SESSIONS RESTORE LQCs


Independent panels required to ensure fairness, proportionality and proceedings free of political pressures


PFEW Conduct and Performance Lead Phil Jones led a session on the impact of Home Office changes to the police dismissal process and on the effectiveness of independent panels.


He was joined by President of the National Association of Legally Qualified Chairs (NALQC), John Bassett, and Greater Manchester Police Chief Superintendent Michael Allen, who presented their perspectives on the impact of the new changes on police officers across England and Wales. “There are senior officers that have been in post throughout and not been held accountable, but the changes proposed mean our members are being disproportionately disadvantaged by the presumption of dismissal. “When you look at the 2020 regulations, they were enacted on


fairness,


proportionality and the


independence of legally qualified chairs, which took out political pressures. “We are now seeing scarcity among rank and file officers where officers are choosing to be assaulted, rather than use force, because ultimately they could be found for gross misconduct and if the Home Office introduce these measures it will mean automatic dismissal,” said Mr Jones. Michael Allen of GMP said: “So far as leadership is concerned, Phil makes a good point that professional standards departments (PSDs) are accused of dismissing the low hanging fruit, but PSDs


should look upwards as well as downwards. Those of the higher rank should suffer the hardest fall.”


John Bassett stated: “We now have the Home Office review and there’s been a number of announcements in the press suggesting dismissals by LQC-led panels have reduced since their introduction, that we are ‘fundamentally soft’, but when you read the review itself that is simply not substantiated. There has not been a reduction in the amount of dismissals.”


#SimplifyDG6


Data protection laws must be amended to help officers focus on core issues of policing and enhance justice delivery


The session took a detailed and technical look at the PFEW’s current campaign, #SimplifyDG6, seeking amendment to the Data Protection Act 1998 to reduce the bureaucratic burden of over redacting case files at the pre-charge stage. Opening the session, Surrey Police Chief Constable and NPCC Disclosure Lead Tim de Meyer compared current disclosure regulations as being akin to “a growing dragon asleep under a child’s bed that threatens to wake and fly off destroying the house”.


On disclosure obligations levied on police offices, CC De Meyer said: “It is the nexus at the heart of everything we do - you do not get justice without truth and you do not get to the truth without good investigations. And there is no good investigation without good disclosure for it is not an adjunct to the investigation, it is not an administrative afterthought - it is the investigation.


18 | POLICE | SPECIAL EDITION | 2023


“Disclosure is central to this. Justice is not served when cases collapse with revelations of information not disclosed. “Many teams are understaffed.


Workloads are high. Time to properly sit and digest the tirade of changes is limited. And time required to produce a case file of quality has become significant, of that we are all clear. And I am clear that pre-charge redaction is the inherently unproductive villain of the criminal justice system.” Supporting CC De Meyer was Detective Inspector Ben Hudson, Secretary of Suffolk Police Federation and Chair of Police Federation National Detectives’ Forum who has been spearheading the #SimplifyDG6 campaign, said: “We have taken big steps forward. I am now calling upon the Government to adopt our amendment to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill (No.2). “The proposed amendment would have no obvious disadvantages.


Security of personal data would not be compromised. The redactions, which are needed to protect our personal data, would still be undertaken, however, this would be done at the appropriate stage. Most importantly unnecessary redaction would be avoided, which is everything we have been looking to achieve.” Ben urged MPs nationally to ask ministers, especially those within the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology who are the Bill’s sponsors as to why isn’t this being supported? “Why the amendment simply isn’t being adopted into the Act, and why they don’t want to help put officers back into their communities and enable both victims and those accused of crimes to receive swifter charging decisions?”, Ben asked in conclusion.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32