Weekes: Well, what happens on the occasions when it is not done? Because this is what the stated policy is.

A. At the end of the day, the overriding principle of protecting the reputation of the Metropolitan Police Service takes over, and whether it is done formally or informally, those laudable aims are overridden.

Miss Weekes: Yes. It is important, you would say, that of course access is given to the public which will give them confidence that when there are complaints that the Metropolitan Police are dealing with those complaints adequately, but the balance of the interest of the individual you think is not always respected?

A. No.

Miss Weekes: Well, who do you say then should be in charge of ensuring that further work is done on this area?

A. I think if you are talking about a review of these principles that the department of public affairs operate under, then they should be reviewed in conjunction with the support organisations to ensure that they are minority proofed, what we used to call race proofed but what I would now call minority proofed.

Miss Weekes: Just two final questions. Where allegations are malicious, they undoubtedly cause irreparable damage to the individual. Whether or not they are acquitted, you always feel that the rest of the world knows something about you which is entirely wrong.

Do you say that there is a role that the Metropolitan Police should play in trying to correct that somewhere out there the press have printed malicious information which is totally untrue and has damaged a police officer or staff?

A. Absolutely. In my own case, during the course of the investigation, a national newspaper repeatedly said that I had introduced the cannabis experiment into Lambeth without the authority of the Commissioner, and the department for public affairs made no attempt at all to correct that allegation, for example.

At the end of the day, in order to stop a certain national newspaper, or group of newspapers from continues to repeat allegations that I had been acquitted of in the course of a formal investigation, I had to sue the newspaper, which, if I had lost, would have cost me £400,000.

I had no support whatsoever from the Metropolitan Police Service or from the Metropolitan Police Authority in terms of taking that action. Yes, the Commissioner did make a statement, which was helpful in those proceedings, but in terms of – it was my responsibility to take that action; it was on my – I was liable for whatever the outcome was going to be of those proceedings, and I think that in those sort of circumstances, you are only in that position because of the position that you hold of senior rank within the Police Service. If I was a bus driver or in some other profession, this would not have arisen, therefore there is an obligation on the Metropolitan Police Service and the Metropolitan Police Authority to defend my position.

So, for example, when I am appointed Deputy Assistant Commissioner and a national newspaper alleges that I have only been promoted because I am gay, and I go to my press office, they turn round and say, "It is nothing to do with us, we did not promote you, the police authority did, go and talk to them", it is not, I think, an acceptable support from an officer who is under attack because he is a member of a minority group.

Miss Weekes: Have you in fact yourself made any suggestions about change in this area to your senior officers?

A. I have had discussions with some of my senior officers. The things I have said today about my concerns around diversity will not have come as a surprise to the most senior officers in the Metropolitan Police Service.

Miss Weekes: And has the reaction been positive so far?

A. The response has been in accordance with what I would have expected.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much, Mr Paddick.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: I said earlier, Mr Paddick, that either Sir Anthony or myself may have one or two supplementaries based on what you have said. I have a couple at least.

In your response to Miss Weekes' series of questions, I formed the view that you see the reputation of the Metropolitan Police Service, defending that reputation, as the overriding principle; is that right?

A. I would say that some senior officers take that view, except that they see that as an alternative to, in certain cases, treating the individual concerned entirely fairly.

Sir William Morris: What about your view? You said "some senior officers". What view do you take?

A. My view is that, if there is a reputation that the Metropolitan Police Service has that is in need of improving, it is the reputation that it has in the eyes of minority groups, whether it is the LGBT community or the Caribbean community, and therefore, being absolutely and unequivocally fair in dealing with people from those groups within their own ranks or within their own staff is a way in which you can enhance the reputation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the eyes of those groups.

I would see the two things as being consistent, as opposed to on occasions being opposite to each other.

Sir William Morris: Let us try and clarify the question in another way. Do you think the reputation of the Metropolitan Police should be defended at all costs?

A. No.

Sir William Morris: On the very same point, when you were responding to Miss Weekes' question about conduct and discipline, you said that in protecting the reputation of the service, individuals are sometimes treated unfairly; am I right in that?

A. Yes.

Sir William Morris: Okay. What are the sanctions in those circumstances against those who are responsible for the unfair treatment?

A. Very little, for two reasons. One is, in high profile cases it is the most senior officers who are making those decisions, or in my case the Police Authority. Who do I appeal to if I am unhappy with that? The Police Authority or the Commissioner; the people who are making those decisions. I do not know of an effective appeal process against those sorts of decisions that is available to me.

In terms of if it is more junior officers who have made decisions to pursue a particular exhaustive and inappropriate investigation against a minority member of staff, as I say, more senior officers would be reluctant to pursue an investigation of whether that was true or not because they themselves are uncomfortable in dealing with those minority issues.

Sir William Morris: Let us not just see it in the context of minority or majority issues, because what we are talking about here is the reputation of the service which is probably its most important asset, together with its people. There are a lot of people who are charged with the responsibility of protecting, promoting and defending that reputation. Sometimes they make extremely good decisions. Sometimes the law of averages says that they will make extremely bad decisions. When they make extremely good decisions they are sometimes rewarded for that. Do you think that when they make extremely bad decisions, particularly where it manifests itself in unfair treatment against an individual, there should be some sanctions against that?

A. Yes, I believe there should be.

Sir William Morris: Do you know of any circumstances in recent times where an extremely bad decision has been made and sanctions have been taken against the person responsible for that bad decision?

A. No, I do not know of any examples.

Sir William Morris: You do not. Okay.

Well, thank you very much indeed. I said I had a couple of supplementaries and I took three, I am sorry.

I said in the introduction that when we had completed our questions we would offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing statement, if you so wish. If you do, now is your moment.

Closing comments by Mr Paddick

Mr Paddick: I feel that I am in a position like one of our internal inspectors who goes around looking for things that need to be corrected, and it can come across as an extremely negative and jaundiced view of the organisation that I work for.

There are some extremely able and some extremely rightly motivated people within the organisation who, like me, are absolutely passionate about bringing about change within the organisation for the better, particularly around diversity. I would not want you to go away thinking that that is not the case.

We have made enormous progress in terms of the way that we treat people from minority backgrounds, both on the streets and within our own police stations and office buildings. There is an enormously long way to go.

Sir William Morris: Okay. Well, once again, let me, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, thank you for your written submission. Thank you too for the evidence that you have given us, and thank you for the contribution that you are making to the work of this Inquiry. We are extremely grateful to you. Thank you very much.

Mr Paddick: Thanks very much.

Sir William Morris: Okay, the Inquiry stands adjourned until Wednesday, 2nd June. Thank you.

3.15 pm
(The Inquiry adjourned until 10.30 am on Wednesday, 2nd June 2004)

On this website:

• Evidence: Deputy Assistant Commissioner B Paddick
  Evidence provided by and documents referred to by Deputy Assistant Commissioner B Paddick in his appearance at the Inquiry.