Important note: This is an archive of the website that was formerly at www.morrisinquiry.gov.uk. It is being hosted on the MPA website for archival purposes only and may contain out-of-date information.

This resource is from the Transcripts section. This section contains a transcript of the public session with Mr L Logan of the Metropolitan Black Police Association on 7 June 2004.

Sections available here:

• Transcript of public session: Mr L Logan of the Metropolitan Black Police Association
  • Questions by Miss Weekes
  • Questions by Sir Anthony Burden
  • Supplementary questions by Sir William Morris

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

Transcript of public session: Mr L Logan of the Metropolitan Black Police Association

Monday, 7 June 2004
3.30 pm

Sir William Morris: Welcome back.

Mr Logan, can I first of all thank you for accepting our invitation to attend the Inquiry this afternoon and to give us some evidence yet again, and in passing can I say thanks also for the additional submission which you have delivered to us arising out of your last appearance; we found that extremely helpful and it has in fact clarified the points on which we sought your further views.

I am sure that you will recall the remit of our Inquiry, and our method of approach, so it is not my intention to repeat the full introductory comments. That said, following these introductory words, it is my intention to move straight to the questions which we want to put to you.

When you gave evidence earlier to the Inquiry, I said that we had not at that point reached a stage in the Inquiry where we were ready to hear evidence relating to high profile cases. As you are aware, we have now reached that stage and so we have invited you back to ask some further questions about the submissions you have made insofar as it relates to Mr Dizaei, and we know that you have more than a passing interest from a personal perspective in terms of your own experience which we want to explore as well.

Following my introductory remarks, one of my fellow panel members will lead the questions to you, followed by myself with any supplementaries that I might have, and in the absence of a supplementary, and preceding that, then Sir Anthony will also ask you some questions.

As usual, with all our witnesses, you will be provided with an opportunity to make a closing comment at the end of our questions. But as before, let me just draw to your attention that a transcript of our proceedings is being taken in order to deliver an accurate record of the evidence given by all our witnesses, and this will be published on our website as soon as practicable.

Before I begin, for the benefit of the transcript, could I again invite you to formally introduce yourself to the Inquiry.

A. Yes, I am Chief Inspector Leroy Logan, based in Westminster borough, and I am chair of the Metropolitan Black Police Association.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. Can I first invite Miss Weekes to lead for us on a series of questions that we want to put to you.

Questions by Miss Weekes

Miss Weekes: Thank you. Good afternoon, Chief Inspector.

A. Good afternoon.

Miss Weekes: My only topic this afternoon, because I know that Sir Anthony has a number of questions for you, will be in relation to your own personal case that you took to an employment tribunal. Do you mind if I ask you some questions about that?

A. No.

Miss Weekes: I am grateful. It would be, I think, rather remiss of us if we did not because we have had access to your employment law file, because we, the panel, have randomly selected a number of employment law files to educate ourselves about how the Met deals with employment law issues. So that there is no surprise about that, that is why I have seen your file.

But for the purposes of today, I would like to just briefly summarise the background as to why you lodged an employment law tribunal. Then I would like to ask you some questions about it and the lessons which you say we should look at when we come to consider the issues in relation to employment law cases.

1st October 2001, you lodged your employment law case for direct and indirect discrimination plus victimisation. The background to why you lodged it was this: there was an allegation made that, on 10th November 1999, having spent a night in a hotel in Manchester, you wrongly claimed – you double claimed expenses for a hotel to the tune of £80 –

A. Could I just stop you there. I actually claimed once.

Miss Weekes: Let me just explain why I used the word "double", because it turned out that the claim had been made directly through the Home Office and had been paid, and the allegation was that then you claimed £80, therefore that is why I used the word "double". That is it. That was the allegation, £80. I stress the value because I want to come back to how you might help us about how much was spent in fact on your case in its entirety.

Out of that allegation it is important to comment briefly on how it arose. During the investigation of Superintendent Ali Dizaei, the Black Police Association were naturally giving him support, and out of that investigation came the investigation of Ali Dizaei's expenses. The investigating officer chose to make a decision to expand the investigation of expenses to other members of the Black Police Association. So far correct?

A. So far.

Miss Weekes: And that included yourself. So there was no distinction at the time to you as an individual; you were being seen as in fact part of the Helios investigation?

A. It appears so, yes.

Miss Weekes: And out of the investigation of Ali Dizaei, a number of you were asked to produce details about expenses, and that is how the issue of the £80 hotel bill came up.

A. If I could just clarify that we were never invited to give account of our expenses. From my understanding, the Helios team got authority from the Home Office to go into the National BPA accounts without consulting with us at all.

Miss Weekes: I think that is right, yes. That is an important correction, that you were not originally consulted.

Quite importantly, at a leadership conference that you were attending at Arundel on 29th June 2001, you were served with a Regulation 9 service in a public foyer?

A. They wanted to, but I insisted that it should be done somewhere privately, and the senior investigating officer was open to that offer and in the end the Regulation 9 was served on me in his car.

Miss Weekes: So you had to persuade him to come out of the public area into a private car.

A. I made it clear that I was not to be receiving that form in the gaze of my colleagues.

Miss Weekes: 29th June, within a month, almost just three weeks, you had given a full and frank explanation on 23rd July of the same year.

A. Yes.

Miss Weekes: In answer to that Regulation 9 notice.

A. That is correct.

Miss Weekes: Of course, you did not have to but you did.

A. Absolutely. I had nothing to hide.

Miss Weekes: And despite that full disclosure from yourself, which included an explanation that you were not told at the time that the £80 expenses had already been claimed through the Home Office because that was the root of the mistake, the error, which you made plain.

A. Yes. As soon as it was brought to my attention I acknowledged that I needed to check my records, and once checking my records I saw there had been an error on my part and I paid the amount to my association, the National BPA office, within days and I got a receipt to that effect.

Miss Weekes: Had you known at the time, clearly you would not have put in your own claim.

A. Absolutely. That claim went through, as you say, in late 1999, and it was paid without any concern because the system was there to not only pay but to make sure payment was correct, and in fact there was a multiple claim because it was the last week as my tenure as chair of the National BPA, so there was a need to submit all outstanding amounts expeditiously, and I did so, and it is within that speed of events and the backdrop of the Lawrence campaign and all the demands on me and members of that national executive at the time that the oversight occurred.

Miss Weekes: But in addition to that, it would have been perfectly easy to check that it had been paid twice, because all these things are checkable.

A. Yes. That is if you have got a totally robust system, and at the time, unfortunately, the system was not as good as it is now. In fact a lot of the learning from my experience has made sure that the systems not just with the National BPA, but also with the Home Office, because we were a fledging organisation at that time, we did not have the monitoring systems within the National BPA and the Home Office, so they were just establishing that, and that is where the error occurred.

Miss Weekes: So the full explanation from you included an acceptance that it was a mistake and the money had been paid back, but you were still interviewed under the official disciplinary process.

A. Yes. Let me just go back to the fact that on the day of the Regulation 9 being served on me, I actually said, "Why are you taking such a formal approach?" and the reply was to the effect, "Well, I have got to treat you the same as Ali Dizaei", and so I was prepared for what would subsequently happen in terms of media scrutiny and the fact that I would have to be interviewed extensively even though it was an amount which really could have been resolved by other means.

Miss Weekes: But you had paid it by then.

A. Absolutely, yes, and I made a statement to that effect.

Miss Weekes: You were interviewed on 24th July. The PCA were contacted to look at this case; is that right?

A. Yes, I believe so.

Miss Weekes: 14th November, the Crown Prosecution Service were also contacted as to whether they were of the view that you should be prosecuted for some form of dishonesty.

A. That is correct.

Miss Weekes: And the reply was no.

A. That is right.

Miss Weekes: So they had gone through quite a number of official channels in the light of the fact that you had given an immediate full explanation and the money had been repaid and you made it clear it was a mistake.

A. That is right.

Miss Weekes: It does not quite end there, because it is not until after obtaining legal advice that the matter was finally settled by a confidential agreement of 1st November 2003.

A. That is correct, yes.

Miss Weekes: It is confidential so I am not going to go into the figure that it was settled for, but it was settled.

A. Yes. I mean, it was settled in such a way that I made sure that other cases were going to be looked at. It was not a situation: well, I am okay and everyone else can fend for themselves. I wanted to make sure that the learning from Ali's case, my case, Gurpal Virdi's case was going to be operational as soon as possible to make sure we could develop a structured form of mediation for other outstanding cases that had been withering on the vine for a number of years. So that was part of that settlement.

Miss Weekes: Of course, in your role as vice chair of the National Black Police Association, it must have been excruciatingly embarrassing for you to have had to go through this.

A. Absolutely. As has been said before, building reputations take a long time but you can lose it in a second, and I was looking at comparisons where I had never seen or heard of a senior white manager being treated in that way for that amount and that type of allegation. I know of numerous, including the DPS department, where these things have been resolved in a reasonable fashion. That was a great hurt not only for myself, but also for my wife and [redacted] children, and it is really difficult to explain to your [redacted] year-old son – he is [redacted] now, but at the time he was [redacted] that daddy is not going to go to prison for such a matter. And of course the impact on the reputation of the Black Police Association, which we have all tirelessly worked towards building for the benefit of all in the Police Service across the country. And of course the fact that your role model for so many people will have a negative impact on young people who may see the Police Service as a future employer and they may think: well, if they can treat all these people like this, why should I join?

It was a major impact in trying to focus our energies, because we are not only involved in support work, but we are developing internal units. We have developed award-winning community programmes, and we have just been recently commended by the Commissioner for the work we have been doing. People said, "Well, why do you still do that when you are still being investigated, or you are being watched by satellite scanning and collateral intrusion" and so on, but we make sure it is because the principle of policing is in our hearts and we drive with that.

Miss Weekes: It may seem a silly question, but Chief Inspector Logan, would you sacrifice your reputation and that of the group you represent for an £80 hotel bill?

A. Absolutely not. I would never do it. In fact, my parents, God rest their souls, were alive at the time, and trying to explain to my mother in her 70s that her son had not turned his back on the principles and community and family values that she had raised me and my sister with for so many years – unfortunately I lost both of them during that time of being investigated in the employment tribunal. So I would never jeopardise the reputation of myself, my family and the organisation for such a matter. It was clearly an oversight.

Miss Weekes: Well, let us now look at the lessons to be learned from this case, because it raises some central issues which we have been looking at for the time that we have been set up. It raises the ability of the Professional Standards Department to resolve matters swiftly and informally; it raises proportionality; and it raises inequality of treatment, perhaps. Let me get from you, because it is your evidence which matters, which one of those you think it does raise.

Let us first of all deal with why you say this could not have been settled the moment you wrote your full statement within three weeks of being served your Regulation 9.

A. Well, I truly believe that it actually went further than just the Regulation 9 on me, on my expenses claim. If you look at what happened when the National BPA was set up, we had to deal with some major issues, very critical issues, which caused a lot of consternation for a lot of people.

The two main profile people who were really targeted as the armour bearers were Ali and myself. I was the chair, he was my deputy. We had some key people like [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], some excellent people, but I suppose in terms of media it was Ali and myself.

We knew of concerns of senior management and people right across the organisation, so much so that we were aware of a backlash, and senior officers were saying, "Just be wary that something may happen", and as a result of that I wrote four critical letters to the Home Secretary, to the President of ACPO at that time, also to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies, the Chief Constabulary member, and lastly the Commissioner, because we knew something was not going to be left. They saw us as part of the problem and not part of the solution. So I truly believe that there was that major concern, and I put it down on paper.

And then Ali is suspended, and within about two or three days of his suspension we were starting to feel that we had been co-opted in some way. We were getting high level briefings and told that we might be victims of crime, and we said, "Well, if we are victims of crime then we have to make that decision. If you are saying you have evidence to that effect, then please draw it to our attention". And in fact we set up a gold group within the BPA to ensure that we had a resilience to respond to any evidence that they put to us.

After about four months, we were not seeing any such evidence. We were still being briefed unofficially, and in fact I made sure that any time I was in contact with members of the DPS I had someone with me because I did not want any allegation that I was involved in any sort of private deals or discussions, and I know that they did not like that. I felt that they were starting to go from the softly softly approach to the more harder, "Well, you are in the Police Service, do what you are told", and quite rightly so. If there is a lawful order I will do what I am told, but if I feel that that order is subject to questioning, I will question it, which I did.

I suppose it finalised in me questioning it through a letter I wrote in June 2001, where I made it clear that we had been asking for evidence of being a victim of crime, who made certain allegations against Ali Dizaei and we have nothing to show for it. We stand on the cornerstone of our law, that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and we will continue to support Ali and anyone else who needs our support. We are not condoning criminality, but we will make sure that that person has our assistance.

So I think there was a build-up to that time, and within three weeks of that letter I was served with a Regulation 9.

Miss Weekes: This is quite important because representatives of those who are not treated fairly must be allowed to speak out without fear of victimisation or any form of repercussion. What do you say is the way forward here, because the Black Police Association will continue, as indeed the other 13 staff associations will continue, to speak out.

A. I think the culture of the organisation is starting to understand that we are not going to go away, we are going to speak up. Especially for those who do not have a voice, the fact that we are a unified voice, not only in London but across the country – and we are consistent in terms of our aims and objectives: that supporting our members is our priority; echoing the issues that affect our members and the wider concerns of the organisation is an issue; we will keep that critical distance and, more importantly, will come up with recommendations and any form of assistance, and we will continue to do so not only internally but externally, because, as time is going on, people from the community are always calling for our assistance and as we have more and more constructive strategies in community engagement, especially in the new forms of safer neighbourhoods and step change in policing, we are seen as having a more unique and authoritative voice.

Because of that fact, we will continue to maintain that distance, and I suppose some people will think, you know, we are disloyal to the organisation, but I think the issues we raise are for the greater good, and that is one of the reasons why we are sometimes seen as a target for some people. And in believing we are a target, we have actually said, "Well, we are not going to try and get your recruitment targets, if you are going to make us a target, until such time we have an inquiry to look into these issues".

Miss Weekes: Going back to proportionality and the time it took for your case to be dealt with, some would say, "Well, you could have been given the words of advice to sharpen up record-keeping immediately after your 23rd July statement", and I think you would agree with that.

A. Absolutely. I would do it every time. We have what are known as duty stakes which record the duration of our tour of duty, expenses. Myself, as a supervisor, I always have to correct people and get clarity from that statement, just to make sure that person is putting the facts right as they know it, and if there is any fine-tuning I am not going to automatically think: dishonesty. I am going to seek clarity, and I do that every single day with my team.

Miss Weekes: Why do you think it took till November 2003 for this case to settle? Was that due to any fault of yours?

A. No, I co-operated fully from the beginning. In no way did I offer any right to silence. I was very, very clear on what had happened. I gave every assistance to the investigation team. In fact, while I was being interviewed for the best part of three hours, I was quite open to every single question and I answered them to the best of my ability.

So there was no reluctance on my part or my legal team or any members of my association or my organisation that I am proud to be a part of who were trying to disrupt – again, it is just part of the theme that is emerging that small issues get elongated beyond proportion, but we are seeing these disproportionalities having themes around the culture and the culture and the gender of the complaint.

Miss Weekes: What is the way forward, Chief Inspector? How can we speed up the way professional standards operate? Because it is unfair to an officer, especially if it turns out he is innocent, to have waited six months, two years for a decision. So what are your views about improvement?

A. Well, I think, especially on a departmental and borough level, there needs to be a greater ownership at the first line of supervision and at that sort of departmental level to get to the heart of the matter and resolve it to the best of the ability.

If, after carrying out a full analysis of what has gone on, how the build-up to that allegation or whatever is looked at, then you can say, "Oh right, well we have done the best we can, now let us get advice from the Department for Professional Standards, and of course let us see where the Department for Legal Services can give some advice" – but not to steer it; not to set a strategy of defence but a strategy of resolution. It is the mind-set in which you approach it.

That is one of the reasons why the support co-ordinators of the Met BPA and other BPAs – [redacted] is here – have got a track record of going in to assist boroughs and departments to say, "Listen, before we go down this formal approach, can we just look at this again? Let's review it. Let's break it down to the details and how can we bring in early intervention, and let us start developing some systems where we can be called in at an earlier stage, other associations can be called in, just to ensure we do not go down that formal route immediately".

Because it does not compare fully with – when a member of staff from a minority group is appraised, they are appraised very structured and hard sometimes, and there is no reluctance in being quite clear on what they see as the person's performance, but when it comes to the Fairness at Work issue, all of a sudden everyone has lost the skills that they all have as professionals and they want to go down this formal road.

Miss Weekes: My final question is the Taylor Review. I know that you are familiar with the recommendations in that review. Let us apply the Taylor Review to your case. One would suspect that, if the approach was, "Well, what have we got? We have got an allegation of £80 hotel expenses, we do have his full explanation". Perhaps following the Taylor Review, one might have thought they would have invited you in for a chat to explain what they thought might be your shortcomings, and that might have been an end to it. Do you agree?

A. Yes –

Miss Weekes: So you would not have had to go to the employment tribunal, no counsel's fees, no settlement fee, and it would have been wrapped up within two months.

A. If that.

Miss Weekes: Have the Taylor Review recommendations been adopted as far as you know?

A. Well, the fact that we have had so many of these cases recurring, and we do not see a systematic approach to this, my concern is that it is similar to the Virdi report. The Virdi report is not accessible to boroughs. I do not know in your travels across the Met if you had an opportunity to ask any members of the senior management team whether they have got a copy of the Virdi report, because I know it is not decorating shelves around there because they are not accessible. You might be able to access it on the internet, but I know the only copies we have had in the BPA is because people like Gurpal and other members of the executive have asked for a copy, so they have proactively gone to find out what is happening and what are the recommendations. So the recommendations really have just been held within the covers of that report.

Like every report, it depends on the attitude of the person who is willing to apply it. We are not seeing that at all.

I think it is because it is not a priority, and the point has been raised already that if you do not have a systematic approach, you do not have any means of measuring, and you are not being held to account for your actions when it comes to Fairness at Work issues, misconduct issues, diversity issues per se, then you are going to be leaving it on the back burner. It is not going to be one of the first things you think about. That is where we have a dilemma, and I suppose it is a dilemma to yourselves to some extent, that you will come up with laudable, clear, effective recommendations, but how are you going to take it into the organisation, or get that lead person who is going to be held to account for those recommendations?

I can only assume that there is a lot of learning from the Lawrence Inquiry. The Home Secretary held himself accountable for those recommendations, and that literally has passed on from the steering group to the theorists, every chief constable in the service, and everyone then has to have a clear lead on that. That is why we have had a lot of external improvements in the organisation.

Unfortunately, Lawrence did not deal with the internal, and I think this Inquiry will hopefully run a parallel course in terms of the internal recommendations: who is going to be held to account, and a means of measuring progress, and if they are not coming up to the mark, why not?

Miss Weekes: Do you think the person who made the decision about your case, which turned out to be terribly expensive for the Met and took two years, has been brought to account and understands there might have been a quicker route?

A. From my understanding, that person has been promoted twice and he has been featured in various reports in employment tribunals, and from my understanding nothing has been put to that person, whether informally or otherwise. If they have, it would be good to know that they may have given him some words of advice on how he took this whole process forward. But in all honesty, it would go against the grain, because I suppose the organisation may think that is admitting guilt of some form, but unfortunately the Police Service has to understand, especially in the Met, that the community are sensitised to all of these issues. They are not ignoring it, they are watching, and it has an impact on the image of the organisation, the trust and confidence issue, and of course reassurance, and people in the community are not reassured by the same closed door protective defensive stance without people saying, "Well, we have done something about it and this person has been spoken to". Sometimes it is just a word of advice that will make people feel much better.

Miss Weekes: Thank you very much.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much indeed, Chief Inspector Logan. I invite Sir Anthony to put some questions to you.

Questions by Sir Anthony Burden

Sir Anthony Burden: Good afternoon to you. I am going to concentrate on the element of your submission that related to the Helios inquiry. The areas I want to touch on are disproportionality; accountability in relation to officers undertaking investigations; an extended role for the Metropolitan Police Authority, as described by you; cultural and diversity issues, and how important they are in the anti-corruption command; any other points you wish to make on the Taylor report, but you have obviously just addressed that with Miss Weekes; issues as they relate to the Director of Public Affairs, and extending that to informal briefings and leaks; use of the IAG in such investigations; and your comments on intrusive surveillance as applied in this particular case.

Can we start, then, with proportionality of the wider investigation, and you comment in your report that you felt there was disproportionality in the way that the investigation against Superintendent Dizaei was undertaken. Would you like to enlarge on those views and give your justification for feeling there was disproportionality, please?

A. Well, in the first instance when Ali was suspended it was a shock to us all, and in fact during these briefings that we were subject to, the range of allegations against him involved potential terrorist activities, and you thought to yourself: hold on, is this the person you know, that you have actually worked with for a number of years? So that, for me, had a bit of an exaggeration factor. Gut feeling, I thought some of this is exaggerated.

And then, as time went on, there were suggestions that we should look at a video of Ali's speech in the States and how that must be against BPA business. I thought: hold on, we know what BPA business is all about, do not try and dictate these sort of things to us.

So there was a theme emerging, in terms of how there was a disproportionality to convince us that a member had criminal tendencies. So that is the sort of run-up in early 2001.

The thing that also was concerning us was the tactics that were used to convince us, and some of it was a lot of bullying, you know, bordering on bullying, "You do what you are told". So, again, you think: why are they doing this? Why are they driving to get someone subject to misconduct or criminal procedures?

The real nub for me was when I actually said to the SIO, who briefed us, "What was behind Ali being investigated in the first place?", and his passing comment was, "He was a potential chief officer". Not that he was a criminal, but that he was potential chief officer. So I am thinking: well, is it because he may have been at that time the first black Chief Constable, or what?

As time went on, I saw the vast amount of resources – and everything is now distilling into minutiae compared to what it was before. I raised the issue time and time again and I put that down on paper.

The fact that no one was being held to account on the direction – because now this train was going and no one was putting on the brakes, even if to pause and say, "Where are we going with this." And, of course, when you heard the case at court, it was literally – if it was not so serious, it is laughable, it really was. All of these resources and there was nothing to justify so many actions. Ali has already given you details of that.

And then you look at what happened with myself and the fact that – you could just do some comparisons. As I have said, I have never seen a white officer of a similar standing being asked to account for such detail in such an open way being leaked to the press. The details that were raised in Ali's case at court, again, I have never seen them raised at the Central Criminal Court.

And then you look at the other cases involving Gurpal Virdi. We had [redacted], who was seen as a person not supervising his colleagues properly, and everyone else on the supervisory level below him being left out of the equation, and again other members of the BPA. So you think: hold on here, there is more to this than meets the eye. We took legal advice and on clear objective feedback it was obvious that race was an issue in the whole approach, the lack of constraints, and of course the open cheque book for any resources they want. Just to hear that the FBI is called in for integrity testing, I thought the Met, knowing that integrity is non-negotiable, can do that themselves, besides calling in the FBI and Toronto police. For me it beggars belief.

Sir Anthony Burden: Miss Weekes has dealt with the Taylor Review, but of course a very important part of the Taylor Review – or the Taylor recommendations rather – is around reviews or investigations at various stages which would suggest that the result of that review could be to discontinue the Inquiry. We have heard from Superintendent Dizaei his view on reviews and the fact that reviews did take place in his case but did not seem to influence the decisions that were being made.

Would you suggest that that supports your supposition, that really this was, to use your terms, a train which had started and nothing was going to stop it?

A. Yes. Any review that you take on has to be in the right environment, that if someone puts forward a counterview it will be listened to. You might not actually act on it, but it will be listened to. But it also relies on that person being strong enough to say, "Hold on here, I think there needs to be a change of emphasis", and I do not think we have got that right across the organisation. We have got pockets of good activity, but we do not have it in a systematic way. I think it is because certain people drive a lot of these cases. Directorate for Legal Services drive these cases. They do not just give advice; they are seen as directing them. We see certain SIOs who direct these cases are not responding to all of the issues, having a holistic approach, and as a result of that they start to work in a bit of a vacuum, and they are not listening and not hearing.

We in the BPA were given feedback all the time because we are members of the organisation as police officers and police staff. We have got expertise and experience in these issues. And you would think that when you start getting the letters from MPs, you start getting Parliamentary questions, you then start getting major issues raised in the press, and not to mention community tension from letters coming in, and you think: hold on a minute, there has got to be something here. And I just cannot understand where some of the reviews did not take into the environmental scanning that is essential.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you. Can I ask you, in relation to, you term it the lack of accountability in relation to conduct of officers in the anti-corruption command, what would accountability amount to, in your view?

A. I think – let me turn it round to say how they operate in certain cases, i.e. cherry picking the advice they want, because we bring in independent advice groups in all sorts of areas. We do it locally. In Westminster we bring in independent advisers all the time, and they are very, very useful when it comes to some very critical issues. However, when it comes to these high profile, sensitive cases, we are selective on how we brief them.

I think locally we give them a whole spectrum of the issues. I think as the scale goes up there is a reluctance to give the whole brief, and as a result of that you are then manipulating the process. That is where DPS for themselves say we are being accountable, because we are bringing in independent advisers, we are bringing in Ofsted, we are bringing in all these different experts and they are saying all is well. But because they were selective with a lot of the information, they believe they are being held to account but it is on their terms.

So we need to, say, drill into the systems and to make sure there are some checks and balances on how you recruit people into these. I really think there needs to be some oversight from the MPA –

Sir Anthony Burden: If we could perhaps move on to that. If I could just give you a steer. We have had a submission from the MPA that states that they would suggest that the Directorate of Professional Standards should report to them; that they should not be responsible for the day-to-day management of investigations but the department and its overall macro-activity should come under the responsibility of the MPA and not the Commissioner. Would you go that far?

A. Well, I would agree a lot with that, because the final appelant in a lot of cases internally within the Met goes to the Commissioner, so I do not think it is fair to put him in the loop. With the MPA there is less of an opportunity for them to be seen as the appellate authority. I think there needs to be some thinking on maybe a unit within the MPA that looks at these issues on a regular basis to get that critical feedback.

They look at all sorts of issues regarding the Met with the various subgroups, and they do a very good job, considering they have only been going for four years –

Sir Anthony Burden: Can I ask you that: do you feel that the MPA currently uses all the powers available to them and that they are as robust in their oversight of complaints investigations as they could be or they should be?

A. I think it is more of what they should be because, as I have said, they have only been in existence for four years. They have had to get to grips with a vast number of issues that is hitting the largest Police Service in the country, and that Police Service is growing. So you are dealing with economy of scales, complexities and, of course, an organisation that is very good at self-promotion. We are very task-focused, success-driven, and we will always put on a real glossy edge to whatever we are doing. We very rarely will say, "We don't know", and I think that is a big issue for the organisation.

That is why when the MPA came into existence a few years ago we gave a submission to say "you are only as good as the questions you can ask". And we will give you a lens into the organisation in terms of internal fair practices; we will give a lens on community partnership and the way in which staff are appraised and developed and selected, but you need to do that right across the piece.

I really think they are starting to get to grips with that, and they are starting to drill down into those systems where they can have a direct intervention or not, as the case may be.

So I think it is improving, and obviously there are re-elections in the next few days, I believe. So it is a question of, let us see what happens from the hard work that has been put in place over the last few years and really get to grips with that, because I really think the organisation needs help. They have had it good for a long time, when we just came under the Home Secretary and the Met Police Committee, and I think a lot of things that should have been dealt with, where they have been dealt with in other force areas, have not been dealt with, specially the size of the organisation.

Sir Anthony Burden: So, if I read this correctly, you are not suggesting at this present time a radical change, with the DPS coming under the supervision of the MPA. You are saying that it has got a committee that monitors the activities of the DPS; you are saying that that may need to be beefed up with a unit within the MPA that ensures they get all the statistics, all of the information that they may wish to use. Their role is one of oversight, of monitoring, and asking questions to ensure that they get the right answers, basically?

A. Yes. And I think it also would be useful to change the scenery in the DPS. I really think if you start having police officers and police staff from different backgrounds and cultures and genders it will be an assistance because, again, you are only as good as the people you are surrounded by, and I think there are too many clones in the DPS in terms of approach.

Sir Anthony Burden: Is that what you mean when you say cultural and diversity issues must be an important consideration in the anti-corruption command –

A. Absolutely.

Sir Anthony Burden: – that the make-up of the department must reflect the broader MPS and start to reflect the society of London?

A. Yes. In the mission, vision and values that the Commissioner speaks of regularly, it talks about making sure that we value our staff and use them effectively, and I truly believe that the way in which we can start to – it is like self-learning. As the organisation is getting more diverse, we are learning more about ourselves and the people we serve. That must have an effect right across the organisation, and unfortunately the DPS is one of the departments that does not reflect a borough. It is like some other specialist units, it does not reflect the communities we serve.

Sir Anthony Burden: I think you make a similar point about the Directorate of Public Affairs, which again, I think, you recommend that that department and its make-up should reflect the broader MPS.

A. Yes. In fact, there used to be some information officers from other cultures, minority groups, and in fact they used to be part of the BPA in the very early days, and in fact they were seen as a bit of trouble-maker because they would raise some issues of how the role of the DPA had been run and since then there seemed to be a sort of cleansing, because you do not see a diverse group – I am not saying it is intentional, but I really think there needs to be some positive action programmes for DPS, for DPA. And I know DLS, legal services, is starting to show more diversity and I was encouraged to see that. It sends a better and stronger signal around diversity and diversity in action and the business benefit of that.

Sir Anthony Burden: The informed briefings that were given to the remit we have heard this afternoon – it went into the submissions – that the information which the media had, and their very presence at certain parts of the operation, suggested that they were given that information by someone in the know within the organisation. Is it truly your belief that that information was passed on at informal briefings and leaks, as opposed to being part of the media strategy, were being managed by DPA?

A. Well, we cannot discount that possibility because of the detail in which a lot of cases have been passed on to the media, and of course the fact that the service does not openly defend itself, and they are conspicuous by their absence in defending these leaks. I know the media might not want to publish it, but I think even on our own website it says, this has happened and we totally reject any claims.

Quite reasonably, the BPA was slandered in the [Redacted] for their stance on samples provided for a large, complex serial rapist case, and you have got to think: well, we have been involved in this case for a long time, we have been working on it. The organisation does not try and make the record straight, you know. So you have to think: well, who is leaking all this material, and if it is not from the centre of the organisation, well say so.

We had to put out our own press release, we had to make a lot of representations, very strong representations to the gold group, to the various members of the DPA on that gold group, to say, "Listen, at least get it straight within your press releases". I just think, if it is not systematic, they need to be more proactive in making the record straight.

Sir Anthony Burden: You make the point that if that were a leak of confidential information by an officer on borough, in any other circumstances that would be the subject of a formal disciplinary investigation.

A. Oh yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: And you feel that similar sanctions should apply if officers were found to be giving informal briefings to the media.

A. Oh, absolutely. We do have a more open media strategy from the centre, but if you are seen to be doing any informal ones, you will definitely be subject to all sorts of misconduct processes. We know of people being subject to that.

Sir Anthony Burden: You have heard several references this afternoon to the recommendation 8, I think it is, within the Virdi report on media briefings. In your opinion, as it related to operation Helios, were the lessons of Virdi understood? Have they been learned?

A. As I said before, I doubt it, really, because the reports have never been disseminated right across the organisation. So unless a member of the service decides to look at these issues in a proactive way because they have been involved in the issue of diversity through their experience in the organisation or their own experiences, no one is really going to tap them on the shoulder and say, "I would look at the Gurpal Virdi report if I were you".

Until you get not only dissemination but a real accountability for borough commanders to start looking at these issues, and departmental heads, you are going to get this happening time and time again. That is why I am very encouraged that the second phase of the Gurpal Virdi report is now ongoing, and hopefully the lessons learned from the first report will be acted upon, and very, very quickly, I would suggest.

Sir Anthony Burden: You referred to IAGs earlier, but can you tell us, please, in your view, was the use of IAGs in the Helios Inquiry appropriate, and was the group properly used?

A. From the terms of reference that I am aware of of the Independent Advisory Group – and we had something to do with that in the early days when the IAG were brought together in 1998 during the Lawrence Inquiry, plus we have had members of the BPA within the Race and Violent Crime Taskforce that had hands-on work with the IAG, including [redacted], who is here – it is quite clear that they did not stick to those terms of reference, which is to look at processes and practices. That is the centre of IAG, to look at systems, not to look at individual cases.

The reason why I say that is because when the IAG was conceived the BPA was the only staff association on that IAG, and we are the only members of the service that has a vote. There are other members who sit in the IAG as members of the service but they have no voting rights.

So we are respected within that group, and obviously we have had a lot to do with them. And so when we saw a shift in approach, and we saw them being manipulated in a way that it was quite clear to us they did not have all the information, whether it was with Ali Dizaei or other cases, in comparison to some other cases – because I know the IAG were quite effective in the Gurpal Virdi case. So you can look at some comparisons and say, "Well, why is the IAG not being given all the information?"

What we see is really important is to take the IAG out of the control of the Met, and I think, again, the MPA could have a role to play for that because the IAG was actually brought in at a time when we did not have a police authority. We now have a police authority and of course their job is to be that critical friend, to get the checks and balances right. And I think the IAG could work – there is some synthesis in the work that they do, and I think that, especially when it comes to the central IAG, there is some synergy with the MPA.

I think with the local IAGs, again, they do an invaluable job, and they tend to be kept in the loop in a lot of cases by the borough senior management team, and I suppose the nature of the work that they do reduces the possibility of being manipulated or omitted from certain bits of information.

Sir Anthony Burden: In your opinion, why was the IAG brought in in the Helios case?

A. To rubber stamp.

Sir Anthony Burden: So not part of the decision-making process?

A. You cannot be part of a decision-making process if you do not have all the information.

Sir Anthony Burden: Finally, the issue of intrusive surveillance, as it applied in the Helios case. Superintendent Dizaei stated this afternoon and read in the submissions the fact that the purpose of the intrusive surveillance, we assume, was to gather evidence, but the conversations overheard were much broader than that. Is that your understanding as well?

A. Yes.

Sir Anthony Burden: If that were surveillance or telephone surveillance under RIPA rules, that would be very, very rigidly controlled. Can I ask your comments about the way that the intrusive surveillance operation was undertaken in the Helios example.

A. Well, let me say that from the first briefing we had, within two days of Ali being suspended, we were told that there has been collateral intrusion and we have been seen and we have been heard, so it was quite clear that there had been an extensive amount of surveillance. And as time went on, we saw that no expense was spared when it came to monitoring Ali's movements and some other people's movements, including myself.

Of course, you have to ask yourself: when has this ever happened before? It is unprecedented. It is a really sad indictment for the organisation when decisions are made and no one has looked at it in an objective fashion to say, "Well, hold on here, do we need to carry out all these surveillance strategies unless you are on a fishing expedition?", because, as I said, there was a whole matrix of allegations against Ali, but as time went on it really did not stack up to a hill of beans. So you think: well, we have got to save face here, we have got to find something, so let us really go for it, and history speaks for itself.

I would like to think it is never going to happen again. I cannot discount it because, unfortunately, a lot of the systems that are in place to hold someone to account, to prevent disproportionality to continue, are not in place. So there is a possibility that another type of Helios issue is happening in the Met or another force area, and because of subjudice we cannot go into that. But we are really concerned that if people believe they can get away with it, they will; they will continue to do so.

There is a big audit being looked at in depth around RIPA authorities and superintendents – especially at superintendent level – not asking those pertinent questions around: why do we need to take that line of investigation?

Sir Anthony Burden: This may be a question outside of your knowledge, and please forgive me if it is, but within your knowledge, are there any parallel systems which exist within the Metropolitan Police which allow for intrusive surveillance outside of the RIPA rules?

A. Not that I am aware.

Sir Anthony Burden: So anything which is done in terms of intrusive surveillance should comply with RIPA constraints.

A. Should, yes, I would like to think. So that is why it was brought in in the first place, to structure the way in which authorities are given, and it does delegate a lot of responsibility to a very, very busy workforce. You know, we are very busy at all levels, and certain authority levels do come in within the remit of certain people who are hard pressed to look at the real detail, and so they go on trust.

It is like a warrant application: I will ask those sort of questions from my colleagues and say, "Listen, have you done the checks, all the criminal intelligence? Have you done all the enquiries to warrant that I authorised a warrant to be applied for?" It is on trust, and unfortunately certain people might be economical with their facts.

Sir Anthony Burden: But not in the case of telephone tapping, of course, which is at the very highest level?

A. I would like to think so.

Sir Anthony Burden: Thank you very much indeed.

Sir William Morris: Thank you, Sir Anthony.

Supplementary questions by Sir William Morris

Sir William Morris: Just one or two supplementary points, Chief Inspector Logan.

Earlier we heard Superintendent Ali Dizaei share his experience, and for the last hour or so you have shared yours. His conclusion was that accountability is a key factor but it is not the Metropolitan Police Service as a corporate entity where he sees the fault, it is the individuals within it. Do you share that view or do you take a different view from Superintendent Dizaei?

A. No, I think I build on Superintendent Dizaei's points, in that obviously we need to have individual accountability based on professionals who know their powers and know the law, but also there needs to be corporate buy-in to ensure that we are taking these issues seriously.

The way in which priority crimes are dealt with, and the way in which intrusive supervision is used when it comes to our performance on that, I think should be right across all of the issues, including diversity. And the accountability you speak about needs to be 24/7. Unfortunately, I see people with their professional hat and their unprofessional hat and they do not take the time to know the impact of their actions.

So saying it this way, if you are a person in a position of responsibility, then you need to understand that people are watching you all the time, and unfortunately there are junior officers, junior police staff, who will pick up from the senior management of the borough and take that as the emphasis. If they feel they can get away with something because no one is going to ask them, or no one is going to hold them to account for any action, then it is human nature. They will, you know, ignore it or pull a fast one and try and fool people.

So I truly believe it is an individual, but also it has to be systematic within senior management teams, and we are starting to see that in terms of the way in which appraisals are carried out. The personal development reviews do not have to be just yearly, they can be done every month if need be. We are also seeing it with selection and appraisals, that "What did you do in these cases?". So it is a lot more sophisticated and there is a lot more finding out what a person does to be held to account.

The only thing is, you do not get that much 360-degree feedback, especially if it is negative feedback, because invariably your line supervisor or manager will give a positive spin as opposed to the most objective.

So accountability has to be from the individual right up to the corporate level.

Sir William Morris: Right. Part of the problem that certainly is an issue for resolution, if it is that we are saying the corporate entity is fine, it is individuals within it, and we have always taken a view, and we have said repeatedly that our emphasis is not on the individual, it is on the institution. How do we reconcile that conundrum in the light of the stance that we have heard in terms of what Superintendent Dizaei said and what basically you are saying?

A. I think the systems are in place already to really ensure that what the mission and vision and value statements say and what our priorities are, that it goes down the chain of command. We do have command and control in all sorts of operational arenas, and I think we need to reinforce that command and control when it comes to the so-called softer issues, and ensure that, if someone has, with the best of their knowledge and respect for individuals, done something wrong, then obviously there are some developmental issues and we need to assist them. But I think it needs to be captured somewhere, so we make sure that it is captured in all ways, not just to beat down that person, but also to assist in their awareness.

So the systems are there, but what the systems rely on is the attitude of the person who is going to apply them, and that is where we have an issue.

Sir William Morris: Let me try and put my point a bit better. We have two sorts of principles: we have got the organisation, the MPS, and we have got the people that work within it. I accept that neither is mutually exclusive; one impacts on the other. But we have to, at some point, rationalise where we think the balance or the emphasis should be. What is your advice on that?

A. Well, I can only go by how we in the BPA have looked at this matter, and we have looked at it at a corporate level; we sit on the diversity board; we speak to all the assistant commissioners; we highlight the issues of accountability at all levels and all departments and all boroughs where we can assist. So I do not think they are mutually exclusive. I think there is a need to remind people that there are systems there to hold people to account; whether they want to apply it or not is another case.

We also have to assist them in terms of learning, because unfortunately the organisation does suffer from institutional amnesia. They do not capture the learning because a lot of the time people are not aware fully of their powers and are not aware of the knowledge that that implies to deal with any sort of issue, whether it is an operational issue or an internal issue which is complex.

It is just a question of creating the right environment that corporate strategies and commitment allows people to say, "Well, if I cannot deal with this" – you know, not trying to hide it but being quite open and honest, because I do not think you can hammer people into submission of accountability. I think we need to create a positive environment that, if people are not sure of what they are doing, they need to ask.

Sir William Morris: When we have explored reasons for actions and decisions within the Met, how they respond to certain situations, one factor comes to the fore quite regularly in a significant way: the reputation of the service, as it has been put, and that has been given as a defence for robustly pursuing certain issues.

In the light of how you have been treated, your experience and Mr Virdi's experience and Mr Dizaei's experience, do you think any damage has been done to the reputation of the service within the overall context of community relations, or indeed aspiration to join the service? Do you think it has a wider impact and, if so, how?

A. Obviously, having a critical distance and at times an oppositional stance to that of the organisation in certain areas of work can have a negative impact. But from the people we work with within our community programmes, and the people we network with right across all forms of public and private organisations, they actually see it as a useful and very informative way of finding out where the organisation is going.

So I think they are sensitised around these issues, and I think we need to give the public a lot more credit than they deserve, because obviously they do not want to see us infighting so much that we are not dealing with our priorities, but at the same time they want to know that there are people within the organisation who are willing to speak up around issues, whether it is the police or any other organisation. I think that is the basis behind a democracy. I think it is the basis for unionism in a lot of ways; you are speaking on behalf of a lot of people who normally would not have an opportunity to have their voices heard.

So it is a question of, well, there might be some transient impact, but what are you speaking of? Is it the me or the we? And we speak about the we and around the greater good.

Sir William Morris: Are you saying that none of what has happened to you, your experience, and indeed any other high profile cases so-called, has impacted negatively on confidence in the Metropolitan Police Service?

A. Within the Police Service?

Sir William Morris: Confidence within the service – the public's perception, the way that the public still has the same degree of confidence in the service than they otherwise would have had if these high profile cases had not taken place?

A. Well, I suppose there might have been an impact, but recent surveys actually show that our levels of acceptance by the community in the work that we do is the highest that it has been for a long time. And of course recruiting is actually showing positive developments. We are recruiting up to 15 to 20 per cent people from black and minority groups, and we are also seeing it in police staff as well. Police community safety officers, again, we are seeing a lot more diversity within those ranks.

So I can see a lot of positives. I am not going to ignore the fact that there could be some impact externally and some issues on morale, but at this present time the organisation is performing well, we are being received well by the community, we have moved on from Lawrence but there is still a lot of work we need to do. And the fact that Ali can sit here and say that the organisation has brought him back in in a positive way needs to be acknowledged. I do not think we would have had that, say, pre-Lawrence. So we are on the right direction, but we have still got some way to go.

Sir William Morris: Superintendent Dizaei left certainly me – and my colleagues will speak for themselves but I am sure they share my view too – that despite all that has happened in his personal experience, he is ready to move on. Despite all that has happened in your personal experience, are you ready to move on?

A. I am always moving, sir. In all honesty. I obviously have not gone through what Ali went through, and I think it is a real testimony of his character and his resolve and that of his family that he is still here today willing to contribute to policing, because it is a laudable profession, and the fact that, if you respond to the calling of policing, whether as a police officer or police staff, you are focused on certain principles of policing, and so you are less likely to be deviated from those principles, whether it is by certain personalities or processes, and you will do your best to stick to that vision, and I am still sticking to it – I am very fortunate to have not gone through a suspension or any of the harrowing experiences that Ali and Gurpal and others have been through, but I have mirrored some of their experiences in terms of media scrutiny and the impact it has within your colleagues and the community.

So of course I could have easily been distracted into thinking I have got a calling elsewhere, but the support I have at home and with my colleagues, I truly believe that has helped me stick to the task. We have a lot of work to do, and I truly believe as an organisation we are in good shape to really make our service the greatest service in the world and make London the safest city in the world.

Sir William Morris: That takes me to the concluding part of this session, but when I made my introductory comments earlier I said that we would leave you more or less with the last word if you wanted to make any closing comments. If you wish to I will provide that opportunity. If you do, then this is the time to do it.

A. I just want to thank you all for, again, the opportunity to speak, and I just want to acknowledge the resolve of people who have given submissions here. It is a very harrowing experience in a lot of ways, but it is a rewarding one because I do not think we will get this opportunity again, well not in my lifetime, I do not think. And I would like to think that we do not need any more inquiries like this, and we will obviously want to see the organisation embrace whatever recommendations in a way that really make this organisation more accountable, more transparent and more embracing of difference, so our children do not have to go through the same experiences that we have had.

Sir William Morris: Thank you very much. It is your second appearance before the panel, so we want to thank you for your submissions that you have made and the two occasions that you have actually given evidence to us, and for the overall contribution that you and your organisation is making to our work. I think we certainly want to share your hope that no more inquiries will be needed.

I think I can say, well, if any is needed, do not call us!

A. Trust me, I will not!

Sir William Morris: We stand adjourned until 10.30 tomorrow morning. Thanks very much.

5.00 pm
(The Inquiry adjourned until 10.30 am on Tuesday, 8th June 2004)

On this website:

• Evidence: Metropolitan Black Police Association
  Evidence provided by and documents referred to by Mr B Powell and Mr L Logan of the Metropolitan Black Police Association in their appearance at the Inquiry.
• Transcript: Metropolitan Black Police Association (1 April 2004)
  The full transcript of the first public session with Mr L Logan, Mr B Powell, Mr A John and Mr G Reid of the Metropolitan Black Police Association, held at 2pm on 1 April 2004.