Transcript of public session: Superintendent A Dizaei

Monday, 7 June 2004
10.40 am

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

I appreciate that for some, and I emphasise some, of our witnesses the process might seem daunting, but in any event I think it would be helpful if I set out very briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this morning.

First, let me introduce myself and the other members of the panel. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. As you can see, there are two other members of the panel. On my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary after a very long and distinguished career in the Police Service, and on my left is Miss Anesta Weekes QC. Anesta is an eminent barrister and sits as a recorder and part-time chair person of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry.

Superintendent, as you know, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent Inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. 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 that we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial by nature or indeed 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 such as those who have been involved in high profile cases in order to understand how they are affected by the policies, the practices, the procedures and the convention that governs the way that the MPS operates and to learn lessons from their experience that will help to inform the future.

We are quite keen to enquire into those issues raised by the terms of reference so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice, rather than concentrate just on criticisms of the organisation, and in particular individuals.

As I have said to all our witnesses, we are keen to hear about what is wrong with the MPS as well as what is right with it, but equally important, we are keen to hear what needs to be done in order that we can make it better.

We have no wish to go back over the details of your experience, because we have read your written submission most carefully, and we have also commissioned a report from an independent investigator which you have seen, and therefore we have a fairly clear view of the events. Recently we wrote to you asking you to focus on some particular areas, and these were mirrored in the issues we asked our independent investigator to address. Drawing on all these, what we want to do this morning is to ask you some further questions so that you can focus on those issues where 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, who may or may not have some supplementaries. When we have completed our questions, we will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment, but for the record let me also draw to your attention that a transcript of our proceedings this morning is being taken so that we can have an accurate record of all the evidence given to us by all our witnesses. We hope that you will be able to speak freely to us today about your experience so that we can identify the lessons to be learned for the future. But as I have said, our remit is the way that the organisation operates, not the details about the individuals who form part of the story of your experience.

Whilst we will be publishing the transcript of this morning's hearing, together with your written submission and our investigator's report, shortly after this session, we will only do so after we have removed any reference to the names and other details of those you may mention so as to be sure that the published transcript contains no information which identifies individuals.

I am sure you will understand that it may also be necessary for us to seek further clarification from those whom you might mention this morning, and indeed from what you say through your written submission and what you tell us today.

Before I ask my colleagues to lead on our series of questions, could I ask for the benefit of the transcript if you would mind formally introducing yourself to the Inquiry?

A. My name is Ali Dizaei. I am a superintendent with the Metropolitan Police. I am also the legal adviser to the National Black Police Association and currently I am on the Strategic Command Course.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed.

Questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: Could I just say that in a minute I will invite Miss Weekes to lead on the series of questions that we want to explore with you, but may I start first by referring to our investigator's report, a copy of which has been provided to you.

As you will have seen, we have not asked the investigator to conduct a full case review. We merely asked the investigator to provide us with a series of answers to those questions that we wanted to ask in respect of the high profile cases. Whilst I do not expect that you will want to go into the details, nevertheless it would be helpful, I think, if you would let us have your overview, your overall impression of the report, and to give us an assessment as to how you see the report in the context of its fairness, its analysis of the issues.

A. Chairman, I will try to give briefly my assessment. Having read carefully the report, there are a number of inaccuracies within that which I think are quite pertinent. They may be unintentional, but nevertheless I think, because they are quite important inaccuracies, they need to be highlighted. That is one.

Two, there is a conspicuous absence of some key issues which I believe were within my submission mirrored in the submissions of the National Black Police Association and the Metropolitan Police Black Police Association, and indeed an issue which impacts the lives of many black staff in the country. That absence, I think, in the report is significant.

And thirdly, there is an overemphasis – a relatively minor matter when you then put it onto the scale – to sum up the difficult, sensitive issues which have been, in my opinion, conveniently left out. The comfortable, fanciful stuff has been teased out at certain junctures.

Overall, I think it is a very brief report, but I do take note that it is not a full review within the ACPO guidelines, and my general impression there seems to be a tendency to justify some of the actions rather than being open and impartial, and allow the panel for themselves to decide whether an action was justified or not. That is my understanding of a fair and balanced review, although I do understand that professional judgment is required when that is done.

I think it was a very difficult task, and I think overall it does raise some significant points which are well teased out, and I think many of the issues raised in there are indeed a surprise to me and astonishing to my legal team, having now been privy to them. So in that respect, I think it is good and positive.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. I would only repeat again that we have had significant written submissions from yourself, and indeed from other organisations, one of which you have made reference to. That said, it was not an exercise constituting a full case review. The report was constructed around the issues that we asked them to have a look at on the basis that it will inform our work, and it is a methodology to gain additional information to inform the process in which we are engaged. I am grateful for your response.

Could I, at this point, invite Miss Weekes to start leading on our questions to you, Dr Dizaei, please.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much. Good morning, Superintendent Dizaei.

A. Good morning.

Miss Weekes: I would just like to outline my approach, please, to the questions today. I am going to conduct a very, very brief overview of the investigation which resulted in a fairly lengthy suspension, a criminal trial for which you were acquitted, and your eventual reinstatement to your position, as you have told us today.

It is going to be very brief because indeed the facts are very well-known to you, and I support what the Chairman has said. The purpose of today is not to go back over that rather bad time for you; it is to have your assistance about the lessons to be learned, and I stress that that is the real purpose of my questions. But I do want to ask you about the overall conduct of investigations such as yours, so that is why I am going to go through a very, very brief history, if I may. So I will begin with that.

The initial impetus for the investigation against you began way back in October of 1998, really a long time ago now, and this was as a result of information received from an informant; it related to drugs. I am going to put it as simply as that. But as a result of those two or three pieces of information a decision was taken by a commander in August of 1999 that your office telephone at Kensington Police Station be subject to a private side intercept. That was continued until October 1999 when the commander who authorised that intercept decided there were no grounds for the intercept to continue. But of course the matter does not end there.

Throughout 1999, covert surveillance was conducted upon you for a while; I think it was cancelled in November 1999. But in January of 2000, a letter of complaint was received from the mother of your children?

A. Actually, the mother of an ex-partner.

Miss Weekes: The mother of an ex-partner, forgive me. Thank you. And no statement was in fact taken from her as evidence, but in January of 2000, again, another PSI was deployed on your office telephone. The first one was cancelled, but we have another.

I am jumping ahead quite a bit. February of 2000, a renewed application for the continued PSI on your phone was granted, despite the fact that the senior investigating officer stated that a number of lines of enquiry that existed a month ago into your alleged criminal conduct have been completed with a negative result.

Again moving on, April 2000, the Metropolitan Police officers meet a representative of the FBI to request assistance in the integrity testing of Superintendent Dizaei.

May 2000, Metropolitan Police officers visited the US and Canada to discuss utilising undercover officers for the integrity test.

15th June 2000, the Crown Prosecution Service writes to the Metropolitan Police Service outlining their serious concerns about the proposed integrity test and states that to date there is little or no evidence to substantiate the Metropolitan Police Service suspicions about Superintendent Dizaei.

Moving on again quite swiftly, a piece of information received in November was that you may have, or allegedly had received a complementary ticket for a concert?

A. Sorry, just one important fact which is missing and that I alluded to earlier –

Miss Weekes: Yes, you talked about things that were missing.

A. A further two integrity tests were conducted in that time, which I think are significant. [Redacted] was placed in the gym for two and a half months to entice me into criminality, and [redacted] was invited to my office fully wired up to entice me into criminality, and I think those two further integrity tests are paramount and illustrative of the level of endeavours by my accusers.

Miss Weekes: Thank you for that.

Moving down to 18th January 2000, you were suspended from duty, a Regulation 9 Notice is served. You were at your home address and it was searched. And a number of additional Regulation 9 Notices were then served upon you. You were interviewed in 2001.

Moving on very swiftly, in relation to two charges, you were indicted to stand trial at the Central Criminal Court?

A. That is correct.

Miss Weekes: On both of those charges you were acquitted. Any other outstanding matters, the Crown Prosecution Service took a decision that it would not be in the interest of justice or the public to pursue those matters. That is correct, is it not?

A. That is correct.

Miss Weekes: I would like to deal with this matter because it is of public interest, not only to the Metropolitan Police but also to the public. The usual procedure after a criminal trial, whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty, is that the Professional Standards Department would consider any other outstanding conduct issues. Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Miss Weekes: Did that happen in your case?

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: We also know, because it is public knowledge, that any issues that you had in relation to an employment tribunal case were settled –

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: – between your lawyers and the Metropolitan Police.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: But we do know that at present there are a number of issues outstanding in relation to professional standards.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: Which have not yet been decided upon. I am not going to go into those matters for that very reason, but I just want to deal, if I may, with the procedure.

At the time of your settlement, did the Professional Standards Department receive or arrive at a final decision about any outstanding issues of conduct in relation to your case?

A. I do not think it was in the hands of the Professional Standards Department. A senior officer from the Metropolitan Police was privy to the negotiation, and as a result of his intervention in those negotiations it was decided as part of the settlement that no further disciplinary action would be taken, and that really was the prime reason why I settled my employment tribunal.

Miss Weekes: And that is your clear understanding of the position when you settled.

A. And it is a matter of record.

Miss Weekes: Yes. I ask that, of course, because some members of the police force or the public may think – it is not a question whether it is correct or not – may think you received rather lenient treatment because there appeared not to have been a thorough decision made about whether any outstanding conduct issues remained before settlement. You understand why I have raised that question.

A. Equally, an equal number of members of the public may feel it is bizarre that I go to the Central Criminal Court, and which route I took to London on the journey. So whilst it may be convenient to cherry pick one aspect of the case to show preferential treatment, I think it is important to look at it realistically.

Certainly I cannot think of one other investigation – I would be delighted to be informed – in the history of the Police Service focusing on a single police officer which, according to your independent report, took almost 3,000 statements, 2,000 actions and 1,600 exhibits and ended up with frankly nothing.

So whilst I do sympathise with why some members of the public may think that, I think it is fundamentally important that the way I was dealt with should be looked at in its entirety rather than one piece towards the end.

Miss Weekes: Is there any basis at all for concluding that you were given preferential treatment before settlement; that is that were you not properly considered in relation to any outstanding conduct? Is there any basis for that?

A. I do not think there is any basis at all, because once you look at where this case started, the cost to the taxpayer, the cost to the confidence of policing, the trauma it caused to my family, to my colleagues, to my community, and the potential damage this would have had as this matter went to discipline – from my understanding, a further eminent QC was appointed to represent the Metropolitan Police – and for it to then go to an employment tribunal listed for four months, I think it was perfectly sensible for all those involved, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the Commissioner and my legal team, to try to resolve this problem and I am delighted that they did.

Once you put all of those variables on the table, I do not personally think any reasonable person would think this is about preferential treatment; this is about doing the best for the public interest given what has happened.

Miss Weekes: Superintendent, some may ask this question: it is clear that a number of very intense personal investigations were made of you over a number of years which would give the rest of your colleagues the impression that you were up to no good. That in itself was extremely damaging to you, and of course your position as a potential or an actual role model. Why have you stayed in the Metropolitan Police?

A. When I decided to join the Police Service, it was not a seat of the pants decision; it was not because there was not any other job that I wanted to do. I made a decision to join this organisation because I passionately believe that I have a role to play in it, and I think I still have a role to play in it, albeit a small one, and it was a very difficult position and a very difficult situation for me to find myself in, having then come to a juncture where I had to decide whether it is time for me to depart or to stay.

In making that decision I took into account my personal feelings about my employer, and I felt that I am still loyal to my organisation and this is something that I still want to do. But perhaps more importantly, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of members of the community looking to see whether I would stay or not, and I had, I suppose, a duty to them as well, and I thought that by staying in the organisation that I am committed to was the right thing to do, because I think, despite everything which has happened to me, it is still a great job, it is still an organisation that I feel passionate about, and it is still an organisation that I would like to stay in for the rest of my career.

Miss Weekes: Thank you for that. I would like to turn now to investigations of high profile cases, of which yours was clearly an example, and I want to deal with certain aspects of your investigation that may mirror, and indeed do mirror, other high profile cases that we are dealing with. In particular, I bear in mind your rank of superintendent and that the investigation would differ from those of a lower rank.

Against that background, I know that you will be familiar with the Taylor Review and the recommendations that were made. Are you familiar with that?

A. Yes, I am.

Miss Weekes: I am very grateful. Do you happen to know whether the Taylor Review is being implemented within the Metropolitan Police at the moment?

A. I have no idea whether it is being implemented at the moment. What I could tell you, it was never referred to in my investigation, even towards the tail end of it.

Miss Weekes: One of the very important recommendations – I summarise here – is that right at the outset of any complaint into the conduct of an officer, the recommendation is to have a case review, to have terms of reference so that one is absolutely clear where you are going and why. If that had been conducted in your case, would it have made a difference?

A. No.

Miss Weekes: Why do you say that?

A. Because you can have as many reviews and recommendations as you like; if the mind-set is to bring somebody down, those get conveniently put aside and not referred to. At the time – and I can only refer to the independent review of your own here – at the time there were some firm guidelines about policy, about the law, about the integrity test, about policy logs and how certain things ought to have been done. It seems to me that scant reference was made to them, as illustrated in this report. So frankly, whilst it may be convenient to say, "Well, now we have the Lancet report, thank you, it is going to come as our saviour", the fact of the matter is that if these reviews exist and nobody adheres to them, without any accountability, then we can have a loft full of these reports but business will be done as usual.

Miss Weekes: Let us explore that because it is quite important to our terms of reference, and indeed to the future conduct of the investigation of officers.

Do you agree that integrity testing is a vital tool?

A. Integrity testing is a vital tool, absolutely, and I am fully in favour of it.

Miss Weekes: And you, I hope, like the Commissioner, do not negotiate the high standard of professional conduct required of every police officer in the Met.

A. And I have been publicly a supporter of the Commissioner in his anti-corruption strategy.

Miss Weekes: Taking those two bases as read, and if you are right that the excellent huge amount of time spent on the Taylor Review might actually remain on individual decisions at the end of the day, what is the way forward to ensure those who make decisions as to who is investigated and how, do it by the book?

A. A simple word: accountability. If as a superintendent I deviate from a strategy in dealing with street crime on my borough I am called into my Assistant Commissioner 's office and get called to account, "Dr Dizaei, why are you deviating from a clear set strategy to deal with street crime?" And if I deviate again, I will not be on that borough very long. Why cannot the same simple strategy be adhered across the board when it gets to investigations like this?

Miss Weekes: On your case there were very senior commanders who were making decisions about your intercept on your phone, surveillance, bringing in outside assistance from the US and Canada. Very expensive, time consuming strategies. Who should those commanders have been accountable to, if your suggestions and recommendations are right?

A. In the Metropolitan Police there is a clear structure as to where people in the higher echelons of the DPS should be accountable to, and I think – I do not know that specific structure, but certainly every rank in the Police Service is accountable to somebody, and ultimately to the Metropolitan Police Authority.

My view is, if decisions were made – and it seems from your own report – and I choose their words, not mine – many of those decisions were at best questionable – then who is accountable for those decisions? Because it seems that the impression it gives, that not only people who make the poor decisions which influence the lives of people, and I think the human side of this is often missed, because my family and I suffered as a result of this poor decision – not only are those people not questioned, but indeed they are promoted. The impression it gives to the public – and I think it is very pertinent that you mentioned the public right from the start – is that here it is, something goes horribly wrong, despite clear guidelines, despite clear laws, but people are actually remunerated. So what is the disincentive to do it differently?

Miss Weekes: Let us look at the Metropolitan Police Authority, because within our terms of reference we are to look at the role that they play in high profile cases, and this is directly on line with our discussions about accountability.

Why were they not accountable for the huge sums of money that were spent on what our experts call a fishing expedition in your case?

A. Sorry, the Metropolitan Police Authority?

Miss Weekes: Yes.

A. The Metropolitan Police Authority, obviously the members are elected and I am not quite familiar with how they are accountable, but I think the importance of the Metropolitan Police authority in my case is really in two ways. Firstly, I think there was an error of judgment for the Metropolitan Police Authority member to be involved in a criminal investigation of a superintendent, for a simple reason: once you get yourself, as an authority member, contaminated into an investigation, then how can you hold to account the ACPO officer who may appear before you somewhere down the line who has to answer. That is not right. It is a simple matter of logic.

My firm view is that the Metropolitan Police Authority remained the ultimate line of accountability for chief officers within the Metropolitan Police and therefore they ought to be ring-fenced with regard to live criminal or discipline investigations.

The second thing is, I think the involvement of the Metropolitan Police Authority towards the tail end of my case has to be applauded and congratulated, because had it not been for the intervention of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the work carried out in bringing this sad affair to a close, it is possible that I would still remain suspended and I would be going to an employment tribunal very soon.

Miss Weekes: How might we improve, then, the role of the MPA? Do you say that there should be an increased involvement in the right of the MPA to overview decisions made as to who is investigated, the proportionality of that investigation, and whether or not it should continue?

A. I think my view is that police officers of senior rank, including myself, we get a lot of money to make professional judgments. We go on a lot of expensive courses to make professional judgments. Now, if I am in charge of an investigation and I have been elected to a rank to be in charge of this investigation, I am afraid the buck stops with me, and I have to make a decision based on my judgment and only on the guidelines which are available.

Where the Metropolitan Police Authority comes in, if I am an ACPO officer, is that I have to then be accountable if I get it horribly wrong. It is that level of accountability at the moment which I think, in my opinion, is grossly missing. Cases are resolved, hundreds, if not millions of pounds worth of taxpayers' money is spent but nobody is actually held to account.

Miss Weekes: Superintendent, do we want to leave it until it goes horribly wrong, or should there not be an infusion of the MPA's ability to have a look to see what is going on during the lifetime of the investigation? You see my point?

A. Yes, I understand the point, and it is a powerful point, but I am afraid once you get the people involved in the investigation who become the adjudicators of those decisions, it is getting the judge involved in the investigation, and I think there are great dangers, as illustrated in my case at the start, when members of the Metropolitan Police Authority were given briefings about my case, about the gravity of evidence against me, which I am afraid, you know, was not the case, and they were, as I have said again, contaminated, and once you are contaminated with the process, and somewhere along the line you justify it because you give the nod, then it is very difficult to step back away from that and then have to call the ACPO officer to account when things go wrong.

So I understand the point you are making, but I think the bottom line is that the Metropolitan Police Authority remains the only guardian of the public with regard to conduct of chief officers in the Metropolitan Police, and I think they need to be independent and they need to be in a position to make judgments.

Miss Weekes: Well, I will pursue it just one level further and move on. Surely, Superintendent, you can ask questions of an investigation without getting contaminated; you can ask questions about what is being done, what steps are being taken, how much money is being spent, without losing your independence; you agree with that?

A. Yes, but the problem is, let us take one step: if you can ask questions, you can ask probing questions, and you may get an answer, but then what do you do? Do you then tease out the detail? Do you get further and better particulars, or do you leave it as that? The danger is, what happens if then a Parliamentary question is raised and asks, "What do you think, Metropolitan Police Authority, about this case?" And then what happens is you then, as a member of the Authority, write back and say, "I have looked at this and I have asked questions", so by implication you are approving something which you are not best placed to approve, and that is precisely what happened in my case, where snippets of information were given to the Metropolitan Police Authority, not in the right context, which put them in a very difficult position towards the end.

Miss Weekes: How do you say it should be done, Superintendent?

A. I think my view is that there is incredibly good training done for SIOs nationally. There are clear guidelines on the table on how investigations should be done. There is not anything else we can do to support our SIOs.

I think from my understanding there is plenty there; you have got the Lancet Review, you have got the ACPO guidelines, you have got the training going on. I am afraid the SIOs who take up this job need to exercise discretion and make judgments.

Dealing with an investigation like this is no different from dealing with an ordinary investigation. The dynamics may be different but the basic framework is there: fairness, not forming a mind-set, being rational, not deviating from your terms of reference, keeping a policy log, listening to what the CPS tells you. If you keep to those, then you cannot go wrong. But if you do go wrong, then it is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Authority to hold you to account.

To sum up my view, despite the powerful argument you put forward, I think the Metropolitan Police Authority is the ultimate line of accountability for chief officers and they should be ring-fenced with regard to live investigations.

Miss Weekes: So you cannot give this panel an optimistic view that the type of investigation that was run against you might not happen again?

A. I am afraid – and I want to make it very clear for the record – it will happen again.

Miss Weekes: You sound rather positive.

A. Sorry?

Miss Weekes: You sound very positive.

A. For reasons of subjudice I cannot comment any further, but I do not think there are sufficient safeguards, as I sit here, that this type of investigation is not going to take place.

Miss Weekes: I would like to move on, please, to your knowledge of the statutory provisions, procedures in place to deal with conduct and discipline issues, and as a superintendent rank this is something you would be familiar with.

We have heard numerous accounts from all officers: men, women, black, white, of all ranks, that the present structure and statutory set-up is still too complex, does not allow for discretion, does not allow managers to deal quickly with resolving workplace disputes. Do you agree with that?

A. Yes, I do.

Miss Weekes: Sometimes, as a panel, we do not get enough assistance as to what the remedy is, but we have had various views: get rid of the statute altogether and start again; people should simply not be hidebound by statute; and some say it is really all down to good management. What is your view?

A. I think in, some ways, I am in a privileged position because, as the legal adviser to the NBPA, I am privy to many, many cases where I am faced with looking in detail as to why it has now ended up in front of me, and if I was to take one theme out of all those cases, it is to do with poor decision-making, the ability to manage right at beginning, at the grass roots. I think, basically, it is not very attractive to deal with workplace issues, at work, in particular when it involves issues of race. It is not high on the agenda of people who manage police stations and boroughs.

Simple things like, if driving courses are being dished out, am I satisfied as a superintendent that they are being dished out proportionately? If, for example, people are making complaints, am I satisfied, as a superintendent, to know that it is okay on my borough and there is not any disproportionality in a number of black staff complaining?

You need to have the energy and the commitment to go and ask these questions, which a lot of people do not do. They do it with other things; they do it with street crime, burglaries and everything else, but when it gets to the issues of diversity, there seems to be a sapping of energy, and unfortunately these things then brew up and then they become out of proportion.

Miss Weekes: I would like to bring up on the screen, if I may, the recommendations from the Virdi Report, because it falls within our terms of reference. We are looking to see really how far those have been implemented, because a number of them cover the very Inquiry which we are sitting on. Again, I want to go back to regulations.

Number 1 – it is just going to be highlighted for us:

"Regulations, particularly in regard to discipline, should be interpreted with common sense and reasonableness in an attempt to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and unjustified cost both financially and in personal terms."

Well, all of that makes pretty good sense, does it not?

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: But it is clearly subject to the person who is the decision maker. I know that my colleague, Sir Anthony, is going to deal very specifically with the very important issue of diversity, so I want to deal with this across the board for all officers.

We received enough evidence to indicate that there are pockets of bad practice throughout the Met in relation to how managers deal with the regulations. What is the way forward? Is it just lots more money to be spent on training again? Is that it?

A. I do not think there is a simple answer to that, and I do not think we will ever find a solution, because the fact of the matter is that there will always be workplace conflicts and there will always be workplace relationships long after this Inquiry finishes. I think the question is how important we believe resolving these disputes is. How often does a superintendent get congratulated or commended publicly for resolving a workplace relationship which will have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds? I guess never. But there are plenty of officers who get congratulated for bringing down the burglary rate. It is where the organisation sets its priorities, and I think what gets measured gets done. If there was a measure and a performance indicator right across the borough, right across the Police Service, which tests chief officers, which tests people of my rank and even lower, about how they deal with workplace relationships, I think there will be better focus to deal with it.

Miss Weekes: How long have you been a manager in your rank?

A. Well, I was promoted to sergeant with four years in the service, so I suppose I would consider myself being a manager about 14/15 years.

Miss Weekes: Fifteen years, and how many people do you manage at the moment?

A. None, but before I was suspended about 450.

Miss Weekes: 450. How do you know, within the whole process, that you were a good manager? There is an important reason why I ask this question.

A. Well, there are various ways. You have got to accept feedback, you have got to welcome feedback –

Miss Weekes: Is this set up by the Met? Is there a system where a manager knows he is a good manager? That is my point.

A. No, there is not, and I do not personally think there ought to be a system. I think it is important for people to take responsibility for their own management and for their own self development, and I think it is important that managers do welcome feedback, they create an environment for it, because that is the only test which remains about how you come across as a leader and as a manager. There are formal things you can do like 360-degree feedback – you can buy the software, and I think that is available. But if that is then weaved in to the way the organisation gives promotion, or recognises personal achievement, then I am sure a lot more people would do it. I do not personally think it is at the moment.

Miss Weekes: But you see the, perhaps, advantage of there being an acceptable level of management skills that is known and widely circulated throughout the Met as being the level to which managers should aspire. That is a good thing, is it is not?

A. Yes, it is. I think it is. I just want to sort of differentiate between management and being a good leader. If you say to me, "Were you a good manager?" then I would be thinking of: did I have the right processes in place, did I have the right systems in place, did I do my work within those lines? If I do all of those then I could be a good manager.

Then if you ask me am I a good leader? Then that is a completely different test. Leadership is about setting directions, about having a vision and inspiring others to follow you. They are completely different things. I think the quality of leadership, which is one which you have right from the day you walk out onto your beat, to the highest rank in the Police Service, is not something that can be taught –

Miss Weekes: But my question is about management, Superintendent.

A. The issue of management, my interpretation of being a good manager is being able to deal with your staff, dealing with systems and processes. There are ways that you can be taught those things, but I do not want to underestimate the importance of self responsibility to being a manager, because if you just allocate a course or a piece of software for somebody to do to become a good manager, I think that is an easy escape. I think it is personal responsibility in the way you deal with your staff and in the way you deal with your workplace relationships.

Miss Weekes: Part of what will cost the Metropolitan Police and ultimately the taxpayer is when decisions go wrong, when people have to go to employment tribunals when there are disproportionate investigations, and we have heard from a large number of white officers as well who talk about how they have been treated badly. A lot of that is a bad decision by a manager; not always, but quite a lot.

What should happen to bad managers?

A. It depends on the gravity of the poor decision. If a manager makes a decision which fundamentally impacts the lives of his or her staff, costs the taxpayer an enormous amount of money and brings the Police Service into disrepute, then the ultimate sanction should be used.

Miss Weekes: What is the ultimate sanction?

A. Being sacked.

Miss Weekes: Does that happen in the Metropolitan Police?

A. Well, I do not think it happens as a matter of routine for a poor decision. I think it is important to strike the balance because we do not – personally I would not want to work for an organisation where if somebody makes a mistake, an innocent mistake, they should be sacked. I am talking about the ultimate sanction. I am talking about gross negligence. In those circumstances, I think the organisation should have no compunction. That brings us in line with industry.

Miss Weekes: There is a procedure to deal with the manager that requires encouragement, that requires some sort of guidance about how to do things; the ineffective procedure. I may not have named it correctly but I hope you understand the one I am referring to. Is that used?

A. In dealing with?

Miss Weekes: Dealing with managers who are under-performing.

A. I have had no personal experience of it, but certainly I am the first person to put my hand up and say there were many occasions that I made poor decisions. You know, nobody walks on water; we all make mistakes. I think it is important, once you make a mistake, that there is an environment you can actually go to and be honest about it and learn from it. I do not personally think that exists at the moment. I think people are quite worried about making a mistake, and I think that is quite relevant to the issues that you raised about the Virdi Report and maybe this case and other cases.

If I put hand on heart, I can say that there are people who recognise, certainly in the Virdi Report, that they were making mistakes, that they were not getting what they wanted, and I think that is one of the key recommendations which is coming out. But there was a mind-set, there was a steam train on its way and nobody could stop this steam train. There was no leadership, no management, to say "Stop". Why?

I think there should be an environment whereby people can initiate an investigation, which may be legitimate, but recognise that it is not going the way they want to, but have the personal courage and support to say, "I have made a mistake, I need to stop", without feeling that they are going to be crucified.

Miss Weekes: I am not going to ask you about Fairness at Work specifically because, of course, within the chronology you would not yourself have experienced sufficient of that new process because it only began in 2004. But I would like to ask you about the employment law processes and cases going to employment law, again generally, because I know that Sir Anthony wants to deal specifically with diversity and race issues.

The number of employment law cases may appear to drop because of Liversidge, but in fact people still go to employment tribunals for gender issues and race issues, and staff for all other issues. Do you consider that an independent person to review sensitive issues that may go to employment law would be a good idea?

A. It would be a fantastic idea, and I have been writing about it and I have been advocating it at every opportunity I have had. It makes perfect sense and it is a matter of logic, only because, from my experience of dealing with employment matters, people get entrenched into their position, lawyers run the show, not chief officers, and the juxtaposition of independent advice at the right point would be welcome and, more importantly, people would allow the chief officer, whose ultimate responsibility is the employment, not the force solicitor's, to make some decisions.

My gut feeling at the moment is that chief officers are not running the show, the solicitors are running the show, and I think, frankly, that is not a very good position to be in, because if I was chief officer, I would want to make a decision as to whether a case should go to an employment tribunal. I would listen to the force solicitor, but I would make the decision. I do not think that is happening at the moment.

Miss Weekes: Well, a chief officer might say, in response to what you have just said, "Come, come, I have got a legal department, I am entitled to take legal advice, and in particular when issues are grave and serious and may damage the reputation of the Met, I am entitled to side up with that legal advice". Is that not a fair point?

A. No, not at all. It is an assertion which I accept. It is no different than having a tac adviser at a firearms incident. As a senior officer, if there is a firearms incident around the corner, I will employ a tactical firearms adviser to advise me. But the fact of the matter is, it is my decision, and I make the decision because that is what I am being paid for, and I think it is an application of my responsibility to pass the buck on to the tac adviser or to the force solicitor to make decisions which are my responsibility and for which, going back to what I started with, I should be held to account.

Miss Weekes: Well, if that is right, Superintendent – let us follow through the logic: why should the Met be a special public organisation that needs independent advice on employment tribunal cases when every other big public organisation gets on with it on their own?

A. Because the dynamics and the transition of the organisation over the years is wholly different from other organisations, and I appreciate that Sir Anthony will be talking about the issue of diversity. But I think you have to look back slightly into history as to why the Metropolitan Police has found itself in the position it is today, and I have alluded to it in my submissions and I really would not want to go into it in detail. But, you know, in a sentence, the Metropolitan Police has gone through a series of racial transitions since Scarman, where its rank and structure are now made about people who think different, look different, dress different and do things differently.

Unfortunately, the structures which were devised by the monolithic organisations of the 1960s have not changed, and therefore inevitably there is going to be huge frictions for the time to come over race, gender and civility. So in that sense the dynamics of the organisation are different, and it is likely to be exacerbated by its unique position.

That is why I would justify the use of an independent person to try to resolve some of the matters which are likely to end up in the public arena.

Miss Weekes: And you are saying then that the Met are not quite ready to make decisions on their own over these sensitive issues?

A. I did not say that and I chose my words very carefully. What I did say is that when it gets to extremely sensitive and high profile cases, it is fundamentally important that chief officers make the decision and do not allow lawyers to make that decision for them, because I think the bottom line is, if I was a chief officer, the responsibility of taking one of my employees – and the word "employees" is the operative word; I am not dealing with some vexatious litigant out on the street who wants to make a fast buck – if I make a decision that I am going to drag one of my employees through the employment tribunal for months, destroy his or her family, probably damage them irretrievably, that is a decision that I have to make, and that is the decision that I have to be held accountable for if I get it wrong.

Because what is happening at the moment, the cases are going to court, are being settled with huge amounts of money – we have just seen one in the national headlines a few days ago – but nobody is asking the question, "Who allowed this to go?" As a chief officer, I think it is remarkable that I could say, "Well, actually, my lawyer said I could drag this all the way up to the House of Lords and back and it was okay". I would never get away with it if I was dealing with a firearms incident or if I was dealing with a police incident. Why should I, as a chief officer, be able to get away with it with that?

The bottom line is, it is not about being harsh, it is about being accountable, it is about giving a service to the public, and it is about having responsibility for your employees. That is why it makes sense.

Miss Weekes: Who should this independent person be? Where are we going to get them from?

A. There are many people, I think. Personally I would want – I mean, I have not really thought about – obviously there has to be clear knowledge of employment law on behalf of that person. Whether they be a lawyer or not, it is a moot point. Whether there should be a team who should look at it ... with a little bit of imaginative thinking, I do not see that that is a constraint. I think it is the principle that needs to be accepted. The reason I think it is not is because human frailty makes us become entrenched in the way we deal with things, and it is very, very difficult – and I include myself in that –

Miss Weekes: Does it surprise you that the Director of Legal Services told us that he is very keen on the use of mediation in all employment law cases?

A. Well, that must be a fairly recent sort of assertion, because my – again, I have experienced nationally, and it is not just about the Metropolitan Police – from which are sit in dealing with black staff claims, I see very little diplomacy. I see sometimes almost a crusade to fight this case at all costs, and sometimes I just feel quite sorry for the officers because there is a human side to all of this which a lot of people fail to see.

Miss Weekes: Following on from the issue of independence, I would like to touch on the Independent Advisory Group.

Sir William Morris: I suggest that we adjourn for a short break shortly.

Miss Weekes: The Independent Advisory Group. One must, of course, look at what we have got to see whether we can utilise that better before we decide to put more into the picture. How well do you say the Independent Advisory Group functions for the Met?

A. I have serious concerns about the use of the Independent Advisory Group. Again, if you wheel back the history as to why they were set up, I think it throws a light as to why they were created and what they were supposed to do. I think, as always, in the Police Service we have a tendency to create something which was good at the time and then abuse it when it is convenient for us. I have always said, and I think it is said quite clearly in the NBPA submissions, the use of IAG is not a get out of jail free card, and I am afraid it seems to me that that is what it is being used in cases –

Miss Weekes: Forgive me for interrupting. That might give the impression that the Independent Advisory Group was no longer independent. Is that what you are saying?

A. Absolutely. Not only they are not independent, but they are actually being used for a purpose which was never, ever intended for.

Miss Weekes: And what is the use that you say they are being put to which you do not find acceptable, because I assume you do not find it acceptable.

A. No, I do not find it acceptable at all that the independent advisers should be used in the investigation of black staff, and I do say black staff for a reason, because I cannot see – or I have no knowledge of the use of independent members for investigations of white staff. So is it just a coincidence or is it some sort of race proofing? If it is race proofing, in other words by that I mean, if I am held against the rack I can then say, "Well, it was okay because black people said it was okay", or is it about covering myself in case things go wrong? And that is not the reason to use independent advisers.

I am delighted that in the independent report that you have commissioned the point is made quite admirably by the review team. It becomes particularly of concern if you use independent advisers and then you do not tell them everything, because that makes them vulnerable and it also makes their decision questionable.

Miss Weekes: You will forgive me for putting this point, but I need to explore the basis of your views about the Independent Advisory Group. Some people will say, "Well perhaps you take that view, Superintendent, because one or two members of the advisory group considered that the investigation against you was proper at the time". Is that why you take the view you take?

A. No. Frankly, I did not mention the issues of my case. I am more interested about the use of independent advice generally.

Miss Weekes: You understand that in fairness I thought I ought to put that on the table for you to deal with.

A. That is fine and I am glad you have put it, but I am more keen to give you my views so that you may see it in a much wider context of just Helios. What I am trying to say, and I am probably putting it quite clumsily, is that the use of the Independent Advisory Group in investigations of black staff, or indeed investigations of police officers, is not the purpose for which they were set up.

If there has been a deviant to that procedure, then where is it and who sanctioned it? Because certainly in my role within the National Black Police Association, we would have objected vehemently to use of independent advisers as part and parcel of the investigation: table top exercises, weekend summits, showing of crucial bits of evidence in internal investigations. I have reviewed very carefully the history of how independent advisers were set up and I cannot see any reference that one day they will be used to legitimise internal investigations.

Miss Weekes: Well, may I put this important point, because I think this topic is important: the Metropolitan Police senior officers will say the Independent Advisory Group is used as an independent sounding board where members of the public are able to comment upon strategic decisions with a view as to whether or not they are disproportionate to the individual concerned, taking on board culture issues, or not. That is a brief summary of what the senior officers would say to you in relation to that. Is that not why they were set up?

A. My understanding is that the Independent Advisory Group was set up to look at investigations, and there were plenty of precedents for this: deaths in custody, matters which have a tendency to shake the public confidence in terms of race. They were not set up to look at a corruption investigation. If they were, then I would put them to strict proof to show me one other investigation up and down the country where members of the advisory group were used for corruption investigations.

Miss Weekes: Have you objected to the use of the Independent Advisory Group in this way?

A. Sorry?

Miss Weekes: Have you raised that objection? What was the response to your objection?

A. No, I have not raised it, but I think the National Black Police Association has felt very strongly about the use of that, and I think – you know, I am not suggesting in principle there is no room for the IAG to be used. What I am saying is that that was never agreed; there was no precedent for it, but more significantly, if you are going to use independent advisers, there are two golden rules. The first thing is, you use them from the beginning, and the second golden rule is you tell them the truth and you tell them everything; you do not cherry pick the information. Those are two basic golden rules, and they appear to me to be a matter of logic. I think if those golden principles are adhered to, then there would not be this conflict where things do not go well.

Miss Weekes: I want to, just before the 12 o'clock break, move, if I may, to one other issue of independence which we have allowed others to comment upon, and I think it would be helpful if you could help us. It goes back a little bit to the disciplinary process and the inordinate length of time that often these cases take, which is so damaging for officers that they are suspended for not one year but two years and perhaps four or five years.

What do you say could assist in speeding up the length of time it takes from the service of your Regulation 9 to a decision?

A. If I may start by saying what will not help. What will not help is more training. What will not help is more guidelines, and what will not help would be legislation or regulation. What will help is, again – sorry that I have to repeat it – it is to do with the issue of accountability. A discipline investigation is in many senses no different to an ordinary crime investigation. If people are delayed, if the service of Regulation 9 notices are stage-managed, as your independent report highlights, these are a matter of personal discretion which falls fairly and squarely on the officer.

To answer your question, the only thing which will speed up the process is to hold the people accountable who are in charge of the process.

Miss Weekes: Can I put this to you as a matter of principle: the detail and the practicalities need to be worked out, of course, but what about utilising the system that is available and is used up and down the country in Crown courts and in employment tribunals of there being a case manager, someone to whom the person who makes the decision about investigations, who conducts the investigation, is accountable to, about when he intends to finish the investigation, how much longer he requires, if he requires more time and why, so that the case manager is really dealing with disclosure issues, listing issues, takes account of adjournments that we hear are often requested through defence solicitors. Both sides have to come to the case manager to give an account for where this disciplinary process is going to. In principle, do you see that as being a good thing?

A. I am afraid there is an appetite to create something new because we think it is going to work. My view is, if there is a case manager, then what happens to the person who is in charge of DPS? That person's responsibility is to do that up and down the country. That may be a superintendent; in the Met it is a chief officer. My view is, if I held that post, I would be having weekly meetings with my staff, like most people do, and I would be asking some detailed probing questions about individual cases, and more importantly, being a good manager I would know the cases which may form my Achilles heel, and I would be asking for more further and better particulars of those cases.

Miss Weekes: The trouble is, Superintendent Dizaei, it just does not happen at the moment. Officers are left sometimes not knowing what is going to happen to them for two, three or four years.

A. But somebody is responsible for that. You know, I am sorry, but you cannot just pass away the responsibility of management on to some new system, on to a new person. If that is happening in some shires up and down the country, then ultimately a senior rank who is sitting in that department is responsible for that, and the question, I think, I would invite the panel to ask is: what is happening to the person who is running that department? Rather than creating a case manager who is doing the job that that person was supposed to be doing.

Miss Weekes: Thank you. It is just about 12.00. I have just one or two matters from the Virdi recommendation I would like to come back to.

Sir William Morris: We will adjourn for five to ten minutes.

12.00 pm
(A short break)
12.10 pm

Sir William Morris: Welcome back. Miss Weekes.

Miss Weekes: Thank you. Could I go back to another recommendation from the Virdi Inquiry report. It is recommendation number 9. I will just read it for the benefit of the public and yourself:

"Senior officers should regularly monitor and review how effectively middle and junior managers implement the organisation's policies and commitments to equality."

I am particularly interested in your repeated view about accountability before the break, but we have heard from a number of witnesses that nobody appears to manage the managers. So when bad decisions are made, they go unchallenged. First of all, is that a view that is correct?

A. Yes, I think it is, and I think it is quite pertinent that recommendation 10 nicely dovetails recommendation 9. I think they go nicely together.

Miss Weekes: Well, in fairness, thank you for drawing that. Let us read it, recommendation 10:

"Our conclusion of the re-investigation into PS Virdi's case, to be supervised by the PCA, any officer deemed to have acted inappropriately should face disciplinary action."

So you are quite right, the two should go together?

A. Okay. On that point, I just want to make one important remark regarding the word "inappropriately". It does not say "gross negligence" and it does not say "gross misconduct". It seems to me, from my case, the recorder's decision is often used as a placard to justify the case. I just want to say that "inappropriately" is a million miles away from "gross misconduct", which is a requirement to eject a case on an abuse argument, which I am sure you are familiar with.

In other words, to sum up, you do not need criminal conduct or gross negligence to have acted inappropriately.

Miss Weekes: Well, we have heard from Mr Virdi, but to your knowledge has there been a decision made on the Virdi case in relation to whether any officer there acted inappropriately?

A. I have read the Virdi Report quite carefully. I think there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that that report could not have been framed in the format it is unless there is some inappropriate behaviour falling fair and square on a number of officers. To the best of my knowledge, neither of these officers have been called to account or been held responsible for what they have done to Mr Virdi and to his family.

Miss Weekes: Now let us broaden the discussion for lessons to be learned. Superintendent, who manages the managers in the Met?

A. In order to answer that question I really need to drill down by who you mean by managers.

Miss Weekes: Well, let us take a sergeant as being towards the junior end of the management structure; an inspector a level above. Middle and junior management make very important day-to-day decisions that affect the lives of police officers and police staff. When those decisions are bad decisions, not necessarily through ignorance, but they are just bad decisions, who deals with those bad decisions?

A. If it is a sergeant, it should be the officers and inspector. He or she has a responsibility to deal with poor decisions made, but I am afraid – and there is a way to deal with that, and that is through interventions at the right point, if the decision is particularly bad, but more significantly at the annual appraisal of the officer. I think what takes place is very often that the annual appraisal is remarkably different to the performance of the officer, because generally it is far easier and more comfortable to do a good appraisal than to do a bad one, and therefore there is a tendency to overlook systematic failure of a particular officer, because that particular hour on that annual basis can become a very difficult hour if it is one where you need to challenge.

But again, it goes back – with this rank goes responsibilities, and I am afraid a good manager will have the personal courage and the personal robustness to deal with poor decisions and bad managers.

Miss Weekes: Do we have enough senior officers of your rank and above who are robust enough to say to an officer, "Well, you handled the application for that particular female officer for part-time work rather badly; this is how I would like you to do it next time round"?

A. Yes, I think there are certainly people that I have worked with who would do that, and in fact I have seen superintendents who do have the personal courage and robustness to challenge. But I think the key is whether that is systematic, whether that is widespread and, more significantly, is that one which is remunerated and recognised by chief officers, because my gut feeling is that it is not. A superintendent is likely to get far more praise leading the May Day Parade and dealing with a turbulent football match as a hero than dealing with the particular issue that you are alluding to and resolving it properly.

Miss Weekes: Do you think that is because there is a culture within the Met that considers dealing with people to be a soft skill – I have heard that word used; it is not my choice, but I am simply repeating it to you – that there appears to be a distinction made between the operational skills and, I have been told, soft skills? Would you call them soft skills?

A. I would say dealing with people is not within the police subculture culturally glamorous; it is not something that you strive to do. The nature of the police culture subscribes to the school of thought which says, you know, we must deal with real issues, and often dealing with staff is not considered as a real issue. And that nicely loops back to the point that I was alluding to earlier, that is why, when we end up paying £500,000 damages, nobody asks the question, "Well, hang on a minute, how did we get to that position, and who was the officer" – because it is there as a matter of record – "who was the officer who said we should fight this to a point where we now have to offer £500,000, £300,000, whatever, in order to resolve it?"

Miss Weekes: So back to the recommendation of the Virdi Report, which is now some time ago. Do you think that that recommendation of monitoring the junior and middle management organisations is actually being conducted on a regular basis throughout the boroughs?

A. No, I do not think it has been done regularly. I am sure there are pockets of very good practice, but certainly I do not think it is one which is systematic across the board, and that would be a very tall order in any industry, to say, you know, "We have a system of dealing with people at all levels through all our departments, which are made up of 30,000 people, which everybody does that". But I think that should certainly be an aspiration for the higher echelons of the Metropolitan Police Service, and certainly one which should receive considerable remuneration and recognition for those who actually do deliver on people issues, do resolve cases which do not end up paying significant amounts of money from the taxpayers' purse.

Miss Weekes: I think it would help us as a panel to understand the practicalities of the recommendation 9. Going back to your days as a manager, do you know it is terribly difficult to know what all your managers are doing for any particular month and who is good, who is the flavour of the month and who is not so good; is that right?

A. That is partially right, only because the Police Service is one of the only organisations where discretion increases as you come down the hierarchy; it is only because police officers generally at lower rank operate in what is often termed conditions of low advisability. What that means, basically, is that it is very difficult to actually know what a police officer is actually doing at any particular time: namely, the low advisability. So it is very difficult. And police officers, as you know, have an incredible amount of discretion, and one can argue the officer out on the beat will probably have more discretion than the Chief Constable.

So inherently it is very difficult in the police organisation to have that level of close scrutiny. But however, that does not mean that drilling deep, knowing your staff, being aware, taking an interest and having an eye for detail is not possible. I have certainly seen it done amongst many of my competent colleagues, and it is certainly something that I aspire to. I do not necessarily get it right all the time, but that is something that I would like to think that I would try to do.

Miss Weekes: So the words, "regularly monitor and review how effective managers implement policies", what does that mean? Monthly, quarterly?

A. I think, if you set the scene and say you are an inspector and you are in charge of four sergeants and, say, 28 police officers, I do not think you need any timeframes to effectively monitor regularly; that is part and parcel of your daily business. It should be done every day. Inspectors should be going out with their sergeants, with their officers, and finding out what is taking place on their relief. And you can always distinguish between a good relief, a good manager, and a poor manager. The one who adds value, looks for detail, recognises the good work of his or her staff brings a level of vibrancy into a shift, into a borough, or into a force as far as a chief officer is concerned, than one who does not.

Miss Weekes: A member of the public could get the impression that there are the higher ranks, the ACPO ranks, Assistant Commissioner ranks and then the lower ranks, and the two do not tend to talk a lot to each other; is that right?

A. No, I do not think that is right at all. I think, certainly from my experience – if you take Sir John Stevens, I think he is probably one of the highest profile commissioners that I have known. I mean, he is regularly taking ample time talking to everybody, and certainly going around areas and boroughs, and I think there may be a perception, but I do not think that perception is reality. Certainly in the last four years, I think, ACPO ranks within the Met have become far more visible than they were before, and certainly as a superintendent when I was working at Reading I would regularly see the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, and indeed I was being held to account almost on a daily basis with regard to crime on my borough, getting personal calls from the Assistant Commissioner, if I was not performing and so forth.

Miss Weekes: Well, allow me to give you a very recent example that applies to the whole question of middle managers making decisions, getting it wrong, and senior managers appearing to do nothing about it. We were very grateful to have received some evidence from a good number of female officers, and the overwhelming complaint was that managers who line manage them either do not understand part-time regulations or they misinterpret them or they simply do not think that they should apply them.

If that exists, that is evidence that middle managers and junior managers are not making correct decisions about a very important policy which the Met has adopted, part-time work and flexi work, and to date no one has been able to tell us why senior managers have not been able to deal with that and correct it, because it is unlawful to deny a woman the right to be considered for part-time work.

A. Yes. Certainly there is a mismanagement of that area. That particular area, when one deals with the issue of fairness, discrimination and understanding of regulations –

Miss Weekes: It says in Regulation 9 "commitments to equality", so it is a good example, is it not?

A. It is a good example, and I do not personally believe there is any need for further training. I think it is a question of how do you get people to be held to account for what is, as you quite rightly put it, an unlawful act.

Miss Weekes: One way round it, Superintendent, is that the senior officer in charge of that borough should be aware of where this bad practice occurs and stamp it out immediately.

A. Yes, I think that is the aspiration, but I think the way you can actually bring it into fruition is by measuring it. There is a whole different debate as to whether performance measurements are good or bad, but the fact of the matter is that they are here and they are here to stay. And it is also a matter of fact that what gets measured gets done, and I think if one can devise a way where the performance that you are alluding to, and compliance that you are referring to, can be measured against some fairly scientific criteria, then I think it can be done. I think by simply saying the senior officer ought to be aware, it does not crystallise it enough for one to make a recommendation.

Miss Weekes: Well, let us move away from measurement. What about the senior officers making it a point of finding out what their managers are doing? I do not mean every day; maybe monthly, maybe quarterly. How are the part-time regulations going? How are they being implemented face to face, so they can take back to the table any particular pockets of bad practice that exist? Because some women will not feel brave enough to take out an employment tribunal claim or to complain about a manager that has fobbed them off. So the senior ranks need to grip the problem.

A. I totally agree with yourself, but I still believe that from my experience leaving issues of equality to people's goodwill and sense of morality, you will be waiting for a very long time. My view is that issues to do with equality and fairness must be measured, because if they are measured the person who is responsible for delivering is held to account and it will be done. And it is important that there is a proper matrix to obtain that information for the chief officer to be able to tease it out. It is no good picking up the phone and ringing up the local boroughs or going for a cup of tea with the local superintendent and saying, "Hello, Ali Dizaei, is everything to do with equality fine on your borough?" and I will probably say, "Yes, of course it is, sir". There has to be some scientific way where the chief officer can drill deep independently to see whether things are okay or not.

Miss Weekes: I would like to go to recommendation 11 for your help as to what it means and how it is going to be implemented. I ought to read it:

"The MPS should monitor the composition of representatives of the Police Federation's joint branch board, ensuring that concrete measures are taken to address under-representation, especially from ethnic minority groups."

I know that your rank, you are not a member of the Police Federation, but you would have been throughout your career up to that rank. So with that in mind, that is why I feel I am entitled to ask you this question. And you also are in a representative capacity for the Black Police Association, so I want to ask you a little bit about the Police Federation.

It is very much within our terms of reference because when there are issues that may matter to individuals, whether it be issues of culture, race or gender, or terms of conditions of employment, that is something that the Police Federation could take up; am I right?

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: For the ranks I have indicated. If, for whatever reason, there is under-representation within the Police Federation, it means that certain sectors of the police force may feel legitimately that their grievances are not being taken up. Is that also correct?

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: Well, what do you say the position is with the Police Federation? Is it representative?

A. I think certainly the Police Federation, as far as its hierarchy is concerned, is certainly not representative. But, you know, I think my view is that the issue of representation is far more complex than simply having a number of black people onto a branch board. It is far more complex than that. I think the question which needs to be asked is: what is the value added? What are we trying to achieve by, for example, saturating the ranks, the branch boards, with black officers, black staff? The question is ensuring, for me, that people who make key decisions about lives of people see through a different lens.

At the moment, if you do not have diversity in whatever format, people tend to see it through one lens. And one of the key issues, for example, that I have taken up for many years – and I frankly have not got anywhere – is the choice of lawyers. As a lawyer, you would appreciate, I hope, the importance of being able to choose your own lawyer. The worse thing, I think, a claimant or any person in that position can have is to be forced to go with a particular solicitor and to be forced to instruct a particular counsel. We have not been able to get that basic human right sorted once and for all.

Miss Weekes: Just so that I follow, this is through the Police Federation. If you are a member, you can go to them for representation –

A. For representation.

Miss Weekes: – because you have paid fees.

A. And they would insist that they would choose the lawyers for you, and they give you a very stark choice: take it or leave it.

Miss Weekes: Does that happen on a regular basis?

A. It happens all the time. It happens on a daily basis. The problem the person has is that they are left with no choice; they have to go with a particular firm or they have to drop their claim or they have to mortgage their house, and that is not a position that we ought to be in and that is not the way we ought to be, if I was the chair of the Police Federation, treating our members.

Because, frankly, if whoever the client decides to instruct abides by the terms and conditions that the Federation lawyers abide with, and they are a member of the Law Society and so forth, I do not see why a member, black or white, cannot go and choose their own lawyers. It certainly cannot be on the issue of cost because the new firm of solicitors will say, "Look, whatever your lawyers are charging, we will charge".

The reason I use that example is because I just simply do not believe having representations on board in a window-dressing – I personally think it is not very productive unless there is a value added. I am sure, had there been some key members of the minority communities from the police organisation at pertinent points within the Federation, they could make this point quite vociferously and have the policy changed. Because they are not there, they cannot be changed.

Miss Weekes: Are they not there – and I want your comment on this because there are two sides to it – are they not there because they have not presented themselves for election, or are they not there for some other reason which blocks them? Because the Federation is a creature of statute, and there are the Police Federation regulations that I have seen, and it is a creature of statute, is it not?

A. Yes, it is. One can only guess as to why black staff are not applying, but if one takes the experience of why black staff do not apply for promotion, accelerated promotion courses, specialist departments, the reason being that they are deskilled over the years, and that is the reason why often, even when they do apply, they do not get the job, maybe the same argument applies to the Police Federation. But I am only guessing. I have tested it with regard to promotion, specialisation, but I have not tested this against joining the Police Federation.

Miss Weekes: Well, putting aside the obvious statutory difficulties that the Police Federation may say there are, how important is the recommendation in the Virdi Report that the Metropolitan Police should monitor the composition of representatives with the applied Federation branch board? How important do you say it is to –

A. I think it is important, but I think the Metropolitan Police is – their hands are tied. If it is a regular legislative organisation which is based on election, the Metropolitan Police can do very little but just monitor. I think, looking at it strategically, in terms of why we would want more black staff, I would say that to have the National Black Police Associations put on a legislative backing and regulations could be the way forward, because at the moment we are not based on regulations and we are, in that sense, quite powerless. I think, if you are committed to the issue of diversity, the Metropolitan Police maybe could assist us, or assist the National Black Police Association, and give advice and help to put that body on equal par with the Police Superintendents' Association, with ACPO and with the Police Federation, because once you have the National Black Police Association at that level, then by statute they will have to be consulted with regard to a whole array of issues which can only help the decision-making which will impact the entire Police Service.

Miss Weekes: We have heard of the 14 staff associations outside of the Police Federation. Would it not be so much better and far more effective if most of those views were represented on the joint branch board?

A. I think the key is – I can only talk about the National Black Police Association. I think there is no doubt that many of the issues that we take issue, as the NBPA, will not have the support of the Police Federation, and I think it is important that there remains a separation between support staff associations, such as the NBPA – I am only referring to the NBPA because obviously I am their legal adviser – and the Police Federation. Trying to bring them all together, I certainly do not think that would be beneficial, because there are issues which do impact on black staff which I do not think would be given the merit if it was all part of one organisation.

Miss Weekes: So you see the need to keep a degree of independence there?

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: But you could do both, could you not?

A. You certainly can do both, and I think ultimately it is, what is the value added? I think the value added is that the decision which comes at the end of it will be to the benefit of the Police Service and will be to the benefit of the community.

Many of the forums that the NBPA now participates in allows the forum to see things through a different lens, and I think that can only improve the quality of the product which comes out of it.

Miss Weekes: Within our terms of reference, which I know you have read quite thoroughly and are familiar with, what is the most important recommendation which you would consider that we should take on board? I know it is all to do with professional standards and complaints and discipline, but what is the one that you would say we should pay the most attention to and why?

A. I think the most important recommendation – I have alluded to it – is the issue of accountability. I think it forms the fundamental pillar in the way we do our business as a public service. If – my view – this Inquiry does not highlight the importance of the fact that the buck must end with someone, and they have to be held to account for the decisions which have impacted the lives of people, damaged the image of the organisation and cost the taxpayer an enormous amount of money, then I personally think we will not move forward.

So to sum up, rather than have one, I would say weave in accountability into each and every recommendation that you make, and name the person, name the individual, rather than the Metropolitan Police, because people who shy away from being accountable would love to hide behind the corporate cover of the Metropolitan Police.

Miss Weekes: Well, that leads me on to this point – I have got sufficient time to do it – if the buck stops with a person, why do you think so far that that has not happened? Because perhaps none of the recommendations and suggestions we have heard are new, are they?

A. No, they are not.

Miss Weekes: Why is it, do you think, that things have not happened like that before?

A. There is a whole list of reasons, but I think, if I was to condense them into one, there has not been the will to hold people accountable with respect to certain things. I am not suggesting for one moment that police officers – there is ample accountability with regard to a whole array of policing activity, but when it gets to issues of workplace relationships, there is a conspicuous absence of accountability. So in other words, there is good practice of holding people accountable; all we need to do is to transfer that level of rigour and accountability to managing workplace relationships.

Miss Weekes: Who is going to take leadership for this obviously good suggestion?

A. I think my view is this is a matter of huge importance for the Metropolitan Police. I think it is a matter which should be driven at the policy board level, and it is a matter which I think a chief officer should be given direct responsibility and held to account for delivering it. It is not a matter to be spread thinly across the whole organisation, because I do not think it will be done. I think it is a matter which should be driven by a named person who will have to do regular reviews, regular input to the policy board, and say, "With regard to these matters, I can give you an explanation."

For example, "We have just settled a case and we have paid £1 million. I am now holding accountable the inspector who could have resolved this four years ago. I am actually holding accountable the solicitor in the department of legal affairs who said, 'Go for it, we can win this'."

In other words, if I was that chief officer, I would come to the policy board and say, "This is my portfolio", and on one which went horribly wrong, "This is the learning, this is the accountability, and these are the people who have failed; some of them through innocence, some of them through gross misconduct, and the ones through gross misconduct I am going to deal with them in the following manner."

Miss Weekes: What message do you say that would send to the rest of the Service?

A. I think that is probably one of the most powerful messages which is sent about, we are serious about this and we mean business; just like dealing with street crime, because I do not think there is any superintendent or any inspector or a sergeant in the entire Metropolitan Police who does not know where the organisation sits with regard to street crime.

We live and breathe on the borough the importance of putting behind bars robbers. We come to work that in mind, because the bottom line is we are going to be held accountable with regard to that. That message of dealing with street crime, which I am delighted to say the Met has incredibly good success, has been driven from the highest level right to the officer on the beat and it has proved to produce results.

Miss Weekes: You want it transferred over to people management?

A. Absolutely, and remunerated accordingly.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sir William Morris: Thank you, Dr Dizaei.

We stand adjourned until 2 o'clock.

12.45 pm
(The short adjournment)
2.00 pm

Sir William Morris: Good afternoon, everyone. We are now reconvening, and, Superintendent Dizaei, Sir Anthony Burden will lead the questions this afternoon, so straight over to Sir Anthony.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Good afternoon to you.

I am conscious of everything that has been said in the written submissions that we have already received, I would however like to give you the opportunity to respond to a direct question; the question is, do you consider that discrimination was a feature of the handling of your case?

A. The answer is an unequivocal yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Would you like to enlarge in terms of in what respect you feel discrimination featured.

A. Yes. Discrimination is not something these days which is visible; in other words, it is not something about which you can say, "Oh look, discrimination is just walking past". Discrimination is often covert, beautifully disguised, and in my previous publications I have referred to the growing creation of what I call the post-modern racist. The post-modern racist is a person who has done all the training on race relations, they speak very eloquently and they use all the right sound bites in a toolbox they carry with them. They are very dangerous people, and once they are given executive power to determine the path which involves people's lives, they can be quite damaging.

There are many ways I think discrimination was involved with my case, some subtle and some quite blatant. Often examples crystallise an issue.

My accusers were determined to measure the distance I had travelled from Southampton to London, as part of their case that I inflated my mileage claim. They were not quite sure where the journey commenced, so they assumed that the journey must have started at the local mosque in Southampton. I do not need to elaborate any further.

My eating habits were of particular interest to my accusers: I think in the region of ten statements were taken in the local restaurants I ate at to see whether I ate halal meat. A four-page statement was taken from the canteen manager as to whether I eat curry on a Thursday. I say no more.

I think these are examples of discrimination where I see it, but these may perhaps be examples of minor tactical discrimination. I think more worryingly there was discrimination at a very strategic level within the investigation, and again an example may be helpful to crystallise that.

Very little regard was given to my culture and my community, and I compliment your independent review, particularly the last page, where it actually says, quite clearly, that by sending a senior minority officer amongst his or her community, in my case, there are bound to be some conflicts. Diversity has a price. You cannot just have diversity on the cheap. It is incumbent on senior managers within organisations to cater for diversity.

If I want to invite my aunt from Iran to visit me, it is a simple process, it is a matter of record. I have to send an invitation to the Embassy in Iran to get aunty over here. A white superintendent who wants his aunty to come down from Newcastle simply gets a ticket for her. I have to write to the Embassy inviting her. I have to confirm in writing that she would not be a burden to the public purse, and I have to confirm in writing what I do for a living and where I live.

Without that, she will not be able to come and see me and my family. Is that abuse of my authority or is that the price you pay for having people who come from different backgrounds to the organisation? Because the white knights of integrity will say I have abused my authority. I say no, I come from a different background, with different dynamics, which requires different procedures. If you adopt a monolithic structural approach to what I do, then you can criminalise everything I do.

There was a huge song and dance about me going into my community, into the restaurants and having a cup of tea or eating. They said that was abuse of authority, and unbecoming of a senior officer, when in fact my community loves seeing me in my uniform in the restaurants. Indeed, I would argue that walking around the streets of London you will see many police officers getting their bag of chips and buying their McDonalds in the restaurants.

So these are all examples, trivial as they may be, but I think what they underline is a lack of understanding that there is a price to pay for diversity. There is a particular price to pay when you have a senior black officer who has a relatively high profile – I have in front of me my monthly receipt of hate mail. This one alleges that I have committed murder and kidnapping; this one says I am very cute; and this one says I am a racist and Islamic pig that ought to go back to my country.

One can argue that not many white superintendents receive this level of hate mail, and one can also argue that, if you take this letter, which was sent anonymously with no forensic on it, because it was examined, that I had committed a kidnapping and a murder, it should be subject to another Helios investigation, because after all I am a senior officer, I am just about to go on the Strategic Command Course and the integrity of the MPS is at issue.

To sum up again, and I am sorry to repeat myself – there is a price to be paid for diversity and these examples I am giving you are not because I particularly enjoy harking back to Helios, but I think these examples are there because they illustrate the kind of mind-set my accusers had when they investigated me, and that is in response to your question.

Sir Anthony Burden: You referred this morning to the fact that in your role as legal adviser to the BPA you support many officers who are subject to discipline, or advice in relation to those officers. We have had various sets of statistics which would tend to show disproportionality when it comes to discipline in both complaints from the public and internally in the way that black minority ethnic officers are treated in relation to discipline. In your experience, would you agree with that?

A. I totally agree with it, yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I ask you, you said to Miss Weekes this morning, if the MPS is committed to diversity in relation to another issue, can I ask you this: in your view, is the MPS committed to diversity and managing its people well?

A. I think there are certainly very good examples of the MPS showing a clear demonstration of being committed to diversity, and I think its public relations department actually does not do the organisation any favours. For example, I am extremely impressed in the way critical incidence weekends are arranged and organised, and that has a very heavy emphasis on catering with diversity, and I think the MPS ought to be congratulated. Certainly in dealing with race-hate crime I think the MPS has made huge, huge inroads.

But I am afraid the picture is not so glossy when it comes to dealing with its own staff generally and its own black staff in particular, and I have made the point, I get the feeling – and I can only base that on what I do – that it seems that when a black officer or support staff makes a genuine and legitimate complaint, they are treated like a vexatious litigant, and that is very, very painful to them. What I think people certainly do not realise is that in this game, being run by the lawyers, there is a victim; that victim is often not put into the equation. We may settle cases and congratulate ourselves that we avoided an embarrassing ET, but we do not think twice of what has happened to a keen, articulate, valuable police officer from the minority community who has become now so disillusioned, so hurt and so damaged that they could probably not have a proper life from now on.

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I ask you in relation to tragic situations such as those, are you aware of any process in the MPS where there is a debriefing after those events; where did we go wrong, what can we learn from these processes to make sure that this does not happen again?

A. I have no knowledge of such debriefings taking place, and certainly if there have been any debriefings the learning has not been publicised, and more significantly, the cases that I have dealt with, I have certainly not been privy to any learning or been invited before my suspension to be part of that, which I would have thought I may be able to add some value to at that debriefing.

Sir Anthony Burden: In an organisation which is committed to diversity, would you expect that sort of exercise to actually be gone through?

A. I think it is not just about being committed to diversity, it is a matter of common sense and logic and basic good management. I think sometimes we ought to take things out of the race vacuum and look at it as we would do as senior leaders and senior managers. If a case has damaged one of our staff, we should care; if a case has cost the taxpayer 1 or 2 million pounds, we must care. We must find out what when wrong, and more importantly what is the learning from it and, more significantly, if there is evidence of misconduct the person should at least be spoken to and be dealt with.

I can honestly say I cannot put my hand on heart and say this is done as a matter of routine, and you do not need expensive IT, you do not need new regulations, you just need the commitment to do it.

Sir Anthony Burden: We have had quite a few people come before us who have said that whenever the issue of race or gender comes on the table that managers seem incapable of managing those situations; they freeze, eyes glaze over, one expression used is that they are like rabbits in the headlights. But in the National BPA submission – this is my terminology, not within the submission – it is suggested that is a cop-out, that that really is just used to shield underlying racist views which are still evident within the organisation. Could I seek your views on that? 9

A. Yes. I think we are very good as a Police Service to concede to everything other than institutional racism. It is like saying about a bad driver: you can do whatever but do not tell them they are a bad driver. To me that is a cop-out, because the fact of the matter is, if a manager feels uncomfortable dealing with the issue of race or gender, the question needs to be asked, what are they doing in today's contemporary policing? By the year 2010, 50 per cent of people living in London are going to be from the minority communities. If you are a manager who freezes in the headlights when they deal with women and black people, then they may want to consider other vocations.

I think the reason people do freeze in the headlights is because they have insufficient confidence in their judgment in dealing with race. People from the minority communities, black staff, do not want something extraordinary out of their manager; they just want to be dealt with with dignity and respect. Why does that put people in a scare position? I am afraid it goes back to a very eminent researcher who once concluded that the reason black people get stopped and searched is because they have strange nocturnal habits. They happened to be out at night a lot. Frankly, what a nonsense. We have to concede that there may be institutional racism, there may be bias, there may be prejudice which determines that disproportionality, and once we concede to that point, then at least we can think of how we can improve it. If we remain in denial and try to find any other reason for it, we are never going to overcome the problem.

Sir Anthony Burden: You mentioned this morning about managers not feeling able to take risks, take chances, and if they get things wrong then we learn from it and we move on, we do not blame, which is, in my terminology, a blame culture. How engrained in the blame culture is this organisation, and if you have any views, please, as to how it might be addressed, we would welcome your opinion.

A. I think the culture is evolving, and I think the culture has improved significantly. I think there is certainly a far better atmosphere to concede to mistakes than certainly when I joined a few years ago. But I think the key is when it gets to sensitive investigations, that is when it becomes very difficult. I think one must disentangle the difference between ordinary police work where, for example, an officer gets a client report wrong with regard to a burglary – and I am sure many of the officers that I work with would hav

Skip Navigation \| Accessible

Accessibility About the Inquiry Contacts Search
Home News Schedule Transcripts Evidence Report Links
Transcripts > Superintendent A Dizaei (07 Jun 04)
QuickSearch See also On this website: Evidence: Superintendent A Dizaei	Previous Next	Views Print Accessible Actions Send
	Archive note Important note: This is an archive of the website that was formerly at www.morrisinquiry.gov.uk. It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information. Page summary This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the public session with Superintendent A Dizaei on 7 June 2004. Sections available here: Transcript of public session: Superintendent A Dizaei Questions by Sir William Morris Questions by Miss Weekes Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Supplementary questions by Sir William Morris Closing comments by Dr Ali Dizaei Alternative versions This transcript is also available with original line and page numbering. Morning session Afternoon session Content Transcript of public session: Superintendent A Dizaei Monday, 7 June 2004 10.40 am Sir William Morris: Good morning everyone, and good morning to you, Superintendent Dizaei. Can I first of all say thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this morning and to give evidence, and thank you also for letting us have your written submission, which we found extremely helpful. I appreciate that for some, and I emphasise some, of our witnesses the process might seem daunting, but in any event I think it would be helpful if I set out very briefly how we propose to conduct the hearing this morning. First, let me introduce myself and the other members of the panel. I am Sir Bill Morris, recently retired General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. As you can see, there are two other members of the panel. On my right is Sir Anthony Burden, who recently retired as Chief Constable of South Wales Constabulary after a very long and distinguished career in the Police Service, and on my left is Miss Anesta Weekes QC. Anesta is an eminent barrister and sits as a recorder and part-time chair person of employment tribunals. She was also counsel to the Lawrence Inquiry. Superintendent, as you know, we have been asked by the Metropolitan Police Authority to conduct an independent Inquiry into professional standards and employment matters in the Metropolitan Police Service. 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 that we are conducting is inquisitorial and not adversarial by nature or indeed 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 such as those who have been involved in high profile cases in order to understand how they are affected by the policies, the practices, the procedures and the convention that governs the way that the MPS operates and to learn lessons from their experience that will help to inform the future. We are quite keen to enquire into those issues raised by the terms of reference so that we can make appropriate recommendations for further good practice, rather than concentrate just on criticisms of the organisation, and in particular individuals. As I have said to all our witnesses, we are keen to hear about what is wrong with the MPS as well as what is right with it, but equally important, we are keen to hear what needs to be done in order that we can make it better. We have no wish to go back over the details of your experience, because we have read your written submission most carefully, and we have also commissioned a report from an independent investigator which you have seen, and therefore we have a fairly clear view of the events. Recently we wrote to you asking you to focus on some particular areas, and these were mirrored in the issues we asked our independent investigator to address. Drawing on all these, what we want to do this morning is to ask you some further questions so that you can focus on those issues where 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, who may or may not have some supplementaries. When we have completed our questions, we will offer you the opportunity to make a brief closing comment, but for the record let me also draw to your attention that a transcript of our proceedings this morning is being taken so that we can have an accurate record of all the evidence given to us by all our witnesses. We hope that you will be able to speak freely to us today about your experience so that we can identify the lessons to be learned for the future. But as I have said, our remit is the way that the organisation operates, not the details about the individuals who form part of the story of your experience. Whilst we will be publishing the transcript of this morning's hearing, together with your written submission and our investigator's report, shortly after this session, we will only do so after we have removed any reference to the names and other details of those you may mention so as to be sure that the published transcript contains no information which identifies individuals. I am sure you will understand that it may also be necessary for us to seek further clarification from those whom you might mention this morning, and indeed from what you say through your written submission and what you tell us today. Before I ask my colleagues to lead on our series of questions, could I ask for the benefit of the transcript if you would mind formally introducing yourself to the Inquiry? A. My name is Ali Dizaei. I am a superintendent with the Metropolitan Police. I am also the legal adviser to the National Black Police Association and currently I am on the Strategic Command Course. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. Questions by Sir William Morris Sir William Morris: Could I just say that in a minute I will invite Miss Weekes to lead on the series of questions that we want to explore with you, but may I start first by referring to our investigator's report, a copy of which has been provided to you. As you will have seen, we have not asked the investigator to conduct a full case review. We merely asked the investigator to provide us with a series of answers to those questions that we wanted to ask in respect of the high profile cases. Whilst I do not expect that you will want to go into the details, nevertheless it would be helpful, I think, if you would let us have your overview, your overall impression of the report, and to give us an assessment as to how you see the report in the context of its fairness, its analysis of the issues. A. Chairman, I will try to give briefly my assessment. Having read carefully the report, there are a number of inaccuracies within that which I think are quite pertinent. They may be unintentional, but nevertheless I think, because they are quite important inaccuracies, they need to be highlighted. That is one. Two, there is a conspicuous absence of some key issues which I believe were within my submission mirrored in the submissions of the National Black Police Association and the Metropolitan Police Black Police Association, and indeed an issue which impacts the lives of many black staff in the country. That absence, I think, in the report is significant. And thirdly, there is an overemphasis – a relatively minor matter when you then put it onto the scale – to sum up the difficult, sensitive issues which have been, in my opinion, conveniently left out. The comfortable, fanciful stuff has been teased out at certain junctures. Overall, I think it is a very brief report, but I do take note that it is not a full review within the ACPO guidelines, and my general impression there seems to be a tendency to justify some of the actions rather than being open and impartial, and allow the panel for themselves to decide whether an action was justified or not. That is my understanding of a fair and balanced review, although I do understand that professional judgment is required when that is done. I think it was a very difficult task, and I think overall it does raise some significant points which are well teased out, and I think many of the issues raised in there are indeed a surprise to me and astonishing to my legal team, having now been privy to them. So in that respect, I think it is good and positive. Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed. I would only repeat again that we have had significant written submissions from yourself, and indeed from other organisations, one of which you have made reference to. That said, it was not an exercise constituting a full case review. The report was constructed around the issues that we asked them to have a look at on the basis that it will inform our work, and it is a methodology to gain additional information to inform the process in which we are engaged. I am grateful for your response. Could I, at this point, invite Miss Weekes to start leading on our questions to you, Dr Dizaei, please. Questions by Miss Weekes Miss Weekes: Thank you very much. Good morning, Superintendent Dizaei. A. Good morning. Miss Weekes: I would just like to outline my approach, please, to the questions today. I am going to conduct a very, very brief overview of the investigation which resulted in a fairly lengthy suspension, a criminal trial for which you were acquitted, and your eventual reinstatement to your position, as you have told us today. It is going to be very brief because indeed the facts are very well-known to you, and I support what the Chairman has said. The purpose of today is not to go back over that rather bad time for you; it is to have your assistance about the lessons to be learned, and I stress that that is the real purpose of my questions. But I do want to ask you about the overall conduct of investigations such as yours, so that is why I am going to go through a very, very brief history, if I may. So I will begin with that. The initial impetus for the investigation against you began way back in October of 1998, really a long time ago now, and this was as a result of information received from an informant; it related to drugs. I am going to put it as simply as that. But as a result of those two or three pieces of information a decision was taken by a commander in August of 1999 that your office telephone at Kensington Police Station be subject to a private side intercept. That was continued until October 1999 when the commander who authorised that intercept decided there were no grounds for the intercept to continue. But of course the matter does not end there. Throughout 1999, covert surveillance was conducted upon you for a while; I think it was cancelled in November 1999. But in January of 2000, a letter of complaint was received from the mother of your children? A. Actually, the mother of an ex-partner. Miss Weekes: The mother of an ex-partner, forgive me. Thank you. And no statement was in fact taken from her as evidence, but in January of 2000, again, another PSI was deployed on your office telephone. The first one was cancelled, but we have another. I am jumping ahead quite a bit. February of 2000, a renewed application for the continued PSI on your phone was granted, despite the fact that the senior investigating officer stated that a number of lines of enquiry that existed a month ago into your alleged criminal conduct have been completed with a negative result. Again moving on, April 2000, the Metropolitan Police officers meet a representative of the FBI to request assistance in the integrity testing of Superintendent Dizaei. May 2000, Metropolitan Police officers visited the US and Canada to discuss utilising undercover officers for the integrity test. 15th June 2000, the Crown Prosecution Service writes to the Metropolitan Police Service outlining their serious concerns about the proposed integrity test and states that to date there is little or no evidence to substantiate the Metropolitan Police Service suspicions about Superintendent Dizaei. Moving on again quite swiftly, a piece of information received in November was that you may have, or allegedly had received a complementary ticket for a concert? A. Sorry, just one important fact which is missing and that I alluded to earlier – Miss Weekes: Yes, you talked about things that were missing. A. A further two integrity tests were conducted in that time, which I think are significant. [Redacted] was placed in the gym for two and a half months to entice me into criminality, and [redacted] was invited to my office fully wired up to entice me into criminality, and I think those two further integrity tests are paramount and illustrative of the level of endeavours by my accusers. Miss Weekes: Thank you for that. Moving down to 18th January 2000, you were suspended from duty, a Regulation 9 Notice is served. You were at your home address and it was searched. And a number of additional Regulation 9 Notices were then served upon you. You were interviewed in 2001. Moving on very swiftly, in relation to two charges, you were indicted to stand trial at the Central Criminal Court? A. That is correct. Miss Weekes: On both of those charges you were acquitted. Any other outstanding matters, the Crown Prosecution Service took a decision that it would not be in the interest of justice or the public to pursue those matters. That is correct, is it not? A. That is correct. Miss Weekes: I would like to deal with this matter because it is of public interest, not only to the Metropolitan Police but also to the public. The usual procedure after a criminal trial, whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty, is that the Professional Standards Department would consider any other outstanding conduct issues. Is that correct? A. That is correct. Miss Weekes: Did that happen in your case? A. Yes. Miss Weekes: We also know, because it is public knowledge, that any issues that you had in relation to an employment tribunal case were settled – A. Yes. Miss Weekes: – between your lawyers and the Metropolitan Police. A. Yes. Miss Weekes: But we do know that at present there are a number of issues outstanding in relation to professional standards. A. Yes. Miss Weekes: Which have not yet been decided upon. I am not going to go into those matters for that very reason, but I just want to deal, if I may, with the procedure. At the time of your settlement, did the Professional Standards Department receive or arrive at a final decision about any outstanding issues of conduct in relation to your case? A. I do not think it was in the hands of the Professional Standards Department. A senior officer from the Metropolitan Police was privy to the negotiation, and as a result of his intervention in those negotiations it was decided as part of the settlement that no further disciplinary action would be taken, and that really was the prime reason why I settled my employment tribunal. Miss Weekes: And that is your clear understanding of the position when you settled. A. And it is a matter of record. Miss Weekes: Yes. I ask that, of course, because some members of the police force or the public may think – it is not a question whether it is correct or not – may think you received rather lenient treatment because there appeared not to have been a thorough decision made about whether any outstanding conduct issues remained before settlement. You understand why I have raised that question. A. Equally, an equal number of members of the public may feel it is bizarre that I go to the Central Criminal Court, and which route I took to London on the journey. So whilst it may be convenient to cherry pick one aspect of the case to show preferential treatment, I think it is important to look at it realistically. Certainly I cannot think of one other investigation – I would be delighted to be informed – in the history of the Police Service focusing on a single police officer which, according to your independent report, took almost 3,000 statements, 2,000 actions and 1,600 exhibits and ended up with frankly nothing. So whilst I do sympathise with why some members of the public may think that, I think it is fundamentally important that the way I was dealt with should be looked at in its entirety rather than one piece towards the end. Miss Weekes: Is there any basis at all for concluding that you were given preferential treatment before settlement; that is that were you not properly considered in relation to any outstanding conduct? Is there any basis for that? A. I do not think there is any basis at all, because once you look at where this case started, the cost to the taxpayer, the cost to the confidence of policing, the trauma it caused to my family, to my colleagues, to my community, and the potential damage this would have had as this matter went to discipline – from my understanding, a further eminent QC was appointed to represent the Metropolitan Police – and for it to then go to an employment tribunal listed for four months, I think it was perfectly sensible for all those involved, the Metropolitan Police Authority, the Commissioner and my legal team, to try to resolve this problem and I am delighted that they did. Once you put all of those variables on the table, I do not personally think any reasonable person would think this is about preferential treatment; this is about doing the best for the public interest given what has happened. Miss Weekes: Superintendent, some may ask this question: it is clear that a number of very intense personal investigations were made of you over a number of years which would give the rest of your colleagues the impression that you were up to no good. That in itself was extremely damaging to you, and of course your position as a potential or an actual role model. Why have you stayed in the Metropolitan Police? A. When I decided to join the Police Service, it was not a seat of the pants decision; it was not because there was not any other job that I wanted to do. I made a decision to join this organisation because I passionately believe that I have a role to play in it, and I think I still have a role to play in it, albeit a small one, and it was a very difficult position and a very difficult situation for me to find myself in, having then come to a juncture where I had to decide whether it is time for me to depart or to stay. In making that decision I took into account my personal feelings about my employer, and I felt that I am still loyal to my organisation and this is something that I still want to do. But perhaps more importantly, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of members of the community looking to see whether I would stay or not, and I had, I suppose, a duty to them as well, and I thought that by staying in the organisation that I am committed to was the right thing to do, because I think, despite everything which has happened to me, it is still a great job, it is still an organisation that I feel passionate about, and it is still an organisation that I would like to stay in for the rest of my career. Miss Weekes: Thank you for that. I would like to turn now to investigations of high profile cases, of which yours was clearly an example, and I want to deal with certain aspects of your investigation that may mirror, and indeed do mirror, other high profile cases that we are dealing with. In particular, I bear in mind your rank of superintendent and that the investigation would differ from those of a lower rank. Against that background, I know that you will be familiar with the Taylor Review and the recommendations that were made. Are you familiar with that? A. Yes, I am. Miss Weekes: I am very grateful. Do you happen to know whether the Taylor Review is being implemented within the Metropolitan Police at the moment? A. I have no idea whether it is being implemented at the moment. What I could tell you, it was never referred to in my investigation, even towards the tail end of it. Miss Weekes: One of the very important recommendations – I summarise here – is that right at the outset of any complaint into the conduct of an officer, the recommendation is to have a case review, to have terms of reference so that one is absolutely clear where you are going and why. If that had been conducted in your case, would it have made a difference? A. No. Miss Weekes: Why do you say that? A. Because you can have as many reviews and recommendations as you like; if the mind-set is to bring somebody down, those get conveniently put aside and not referred to. At the time – and I can only refer to the independent review of your own here – at the time there were some firm guidelines about policy, about the law, about the integrity test, about policy logs and how certain things ought to have been done. It seems to me that scant reference was made to them, as illustrated in this report. So frankly, whilst it may be convenient to say, "Well, now we have the Lancet report, thank you, it is going to come as our saviour", the fact of the matter is that if these reviews exist and nobody adheres to them, without any accountability, then we can have a loft full of these reports but business will be done as usual. Miss Weekes: Let us explore that because it is quite important to our terms of reference, and indeed to the future conduct of the investigation of officers. Do you agree that integrity testing is a vital tool? A. Integrity testing is a vital tool, absolutely, and I am fully in favour of it. Miss Weekes: And you, I hope, like the Commissioner, do not negotiate the high standard of professional conduct required of every police officer in the Met. A. And I have been publicly a supporter of the Commissioner in his anti-corruption strategy. Miss Weekes: Taking those two bases as read, and if you are right that the excellent huge amount of time spent on the Taylor Review might actually remain on individual decisions at the end of the day, what is the way forward to ensure those who make decisions as to who is investigated and how, do it by the book? A. A simple word: accountability. If as a superintendent I deviate from a strategy in dealing with street crime on my borough I am called into my Assistant Commissioner 's office and get called to account, "Dr Dizaei, why are you deviating from a clear set strategy to deal with street crime?" And if I deviate again, I will not be on that borough very long. Why cannot the same simple strategy be adhered across the board when it gets to investigations like this? Miss Weekes: On your case there were very senior commanders who were making decisions about your intercept on your phone, surveillance, bringing in outside assistance from the US and Canada. Very expensive, time consuming strategies. Who should those commanders have been accountable to, if your suggestions and recommendations are right? A. In the Metropolitan Police there is a clear structure as to where people in the higher echelons of the DPS should be accountable to, and I think – I do not know that specific structure, but certainly every rank in the Police Service is accountable to somebody, and ultimately to the Metropolitan Police Authority. My view is, if decisions were made – and it seems from your own report – and I choose their words, not mine – many of those decisions were at best questionable – then who is accountable for those decisions? Because it seems that the impression it gives, that not only people who make the poor decisions which influence the lives of people, and I think the human side of this is often missed, because my family and I suffered as a result of this poor decision – not only are those people not questioned, but indeed they are promoted. The impression it gives to the public – and I think it is very pertinent that you mentioned the public right from the start – is that here it is, something goes horribly wrong, despite clear guidelines, despite clear laws, but people are actually remunerated. So what is the disincentive to do it differently? Miss Weekes: Let us look at the Metropolitan Police Authority, because within our terms of reference we are to look at the role that they play in high profile cases, and this is directly on line with our discussions about accountability. Why were they not accountable for the huge sums of money that were spent on what our experts call a fishing expedition in your case? A. Sorry, the Metropolitan Police Authority? Miss Weekes: Yes. A. The Metropolitan Police Authority, obviously the members are elected and I am not quite familiar with how they are accountable, but I think the importance of the Metropolitan Police authority in my case is really in two ways. Firstly, I think there was an error of judgment for the Metropolitan Police Authority member to be involved in a criminal investigation of a superintendent, for a simple reason: once you get yourself, as an authority member, contaminated into an investigation, then how can you hold to account the ACPO officer who may appear before you somewhere down the line who has to answer. That is not right. It is a simple matter of logic. My firm view is that the Metropolitan Police Authority remained the ultimate line of accountability for chief officers within the Metropolitan Police and therefore they ought to be ring-fenced with regard to live criminal or discipline investigations. The second thing is, I think the involvement of the Metropolitan Police Authority towards the tail end of my case has to be applauded and congratulated, because had it not been for the intervention of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the work carried out in bringing this sad affair to a close, it is possible that I would still remain suspended and I would be going to an employment tribunal very soon. Miss Weekes: How might we improve, then, the role of the MPA? Do you say that there should be an increased involvement in the right of the MPA to overview decisions made as to who is investigated, the proportionality of that investigation, and whether or not it should continue? A. I think my view is that police officers of senior rank, including myself, we get a lot of money to make professional judgments. We go on a lot of expensive courses to make professional judgments. Now, if I am in charge of an investigation and I have been elected to a rank to be in charge of this investigation, I am afraid the buck stops with me, and I have to make a decision based on my judgment and only on the guidelines which are available. Where the Metropolitan Police Authority comes in, if I am an ACPO officer, is that I have to then be accountable if I get it horribly wrong. It is that level of accountability at the moment which I think, in my opinion, is grossly missing. Cases are resolved, hundreds, if not millions of pounds worth of taxpayers' money is spent but nobody is actually held to account. Miss Weekes: Superintendent, do we want to leave it until it goes horribly wrong, or should there not be an infusion of the MPA's ability to have a look to see what is going on during the lifetime of the investigation? You see my point? A. Yes, I understand the point, and it is a powerful point, but I am afraid once you get the people involved in the investigation who become the adjudicators of those decisions, it is getting the judge involved in the investigation, and I think there are great dangers, as illustrated in my case at the start, when members of the Metropolitan Police Authority were given briefings about my case, about the gravity of evidence against me, which I am afraid, you know, was not the case, and they were, as I have said again, contaminated, and once you are contaminated with the process, and somewhere along the line you justify it because you give the nod, then it is very difficult to step back away from that and then have to call the ACPO officer to account when things go wrong. So I understand the point you are making, but I think the bottom line is that the Metropolitan Police Authority remains the only guardian of the public with regard to conduct of chief officers in the Metropolitan Police, and I think they need to be independent and they need to be in a position to make judgments. Miss Weekes: Well, I will pursue it just one level further and move on. Surely, Superintendent, you can ask questions of an investigation without getting contaminated; you can ask questions about what is being done, what steps are being taken, how much money is being spent, without losing your independence; you agree with that? A. Yes, but the problem is, let us take one step: if you can ask questions, you can ask probing questions, and you may get an answer, but then what do you do? Do you then tease out the detail? Do you get further and better particulars, or do you leave it as that? The danger is, what happens if then a Parliamentary question is raised and asks, "What do you think, Metropolitan Police Authority, about this case?" And then what happens is you then, as a member of the Authority, write back and say, "I have looked at this and I have asked questions", so by implication you are approving something which you are not best placed to approve, and that is precisely what happened in my case, where snippets of information were given to the Metropolitan Police Authority, not in the right context, which put them in a very difficult position towards the end. Miss Weekes: How do you say it should be done, Superintendent? A. I think my view is that there is incredibly good training done for SIOs nationally. There are clear guidelines on the table on how investigations should be done. There is not anything else we can do to support our SIOs. I think from my understanding there is plenty there; you have got the Lancet Review, you have got the ACPO guidelines, you have got the training going on. I am afraid the SIOs who take up this job need to exercise discretion and make judgments. Dealing with an investigation like this is no different from dealing with an ordinary investigation. The dynamics may be different but the basic framework is there: fairness, not forming a mind-set, being rational, not deviating from your terms of reference, keeping a policy log, listening to what the CPS tells you. If you keep to those, then you cannot go wrong. But if you do go wrong, then it is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Authority to hold you to account. To sum up my view, despite the powerful argument you put forward, I think the Metropolitan Police Authority is the ultimate line of accountability for chief officers and they should be ring-fenced with regard to live investigations. Miss Weekes: So you cannot give this panel an optimistic view that the type of investigation that was run against you might not happen again? A. I am afraid – and I want to make it very clear for the record – it will happen again. Miss Weekes: You sound rather positive. A. Sorry? Miss Weekes: You sound very positive. A. For reasons of subjudice I cannot comment any further, but I do not think there are sufficient safeguards, as I sit here, that this type of investigation is not going to take place. Miss Weekes: I would like to move on, please, to your knowledge of the statutory provisions, procedures in place to deal with conduct and discipline issues, and as a superintendent rank this is something you would be familiar with. We have heard numerous accounts from all officers: men, women, black, white, of all ranks, that the present structure and statutory set-up is still too complex, does not allow for discretion, does not allow managers to deal quickly with resolving workplace disputes. Do you agree with that? A. Yes, I do. Miss Weekes: Sometimes, as a panel, we do not get enough assistance as to what the remedy is, but we have had various views: get rid of the statute altogether and start again; people should simply not be hidebound by statute; and some say it is really all down to good management. What is your view? A. I think in, some ways, I am in a privileged position because, as the legal adviser to the NBPA, I am privy to many, many cases where I am faced with looking in detail as to why it has now ended up in front of me, and if I was to take one theme out of all those cases, it is to do with poor decision-making, the ability to manage right at beginning, at the grass roots. I think, basically, it is not very attractive to deal with workplace issues, at work, in particular when it involves issues of race. It is not high on the agenda of people who manage police stations and boroughs. Simple things like, if driving courses are being dished out, am I satisfied as a superintendent that they are being dished out proportionately? If, for example, people are making complaints, am I satisfied, as a superintendent, to know that it is okay on my borough and there is not any disproportionality in a number of black staff complaining? You need to have the energy and the commitment to go and ask these questions, which a lot of people do not do. They do it with other things; they do it with street crime, burglaries and everything else, but when it gets to the issues of diversity, there seems to be a sapping of energy, and unfortunately these things then brew up and then they become out of proportion. Miss Weekes: I would like to bring up on the screen, if I may, the recommendations from the Virdi Report, because it falls within our terms of reference. We are looking to see really how far those have been implemented, because a number of them cover the very Inquiry which we are sitting on. Again, I want to go back to regulations. Number 1 – it is just going to be highlighted for us: "Regulations, particularly in regard to discipline, should be interpreted with common sense and reasonableness in an attempt to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and unjustified cost both financially and in personal terms." Well, all of that makes pretty good sense, does it not? A. Yes. Miss Weekes: But it is clearly subject to the person who is the decision maker. I know that my colleague, Sir Anthony, is going to deal very specifically with the very important issue of diversity, so I want to deal with this across the board for all officers. We received enough evidence to indicate that there are pockets of bad practice throughout the Met in relation to how managers deal with the regulations. What is the way forward? Is it just lots more money to be spent on training again? Is that it? A. I do not think there is a simple answer to that, and I do not think we will ever find a solution, because the fact of the matter is that there will always be workplace conflicts and there will always be workplace relationships long after this Inquiry finishes. I think the question is how important we believe resolving these disputes is. How often does a superintendent get congratulated or commended publicly for resolving a workplace relationship which will have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds? I guess never. But there are plenty of officers who get congratulated for bringing down the burglary rate. It is where the organisation sets its priorities, and I think what gets measured gets done. If there was a measure and a performance indicator right across the borough, right across the Police Service, which tests chief officers, which tests people of my rank and even lower, about how they deal with workplace relationships, I think there will be better focus to deal with it. Miss Weekes: How long have you been a manager in your rank? A. Well, I was promoted to sergeant with four years in the service, so I suppose I would consider myself being a manager about 14/15 years. Miss Weekes: Fifteen years, and how many people do you manage at the moment? A. None, but before I was suspended about 450. Miss Weekes: 450. How do you know, within the whole process, that you were a good manager? There is an important reason why I ask this question. A. Well, there are various ways. You have got to accept feedback, you have got to welcome feedback – Miss Weekes: Is this set up by the Met? Is there a system where a manager knows he is a good manager? That is my point. A. No, there is not, and I do not personally think there ought to be a system. I think it is important for people to take responsibility for their own management and for their own self development, and I think it is important that managers do welcome feedback, they create an environment for it, because that is the only test which remains about how you come across as a leader and as a manager. There are formal things you can do like 360-degree feedback – you can buy the software, and I think that is available. But if that is then weaved in to the way the organisation gives promotion, or recognises personal achievement, then I am sure a lot more people would do it. I do not personally think it is at the moment. Miss Weekes: But you see the, perhaps, advantage of there being an acceptable level of management skills that is known and widely circulated throughout the Met as being the level to which managers should aspire. That is a good thing, is it is not? A. Yes, it is. I think it is. I just want to sort of differentiate between management and being a good leader. If you say to me, "Were you a good manager?" then I would be thinking of: did I have the right processes in place, did I have the right systems in place, did I do my work within those lines? If I do all of those then I could be a good manager. Then if you ask me am I a good leader? Then that is a completely different test. Leadership is about setting directions, about having a vision and inspiring others to follow you. They are completely different things. I think the quality of leadership, which is one which you have right from the day you walk out onto your beat, to the highest rank in the Police Service, is not something that can be taught – Miss Weekes: But my question is about management, Superintendent. A. The issue of management, my interpretation of being a good manager is being able to deal with your staff, dealing with systems and processes. There are ways that you can be taught those things, but I do not want to underestimate the importance of self responsibility to being a manager, because if you just allocate a course or a piece of software for somebody to do to become a good manager, I think that is an easy escape. I think it is personal responsibility in the way you deal with your staff and in the way you deal with your workplace relationships. Miss Weekes: Part of what will cost the Metropolitan Police and ultimately the taxpayer is when decisions go wrong, when people have to go to employment tribunals when there are disproportionate investigations, and we have heard from a large number of white officers as well who talk about how they have been treated badly. A lot of that is a bad decision by a manager; not always, but quite a lot. What should happen to bad managers? A. It depends on the gravity of the poor decision. If a manager makes a decision which fundamentally impacts the lives of his or her staff, costs the taxpayer an enormous amount of money and brings the Police Service into disrepute, then the ultimate sanction should be used. Miss Weekes: What is the ultimate sanction? A. Being sacked. Miss Weekes: Does that happen in the Metropolitan Police? A. Well, I do not think it happens as a matter of routine for a poor decision. I think it is important to strike the balance because we do not – personally I would not want to work for an organisation where if somebody makes a mistake, an innocent mistake, they should be sacked. I am talking about the ultimate sanction. I am talking about gross negligence. In those circumstances, I think the organisation should have no compunction. That brings us in line with industry. Miss Weekes: There is a procedure to deal with the manager that requires encouragement, that requires some sort of guidance about how to do things; the ineffective procedure. I may not have named it correctly but I hope you understand the one I am referring to. Is that used? A. In dealing with? Miss Weekes: Dealing with managers who are under-performing. A. I have had no personal experience of it, but certainly I am the first person to put my hand up and say there were many occasions that I made poor decisions. You know, nobody walks on water; we all make mistakes. I think it is important, once you make a mistake, that there is an environment you can actually go to and be honest about it and learn from it. I do not personally think that exists at the moment. I think people are quite worried about making a mistake, and I think that is quite relevant to the issues that you raised about the Virdi Report and maybe this case and other cases. If I put hand on heart, I can say that there are people who recognise, certainly in the Virdi Report, that they were making mistakes, that they were not getting what they wanted, and I think that is one of the key recommendations which is coming out. But there was a mind-set, there was a steam train on its way and nobody could stop this steam train. There was no leadership, no management, to say "Stop". Why? I think there should be an environment whereby people can initiate an investigation, which may be legitimate, but recognise that it is not going the way they want to, but have the personal courage and support to say, "I have made a mistake, I need to stop", without feeling that they are going to be crucified. Miss Weekes: I am not going to ask you about Fairness at Work specifically because, of course, within the chronology you would not yourself have experienced sufficient of that new process because it only began in 2004. But I would like to ask you about the employment law processes and cases going to employment law, again generally, because I know that Sir Anthony wants to deal specifically with diversity and race issues. The number of employment law cases may appear to drop because of Liversidge, but in fact people still go to employment tribunals for gender issues and race issues, and staff for all other issues. Do you consider that an independent person to review sensitive issues that may go to employment law would be a good idea? A. It would be a fantastic idea, and I have been writing about it and I have been advocating it at every opportunity I have had. It makes perfect sense and it is a matter of logic, only because, from my experience of dealing with employment matters, people get entrenched into their position, lawyers run the show, not chief officers, and the juxtaposition of independent advice at the right point would be welcome and, more importantly, people would allow the chief officer, whose ultimate responsibility is the employment, not the force solicitor's, to make some decisions. My gut feeling at the moment is that chief officers are not running the show, the solicitors are running the show, and I think, frankly, that is not a very good position to be in, because if I was chief officer, I would want to make a decision as to whether a case should go to an employment tribunal. I would listen to the force solicitor, but I would make the decision. I do not think that is happening at the moment. Miss Weekes: Well, a chief officer might say, in response to what you have just said, "Come, come, I have got a legal department, I am entitled to take legal advice, and in particular when issues are grave and serious and may damage the reputation of the Met, I am entitled to side up with that legal advice". Is that not a fair point? A. No, not at all. It is an assertion which I accept. It is no different than having a tac adviser at a firearms incident. As a senior officer, if there is a firearms incident around the corner, I will employ a tactical firearms adviser to advise me. But the fact of the matter is, it is my decision, and I make the decision because that is what I am being paid for, and I think it is an application of my responsibility to pass the buck on to the tac adviser or to the force solicitor to make decisions which are my responsibility and for which, going back to what I started with, I should be held to account. Miss Weekes: Well, if that is right, Superintendent – let us follow through the logic: why should the Met be a special public organisation that needs independent advice on employment tribunal cases when every other big public organisation gets on with it on their own? A. Because the dynamics and the transition of the organisation over the years is wholly different from other organisations, and I appreciate that Sir Anthony will be talking about the issue of diversity. But I think you have to look back slightly into history as to why the Metropolitan Police has found itself in the position it is today, and I have alluded to it in my submissions and I really would not want to go into it in detail. But, you know, in a sentence, the Metropolitan Police has gone through a series of racial transitions since Scarman, where its rank and structure are now made about people who think different, look different, dress different and do things differently. Unfortunately, the structures which were devised by the monolithic organisations of the 1960s have not changed, and therefore inevitably there is going to be huge frictions for the time to come over race, gender and civility. So in that sense the dynamics of the organisation are different, and it is likely to be exacerbated by its unique position. That is why I would justify the use of an independent person to try to resolve some of the matters which are likely to end up in the public arena. Miss Weekes: And you are saying then that the Met are not quite ready to make decisions on their own over these sensitive issues? A. I did not say that and I chose my words very carefully. What I did say is that when it gets to extremely sensitive and high profile cases, it is fundamentally important that chief officers make the decision and do not allow lawyers to make that decision for them, because I think the bottom line is, if I was a chief officer, the responsibility of taking one of my employees – and the word "employees" is the operative word; I am not dealing with some vexatious litigant out on the street who wants to make a fast buck – if I make a decision that I am going to drag one of my employees through the employment tribunal for months, destroy his or her family, probably damage them irretrievably, that is a decision that I have to make, and that is the decision that I have to be held accountable for if I get it wrong. Because what is happening at the moment, the cases are going to court, are being settled with huge amounts of money – we have just seen one in the national headlines a few days ago – but nobody is asking the question, "Who allowed this to go?" As a chief officer, I think it is remarkable that I could say, "Well, actually, my lawyer said I could drag this all the way up to the House of Lords and back and it was okay". I would never get away with it if I was dealing with a firearms incident or if I was dealing with a police incident. Why should I, as a chief officer, be able to get away with it with that? The bottom line is, it is not about being harsh, it is about being accountable, it is about giving a service to the public, and it is about having responsibility for your employees. That is why it makes sense. Miss Weekes: Who should this independent person be? Where are we going to get them from? A. There are many people, I think. Personally I would want – I mean, I have not really thought about – obviously there has to be clear knowledge of employment law on behalf of that person. Whether they be a lawyer or not, it is a moot point. Whether there should be a team who should look at it ... with a little bit of imaginative thinking, I do not see that that is a constraint. I think it is the principle that needs to be accepted. The reason I think it is not is because human frailty makes us become entrenched in the way we deal with things, and it is very, very difficult – and I include myself in that – Miss Weekes: Does it surprise you that the Director of Legal Services told us that he is very keen on the use of mediation in all employment law cases? A. Well, that must be a fairly recent sort of assertion, because my – again, I have experienced nationally, and it is not just about the Metropolitan Police – from which are sit in dealing with black staff claims, I see very little diplomacy. I see sometimes almost a crusade to fight this case at all costs, and sometimes I just feel quite sorry for the officers because there is a human side to all of this which a lot of people fail to see. Miss Weekes: Following on from the issue of independence, I would like to touch on the Independent Advisory Group. Sir William Morris: I suggest that we adjourn for a short break shortly. Miss Weekes: The Independent Advisory Group. One must, of course, look at what we have got to see whether we can utilise that better before we decide to put more into the picture. How well do you say the Independent Advisory Group functions for the Met? A. I have serious concerns about the use of the Independent Advisory Group. Again, if you wheel back the history as to why they were set up, I think it throws a light as to why they were created and what they were supposed to do. I think, as always, in the Police Service we have a tendency to create something which was good at the time and then abuse it when it is convenient for us. I have always said, and I think it is said quite clearly in the NBPA submissions, the use of IAG is not a get out of jail free card, and I am afraid it seems to me that that is what it is being used in cases – Miss Weekes: Forgive me for interrupting. That might give the impression that the Independent Advisory Group was no longer independent. Is that what you are saying? A. Absolutely. Not only they are not independent, but they are actually being used for a purpose which was never, ever intended for. Miss Weekes: And what is the use that you say they are being put to which you do not find acceptable, because I assume you do not find it acceptable. A. No, I do not find it acceptable at all that the independent advisers should be used in the investigation of black staff, and I do say black staff for a reason, because I cannot see – or I have no knowledge of the use of independent members for investigations of white staff. So is it just a coincidence or is it some sort of race proofing? If it is race proofing, in other words by that I mean, if I am held against the rack I can then say, "Well, it was okay because black people said it was okay", or is it about covering myself in case things go wrong? And that is not the reason to use independent advisers. I am delighted that in the independent report that you have commissioned the point is made quite admirably by the review team. It becomes particularly of concern if you use independent advisers and then you do not tell them everything, because that makes them vulnerable and it also makes their decision questionable. Miss Weekes: You will forgive me for putting this point, but I need to explore the basis of your views about the Independent Advisory Group. Some people will say, "Well perhaps you take that view, Superintendent, because one or two members of the advisory group considered that the investigation against you was proper at the time". Is that why you take the view you take? A. No. Frankly, I did not mention the issues of my case. I am more interested about the use of independent advice generally. Miss Weekes: You understand that in fairness I thought I ought to put that on the table for you to deal with. A. That is fine and I am glad you have put it, but I am more keen to give you my views so that you may see it in a much wider context of just Helios. What I am trying to say, and I am probably putting it quite clumsily, is that the use of the Independent Advisory Group in investigations of black staff, or indeed investigations of police officers, is not the purpose for which they were set up. If there has been a deviant to that procedure, then where is it and who sanctioned it? Because certainly in my role within the National Black Police Association, we would have objected vehemently to use of independent advisers as part and parcel of the investigation: table top exercises, weekend summits, showing of crucial bits of evidence in internal investigations. I have reviewed very carefully the history of how independent advisers were set up and I cannot see any reference that one day they will be used to legitimise internal investigations. Miss Weekes: Well, may I put this important point, because I think this topic is important: the Metropolitan Police senior officers will say the Independent Advisory Group is used as an independent sounding board where members of the public are able to comment upon strategic decisions with a view as to whether or not they are disproportionate to the individual concerned, taking on board culture issues, or not. That is a brief summary of what the senior officers would say to you in relation to that. Is that not why they were set up? A. My understanding is that the Independent Advisory Group was set up to look at investigations, and there were plenty of precedents for this: deaths in custody, matters which have a tendency to shake the public confidence in terms of race. They were not set up to look at a corruption investigation. If they were, then I would put them to strict proof to show me one other investigation up and down the country where members of the advisory group were used for corruption investigations. Miss Weekes: Have you objected to the use of the Independent Advisory Group in this way? A. Sorry? Miss Weekes: Have you raised that objection? What was the response to your objection? A. No, I have not raised it, but I think the National Black Police Association has felt very strongly about the use of that, and I think – you know, I am not suggesting in principle there is no room for the IAG to be used. What I am saying is that that was never agreed; there was no precedent for it, but more significantly, if you are going to use independent advisers, there are two golden rules. The first thing is, you use them from the beginning, and the second golden rule is you tell them the truth and you tell them everything; you do not cherry pick the information. Those are two basic golden rules, and they appear to me to be a matter of logic. I think if those golden principles are adhered to, then there would not be this conflict where things do not go well. Miss Weekes: I want to, just before the 12 o'clock break, move, if I may, to one other issue of independence which we have allowed others to comment upon, and I think it would be helpful if you could help us. It goes back a little bit to the disciplinary process and the inordinate length of time that often these cases take, which is so damaging for officers that they are suspended for not one year but two years and perhaps four or five years. What do you say could assist in speeding up the length of time it takes from the service of your Regulation 9 to a decision? A. If I may start by saying what will not help. What will not help is more training. What will not help is more guidelines, and what will not help would be legislation or regulation. What will help is, again – sorry that I have to repeat it – it is to do with the issue of accountability. A discipline investigation is in many senses no different to an ordinary crime investigation. If people are delayed, if the service of Regulation 9 notices are stage-managed, as your independent report highlights, these are a matter of personal discretion which falls fairly and squarely on the officer. To answer your question, the only thing which will speed up the process is to hold the people accountable who are in charge of the process. Miss Weekes: Can I put this to you as a matter of principle: the detail and the practicalities need to be worked out, of course, but what about utilising the system that is available and is used up and down the country in Crown courts and in employment tribunals of there being a case manager, someone to whom the person who makes the decision about investigations, who conducts the investigation, is accountable to, about when he intends to finish the investigation, how much longer he requires, if he requires more time and why, so that the case manager is really dealing with disclosure issues, listing issues, takes account of adjournments that we hear are often requested through defence solicitors. Both sides have to come to the case manager to give an account for where this disciplinary process is going to. In principle, do you see that as being a good thing? A. I am afraid there is an appetite to create something new because we think it is going to work. My view is, if there is a case manager, then what happens to the person who is in charge of DPS? That person's responsibility is to do that up and down the country. That may be a superintendent; in the Met it is a chief officer. My view is, if I held that post, I would be having weekly meetings with my staff, like most people do, and I would be asking some detailed probing questions about individual cases, and more importantly, being a good manager I would know the cases which may form my Achilles heel, and I would be asking for more further and better particulars of those cases. Miss Weekes: The trouble is, Superintendent Dizaei, it just does not happen at the moment. Officers are left sometimes not knowing what is going to happen to them for two, three or four years. A. But somebody is responsible for that. You know, I am sorry, but you cannot just pass away the responsibility of management on to some new system, on to a new person. If that is happening in some shires up and down the country, then ultimately a senior rank who is sitting in that department is responsible for that, and the question, I think, I would invite the panel to ask is: what is happening to the person who is running that department? Rather than creating a case manager who is doing the job that that person was supposed to be doing. Miss Weekes: Thank you. It is just about 12.00. I have just one or two matters from the Virdi recommendation I would like to come back to. Sir William Morris: We will adjourn for five to ten minutes. 12.00 pm (A short break) 12.10 pm Sir William Morris: Welcome back. Miss Weekes. Miss Weekes: Thank you. Could I go back to another recommendation from the Virdi Inquiry report. It is recommendation number 9. I will just read it for the benefit of the public and yourself: "Senior officers should regularly monitor and review how effectively middle and junior managers implement the organisation's policies and commitments to equality." I am particularly interested in your repeated view about accountability before the break, but we have heard from a number of witnesses that nobody appears to manage the managers. So when bad decisions are made, they go unchallenged. First of all, is that a view that is correct? A. Yes, I think it is, and I think it is quite pertinent that recommendation 10 nicely dovetails recommendation 9. I think they go nicely together. Miss Weekes: Well, in fairness, thank you for drawing that. Let us read it, recommendation 10: "Our conclusion of the re-investigation into PS Virdi's case, to be supervised by the PCA, any officer deemed to have acted inappropriately should face disciplinary action." So you are quite right, the two should go together? A. Okay. On that point, I just want to make one important remark regarding the word "inappropriately". It does not say "gross negligence" and it does not say "gross misconduct". It seems to me, from my case, the recorder's decision is often used as a placard to justify the case. I just want to say that "inappropriately" is a million miles away from "gross misconduct", which is a requirement to eject a case on an abuse argument, which I am sure you are familiar with. In other words, to sum up, you do not need criminal conduct or gross negligence to have acted inappropriately. Miss Weekes: Well, we have heard from Mr Virdi, but to your knowledge has there been a decision made on the Virdi case in relation to whether any officer there acted inappropriately? A. I have read the Virdi Report quite carefully. I think there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that that report could not have been framed in the format it is unless there is some inappropriate behaviour falling fair and square on a number of officers. To the best of my knowledge, neither of these officers have been called to account or been held responsible for what they have done to Mr Virdi and to his family. Miss Weekes: Now let us broaden the discussion for lessons to be learned. Superintendent, who manages the managers in the Met? A. In order to answer that question I really need to drill down by who you mean by managers. Miss Weekes: Well, let us take a sergeant as being towards the junior end of the management structure; an inspector a level above. Middle and junior management make very important day-to-day decisions that affect the lives of police officers and police staff. When those decisions are bad decisions, not necessarily through ignorance, but they are just bad decisions, who deals with those bad decisions? A. If it is a sergeant, it should be the officers and inspector. He or she has a responsibility to deal with poor decisions made, but I am afraid – and there is a way to deal with that, and that is through interventions at the right point, if the decision is particularly bad, but more significantly at the annual appraisal of the officer. I think what takes place is very often that the annual appraisal is remarkably different to the performance of the officer, because generally it is far easier and more comfortable to do a good appraisal than to do a bad one, and therefore there is a tendency to overlook systematic failure of a particular officer, because that particular hour on that annual basis can become a very difficult hour if it is one where you need to challenge. But again, it goes back – with this rank goes responsibilities, and I am afraid a good manager will have the personal courage and the personal robustness to deal with poor decisions and bad managers. Miss Weekes: Do we have enough senior officers of your rank and above who are robust enough to say to an officer, "Well, you handled the application for that particular female officer for part-time work rather badly; this is how I would like you to do it next time round"? A. Yes, I think there are certainly people that I have worked with who would do that, and in fact I have seen superintendents who do have the personal courage and robustness to challenge. But I think the key is whether that is systematic, whether that is widespread and, more significantly, is that one which is remunerated and recognised by chief officers, because my gut feeling is that it is not. A superintendent is likely to get far more praise leading the May Day Parade and dealing with a turbulent football match as a hero than dealing with the particular issue that you are alluding to and resolving it properly. Miss Weekes: Do you think that is because there is a culture within the Met that considers dealing with people to be a soft skill – I have heard that word used; it is not my choice, but I am simply repeating it to you – that there appears to be a distinction made between the operational skills and, I have been told, soft skills? Would you call them soft skills? A. I would say dealing with people is not within the police subculture culturally glamorous; it is not something that you strive to do. The nature of the police culture subscribes to the school of thought which says, you know, we must deal with real issues, and often dealing with staff is not considered as a real issue. And that nicely loops back to the point that I was alluding to earlier, that is why, when we end up paying £500,000 damages, nobody asks the question, "Well, hang on a minute, how did we get to that position, and who was the officer" – because it is there as a matter of record – "who was the officer who said we should fight this to a point where we now have to offer £500,000, £300,000, whatever, in order to resolve it?" Miss Weekes: So back to the recommendation of the Virdi Report, which is now some time ago. Do you think that that recommendation of monitoring the junior and middle management organisations is actually being conducted on a regular basis throughout the boroughs? A. No, I do not think it has been done regularly. I am sure there are pockets of very good practice, but certainly I do not think it is one which is systematic across the board, and that would be a very tall order in any industry, to say, you know, "We have a system of dealing with people at all levels through all our departments, which are made up of 30,000 people, which everybody does that". But I think that should certainly be an aspiration for the higher echelons of the Metropolitan Police Service, and certainly one which should receive considerable remuneration and recognition for those who actually do deliver on people issues, do resolve cases which do not end up paying significant amounts of money from the taxpayers' purse. Miss Weekes: I think it would help us as a panel to understand the practicalities of the recommendation 9. Going back to your days as a manager, do you know it is terribly difficult to know what all your managers are doing for any particular month and who is good, who is the flavour of the month and who is not so good; is that right? A. That is partially right, only because the Police Service is one of the only organisations where discretion increases as you come down the hierarchy; it is only because police officers generally at lower rank operate in what is often termed conditions of low advisability. What that means, basically, is that it is very difficult to actually know what a police officer is actually doing at any particular time: namely, the low advisability. So it is very difficult. And police officers, as you know, have an incredible amount of discretion, and one can argue the officer out on the beat will probably have more discretion than the Chief Constable. So inherently it is very difficult in the police organisation to have that level of close scrutiny. But however, that does not mean that drilling deep, knowing your staff, being aware, taking an interest and having an eye for detail is not possible. I have certainly seen it done amongst many of my competent colleagues, and it is certainly something that I aspire to. I do not necessarily get it right all the time, but that is something that I would like to think that I would try to do. Miss Weekes: So the words, "regularly monitor and review how effective managers implement policies", what does that mean? Monthly, quarterly? A. I think, if you set the scene and say you are an inspector and you are in charge of four sergeants and, say, 28 police officers, I do not think you need any timeframes to effectively monitor regularly; that is part and parcel of your daily business. It should be done every day. Inspectors should be going out with their sergeants, with their officers, and finding out what is taking place on their relief. And you can always distinguish between a good relief, a good manager, and a poor manager. The one who adds value, looks for detail, recognises the good work of his or her staff brings a level of vibrancy into a shift, into a borough, or into a force as far as a chief officer is concerned, than one who does not. Miss Weekes: A member of the public could get the impression that there are the higher ranks, the ACPO ranks, Assistant Commissioner ranks and then the lower ranks, and the two do not tend to talk a lot to each other; is that right? A. No, I do not think that is right at all. I think, certainly from my experience – if you take Sir John Stevens, I think he is probably one of the highest profile commissioners that I have known. I mean, he is regularly taking ample time talking to everybody, and certainly going around areas and boroughs, and I think there may be a perception, but I do not think that perception is reality. Certainly in the last four years, I think, ACPO ranks within the Met have become far more visible than they were before, and certainly as a superintendent when I was working at Reading I would regularly see the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, and indeed I was being held to account almost on a daily basis with regard to crime on my borough, getting personal calls from the Assistant Commissioner, if I was not performing and so forth. Miss Weekes: Well, allow me to give you a very recent example that applies to the whole question of middle managers making decisions, getting it wrong, and senior managers appearing to do nothing about it. We were very grateful to have received some evidence from a good number of female officers, and the overwhelming complaint was that managers who line manage them either do not understand part-time regulations or they misinterpret them or they simply do not think that they should apply them. If that exists, that is evidence that middle managers and junior managers are not making correct decisions about a very important policy which the Met has adopted, part-time work and flexi work, and to date no one has been able to tell us why senior managers have not been able to deal with that and correct it, because it is unlawful to deny a woman the right to be considered for part-time work. A. Yes. Certainly there is a mismanagement of that area. That particular area, when one deals with the issue of fairness, discrimination and understanding of regulations – Miss Weekes: It says in Regulation 9 "commitments to equality", so it is a good example, is it not? A. It is a good example, and I do not personally believe there is any need for further training. I think it is a question of how do you get people to be held to account for what is, as you quite rightly put it, an unlawful act. Miss Weekes: One way round it, Superintendent, is that the senior officer in charge of that borough should be aware of where this bad practice occurs and stamp it out immediately. A. Yes, I think that is the aspiration, but I think the way you can actually bring it into fruition is by measuring it. There is a whole different debate as to whether performance measurements are good or bad, but the fact of the matter is that they are here and they are here to stay. And it is also a matter of fact that what gets measured gets done, and I think if one can devise a way where the performance that you are alluding to, and compliance that you are referring to, can be measured against some fairly scientific criteria, then I think it can be done. I think by simply saying the senior officer ought to be aware, it does not crystallise it enough for one to make a recommendation. Miss Weekes: Well, let us move away from measurement. What about the senior officers making it a point of finding out what their managers are doing? I do not mean every day; maybe monthly, maybe quarterly. How are the part-time regulations going? How are they being implemented face to face, so they can take back to the table any particular pockets of bad practice that exist? Because some women will not feel brave enough to take out an employment tribunal claim or to complain about a manager that has fobbed them off. So the senior ranks need to grip the problem. A. I totally agree with yourself, but I still believe that from my experience leaving issues of equality to people's goodwill and sense of morality, you will be waiting for a very long time. My view is that issues to do with equality and fairness must be measured, because if they are measured the person who is responsible for delivering is held to account and it will be done. And it is important that there is a proper matrix to obtain that information for the chief officer to be able to tease it out. It is no good picking up the phone and ringing up the local boroughs or going for a cup of tea with the local superintendent and saying, "Hello, Ali Dizaei, is everything to do with equality fine on your borough?" and I will probably say, "Yes, of course it is, sir". There has to be some scientific way where the chief officer can drill deep independently to see whether things are okay or not. Miss Weekes: I would like to go to recommendation 11 for your help as to what it means and how it is going to be implemented. I ought to read it: "The MPS should monitor the composition of representatives of the Police Federation's joint branch board, ensuring that concrete measures are taken to address under-representation, especially from ethnic minority groups." I know that your rank, you are not a member of the Police Federation, but you would have been throughout your career up to that rank. So with that in mind, that is why I feel I am entitled to ask you this question. And you also are in a representative capacity for the Black Police Association, so I want to ask you a little bit about the Police Federation. It is very much within our terms of reference because when there are issues that may matter to individuals, whether it be issues of culture, race or gender, or terms of conditions of employment, that is something that the Police Federation could take up; am I right? A. Yes. Miss Weekes: For the ranks I have indicated. If, for whatever reason, there is under-representation within the Police Federation, it means that certain sectors of the police force may feel legitimately that their grievances are not being taken up. Is that also correct? A. Yes. Miss Weekes: Well, what do you say the position is with the Police Federation? Is it representative? A. I think certainly the Police Federation, as far as its hierarchy is concerned, is certainly not representative. But, you know, I think my view is that the issue of representation is far more complex than simply having a number of black people onto a branch board. It is far more complex than that. I think the question which needs to be asked is: what is the value added? What are we trying to achieve by, for example, saturating the ranks, the branch boards, with black officers, black staff? The question is ensuring, for me, that people who make key decisions about lives of people see through a different lens. At the moment, if you do not have diversity in whatever format, people tend to see it through one lens. And one of the key issues, for example, that I have taken up for many years – and I frankly have not got anywhere – is the choice of lawyers. As a lawyer, you would appreciate, I hope, the importance of being able to choose your own lawyer. The worse thing, I think, a claimant or any person in that position can have is to be forced to go with a particular solicitor and to be forced to instruct a particular counsel. We have not been able to get that basic human right sorted once and for all. Miss Weekes: Just so that I follow, this is through the Police Federation. If you are a member, you can go to them for representation – A. For representation. Miss Weekes: – because you have paid fees. A. And they would insist that they would choose the lawyers for you, and they give you a very stark choice: take it or leave it. Miss Weekes: Does that happen on a regular basis? A. It happens all the time. It happens on a daily basis. The problem the person has is that they are left with no choice; they have to go with a particular firm or they have to drop their claim or they have to mortgage their house, and that is not a position that we ought to be in and that is not the way we ought to be, if I was the chair of the Police Federation, treating our members. Because, frankly, if whoever the client decides to instruct abides by the terms and conditions that the Federation lawyers abide with, and they are a member of the Law Society and so forth, I do not see why a member, black or white, cannot go and choose their own lawyers. It certainly cannot be on the issue of cost because the new firm of solicitors will say, "Look, whatever your lawyers are charging, we will charge". The reason I use that example is because I just simply do not believe having representations on board in a window-dressing – I personally think it is not very productive unless there is a value added. I am sure, had there been some key members of the minority communities from the police organisation at pertinent points within the Federation, they could make this point quite vociferously and have the policy changed. Because they are not there, they cannot be changed. Miss Weekes: Are they not there – and I want your comment on this because there are two sides to it – are they not there because they have not presented themselves for election, or are they not there for some other reason which blocks them? Because the Federation is a creature of statute, and there are the Police Federation regulations that I have seen, and it is a creature of statute, is it not? A. Yes, it is. One can only guess as to why black staff are not applying, but if one takes the experience of why black staff do not apply for promotion, accelerated promotion courses, specialist departments, the reason being that they are deskilled over the years, and that is the reason why often, even when they do apply, they do not get the job, maybe the same argument applies to the Police Federation. But I am only guessing. I have tested it with regard to promotion, specialisation, but I have not tested this against joining the Police Federation. Miss Weekes: Well, putting aside the obvious statutory difficulties that the Police Federation may say there are, how important is the recommendation in the Virdi Report that the Metropolitan Police should monitor the composition of representatives with the applied Federation branch board? How important do you say it is to – A. I think it is important, but I think the Metropolitan Police is – their hands are tied. If it is a regular legislative organisation which is based on election, the Metropolitan Police can do very little but just monitor. I think, looking at it strategically, in terms of why we would want more black staff, I would say that to have the National Black Police Associations put on a legislative backing and regulations could be the way forward, because at the moment we are not based on regulations and we are, in that sense, quite powerless. I think, if you are committed to the issue of diversity, the Metropolitan Police maybe could assist us, or assist the National Black Police Association, and give advice and help to put that body on equal par with the Police Superintendents' Association, with ACPO and with the Police Federation, because once you have the National Black Police Association at that level, then by statute they will have to be consulted with regard to a whole array of issues which can only help the decision-making which will impact the entire Police Service. Miss Weekes: We have heard of the 14 staff associations outside of the Police Federation. Would it not be so much better and far more effective if most of those views were represented on the joint branch board? A. I think the key is – I can only talk about the National Black Police Association. I think there is no doubt that many of the issues that we take issue, as the NBPA, will not have the support of the Police Federation, and I think it is important that there remains a separation between support staff associations, such as the NBPA – I am only referring to the NBPA because obviously I am their legal adviser – and the Police Federation. Trying to bring them all together, I certainly do not think that would be beneficial, because there are issues which do impact on black staff which I do not think would be given the merit if it was all part of one organisation. Miss Weekes: So you see the need to keep a degree of independence there? A. Yes. Miss Weekes: But you could do both, could you not? A. You certainly can do both, and I think ultimately it is, what is the value added? I think the value added is that the decision which comes at the end of it will be to the benefit of the Police Service and will be to the benefit of the community. Many of the forums that the NBPA now participates in allows the forum to see things through a different lens, and I think that can only improve the quality of the product which comes out of it. Miss Weekes: Within our terms of reference, which I know you have read quite thoroughly and are familiar with, what is the most important recommendation which you would consider that we should take on board? I know it is all to do with professional standards and complaints and discipline, but what is the one that you would say we should pay the most attention to and why? A. I think the most important recommendation – I have alluded to it – is the issue of accountability. I think it forms the fundamental pillar in the way we do our business as a public service. If – my view – this Inquiry does not highlight the importance of the fact that the buck must end with someone, and they have to be held to account for the decisions which have impacted the lives of people, damaged the image of the organisation and cost the taxpayer an enormous amount of money, then I personally think we will not move forward. So to sum up, rather than have one, I would say weave in accountability into each and every recommendation that you make, and name the person, name the individual, rather than the Metropolitan Police, because people who shy away from being accountable would love to hide behind the corporate cover of the Metropolitan Police. Miss Weekes: Well, that leads me on to this point – I have got sufficient time to do it – if the buck stops with a person, why do you think so far that that has not happened? Because perhaps none of the recommendations and suggestions we have heard are new, are they? A. No, they are not. Miss Weekes: Why is it, do you think, that things have not happened like that before? A. There is a whole list of reasons, but I think, if I was to condense them into one, there has not been the will to hold people accountable with respect to certain things. I am not suggesting for one moment that police officers – there is ample accountability with regard to a whole array of policing activity, but when it gets to issues of workplace relationships, there is a conspicuous absence of accountability. So in other words, there is good practice of holding people accountable; all we need to do is to transfer that level of rigour and accountability to managing workplace relationships. Miss Weekes: Who is going to take leadership for this obviously good suggestion? A. I think my view is this is a matter of huge importance for the Metropolitan Police. I think it is a matter which should be driven at the policy board level, and it is a matter which I think a chief officer should be given direct responsibility and held to account for delivering it. It is not a matter to be spread thinly across the whole organisation, because I do not think it will be done. I think it is a matter which should be driven by a named person who will have to do regular reviews, regular input to the policy board, and say, "With regard to these matters, I can give you an explanation." For example, "We have just settled a case and we have paid £1 million. I am now holding accountable the inspector who could have resolved this four years ago. I am actually holding accountable the solicitor in the department of legal affairs who said, 'Go for it, we can win this'." In other words, if I was that chief officer, I would come to the policy board and say, "This is my portfolio", and on one which went horribly wrong, "This is the learning, this is the accountability, and these are the people who have failed; some of them through innocence, some of them through gross misconduct, and the ones through gross misconduct I am going to deal with them in the following manner." Miss Weekes: What message do you say that would send to the rest of the Service? A. I think that is probably one of the most powerful messages which is sent about, we are serious about this and we mean business; just like dealing with street crime, because I do not think there is any superintendent or any inspector or a sergeant in the entire Metropolitan Police who does not know where the organisation sits with regard to street crime. We live and breathe on the borough the importance of putting behind bars robbers. We come to work that in mind, because the bottom line is we are going to be held accountable with regard to that. That message of dealing with street crime, which I am delighted to say the Met has incredibly good success, has been driven from the highest level right to the officer on the beat and it has proved to produce results. Miss Weekes: You want it transferred over to people management? A. Absolutely, and remunerated accordingly. Miss Weekes: Thank you very much for your assistance. Sir William Morris: Thank you, Dr Dizaei. We stand adjourned until 2 o'clock. 12.45 pm (The short adjournment) 2.00 pm Sir William Morris: Good afternoon, everyone. We are now reconvening, and, Superintendent Dizaei, Sir Anthony Burden will lead the questions this afternoon, so straight over to Sir Anthony. Questions by Sir Anthony Burden Sir Anthony Burden: Good afternoon to you. I am conscious of everything that has been said in the written submissions that we have already received, I would however like to give you the opportunity to respond to a direct question; the question is, do you consider that discrimination was a feature of the handling of your case? A. The answer is an unequivocal yes. Sir Anthony Burden: Would you like to enlarge in terms of in what respect you feel discrimination featured. A. Yes. Discrimination is not something these days which is visible; in other words, it is not something about which you can say, "Oh look, discrimination is just walking past". Discrimination is often covert, beautifully disguised, and in my previous publications I have referred to the growing creation of what I call the post-modern racist. The post-modern racist is a person who has done all the training on race relations, they speak very eloquently and they use all the right sound bites in a toolbox they carry with them. They are very dangerous people, and once they are given executive power to determine the path which involves people's lives, they can be quite damaging. There are many ways I think discrimination was involved with my case, some subtle and some quite blatant. Often examples crystallise an issue. My accusers were determined to measure the distance I had travelled from Southampton to London, as part of their case that I inflated my mileage claim. They were not quite sure where the journey commenced, so they assumed that the journey must have started at the local mosque in Southampton. I do not need to elaborate any further. My eating habits were of particular interest to my accusers: I think in the region of ten statements were taken in the local restaurants I ate at to see whether I ate halal meat. A four-page statement was taken from the canteen manager as to whether I eat curry on a Thursday. I say no more. I think these are examples of discrimination where I see it, but these may perhaps be examples of minor tactical discrimination. I think more worryingly there was discrimination at a very strategic level within the investigation, and again an example may be helpful to crystallise that. Very little regard was given to my culture and my community, and I compliment your independent review, particularly the last page, where it actually says, quite clearly, that by sending a senior minority officer amongst his or her community, in my case, there are bound to be some conflicts. Diversity has a price. You cannot just have diversity on the cheap. It is incumbent on senior managers within organisations to cater for diversity. If I want to invite my aunt from Iran to visit me, it is a simple process, it is a matter of record. I have to send an invitation to the Embassy in Iran to get aunty over here. A white superintendent who wants his aunty to come down from Newcastle simply gets a ticket for her. I have to write to the Embassy inviting her. I have to confirm in writing that she would not be a burden to the public purse, and I have to confirm in writing what I do for a living and where I live. Without that, she will not be able to come and see me and my family. Is that abuse of my authority or is that the price you pay for having people who come from different backgrounds to the organisation? Because the white knights of integrity will say I have abused my authority. I say no, I come from a different background, with different dynamics, which requires different procedures. If you adopt a monolithic structural approach to what I do, then you can criminalise everything I do. There was a huge song and dance about me going into my community, into the restaurants and having a cup of tea or eating. They said that was abuse of authority, and unbecoming of a senior officer, when in fact my community loves seeing me in my uniform in the restaurants. Indeed, I would argue that walking around the streets of London you will see many police officers getting their bag of chips and buying their McDonalds in the restaurants. So these are all examples, trivial as they may be, but I think what they underline is a lack of understanding that there is a price to pay for diversity. There is a particular price to pay when you have a senior black officer who has a relatively high profile – I have in front of me my monthly receipt of hate mail. This one alleges that I have committed murder and kidnapping; this one says I am very cute; and this one says I am a racist and Islamic pig that ought to go back to my country. One can argue that not many white superintendents receive this level of hate mail, and one can also argue that, if you take this letter, which was sent anonymously with no forensic on it, because it was examined, that I had committed a kidnapping and a murder, it should be subject to another Helios investigation, because after all I am a senior officer, I am just about to go on the Strategic Command Course and the integrity of the MPS is at issue. To sum up again, and I am sorry to repeat myself – there is a price to be paid for diversity and these examples I am giving you are not because I particularly enjoy harking back to Helios, but I think these examples are there because they illustrate the kind of mind-set my accusers had when they investigated me, and that is in response to your question. Sir Anthony Burden: You referred this morning to the fact that in your role as legal adviser to the BPA you support many officers who are subject to discipline, or advice in relation to those officers. We have had various sets of statistics which would tend to show disproportionality when it comes to discipline in both complaints from the public and internally in the way that black minority ethnic officers are treated in relation to discipline. In your experience, would you agree with that? A. I totally agree with it, yes. Sir Anthony Burden: Can I ask you, you said to Miss Weekes this morning, if the MPS is committed to diversity in relation to another issue, can I ask you this: in your view, is the MPS committed to diversity and managing its people well? A. I think there are certainly very good examples of the MPS showing a clear demonstration of being committed to diversity, and I think its public relations department actually does not do the organisation any favours. For example, I am extremely impressed in the way critical incidence weekends are arranged and organised, and that has a very heavy emphasis on catering with diversity, and I think the MPS ought to be congratulated. Certainly in dealing with race-hate crime I think the MPS has made huge, huge inroads. But I am afraid the picture is not so glossy when it comes to dealing with its own staff generally and its own black staff in particular, and I have made the point, I get the feeling – and I can only base that on what I do – that it seems that when a black officer or support staff makes a genuine and legitimate complaint, they are treated like a vexatious litigant, and that is very, very painful to them. What I think people certainly do not realise is that in this game, being run by the lawyers, there is a victim; that victim is often not put into the equation. We may settle cases and congratulate ourselves that we avoided an embarrassing ET, but we do not think twice of what has happened to a keen, articulate, valuable police officer from the minority community who has become now so disillusioned, so hurt and so damaged that they could probably not have a proper life from now on. Sir Anthony Burden: Can I ask you in relation to tragic situations such as those, are you aware of any process in the MPS where there is a debriefing after those events; where did we go wrong, what can we learn from these processes to make sure that this does not happen again? A. I have no knowledge of such debriefings taking place, and certainly if there have been any debriefings the learning has not been publicised, and more significantly, the cases that I have dealt with, I have certainly not been privy to any learning or been invited before my suspension to be part of that, which I would have thought I may be able to add some value to at that debriefing. Sir Anthony Burden: In an organisation which is committed to diversity, would you expect that sort of exercise to actually be gone through? A. I think it is not just about being committed to diversity, it is a matter of common sense and logic and basic good management. I think sometimes we ought to take things out of the race vacuum and look at it as we would do as senior leaders and senior managers. If a case has damaged one of our staff, we should care; if a case has cost the taxpayer 1 or 2 million pounds, we must care. We must find out what when wrong, and more importantly what is the learning from it and, more significantly, if there is evidence of misconduct the person should at least be spoken to and be dealt with. I can honestly say I cannot put my hand on heart and say this is done as a matter of routine, and you do not need expensive IT, you do not need new regulations, you just need the commitment to do it. Sir Anthony Burden: We have had quite a few people come before us who have said that whenever the issue of race or gender comes on the table that managers seem incapable of managing those situations; they freeze, eyes glaze over, one expression used is that they are like rabbits in the headlights. But in the National BPA submission – this is my terminology, not within the submission – it is suggested that is a cop-out, that that really is just used to shield underlying racist views which are still evident within the organisation. Could I seek your views on that? 9 A. Yes. I think we are very good as a Police Service to concede to everything other than institutional racism. It is like saying about a bad driver: you can do whatever but do not tell them they are a bad driver. To me that is a cop-out, because the fact of the matter is, if a manager feels uncomfortable dealing with the issue of race or gender, the question needs to be asked, what are they doing in today's contemporary policing? By the year 2010, 50 per cent of people living in London are going to be from the minority communities. If you are a manager who freezes in the headlights when they deal with women and black people, then they may want to consider other vocations. I think the reason people do freeze in the headlights is because they have insufficient confidence in their judgment in dealing with race. People from the minority communities, black staff, do not want something extraordinary out of their manager; they just want to be dealt with with dignity and respect. Why does that put people in a scare position? I am afraid it goes back to a very eminent researcher who once concluded that the reason black people get stopped and searched is because they have strange nocturnal habits. They happened to be out at night a lot. Frankly, what a nonsense. We have to concede that there may be institutional racism, there may be bias, there may be prejudice which determines that disproportionality, and once we concede to that point, then at least we can think of how we can improve it. If we remain in denial and try to find any other reason for it, we are never going to overcome the problem. Sir Anthony Burden: You mentioned this morning about managers not feeling able to take risks, take chances, and if they get things wrong then we learn from it and we move on, we do not blame, which is, in my terminology, a blame culture. How engrained in the blame culture is this organisation, and if you have any views, please, as to how it might be addressed, we would welcome your opinion. A. I think the culture is evolving, and I think the culture has improved significantly. I think there is certainly a far better atmosphere to concede to mistakes than certainly when I joined a few years ago. But I think the key is when it gets to sensitive investigations, that is when it becomes very difficult. I think one must disentangle the difference between ordinary police work where, for example, an officer gets a client report wrong with regard to a burglary – and I am sure many of the officers that I work with would hav