Questions to the Authority

Report: 6
Date: 27 July 2006
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

Members are requested, in accordance with the Authority’s Standing Orders, to hear a question from member of the public. The Chief Executive and Clerk will give the Authority’s response at the meeting.

A. Recommendation

That the Authority hears the questions set out below and responds in accordance with Standing Orders 2.7.

B. Supporting information

1. The following question has been received from a member of the public, Mr M Farrant:

‘What steps does the MPA take to ensure that investigations following a death in custody are rigorous, speedy and effective? In particular what steps have been taken in respect of Enzio Stompanato who died in Holborn Custody suite on 15 December 2002 to ensure that that investigation is rigorous, speedy and effective, and does the MPA have a responsibility in the case on Enzio Stompanato to ensure that his parent, the police officers concerned and the public have confidence in the investigation, including a speedy conclusion. What steps have been undertaken to do this? Does the MPA track the progress of all investigations and decisions following death in police custody, not only related to police cells, in the MPA area.

2. Standing Order 2.7 sets out the process for receiving questions at Authority meetings, this is given at Appendix 1

3. The Chief Executive and Clerk will responded to Mr Farrants’s question (see below).

C. Race and equality impact

None related to the process of receiving questions from the public.

D. Financial implications

None

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Nick Baker, MPA

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

Extract from MPA Standing Orders – 2.7 Questions from the public at full Authority meetings

“2.7.1 Members of the public may ask questions of the Authority which are relevant to its business, functions or responsibilities. The Clerk must receive the question in writing not less than ten working days before a meeting of the Authority.

2.7.2 A person may not ask more than three questions in a rolling 12 month period.

2.7.3 The Clerk of the Authority will, in discussion with the Chair of the Authority, have the discretion to refuse a question. In this event, the Clerk shall respond in writing to the questioner outlining the reason(s) for this decision. This letter will be copied to all members, before the Authority meeting, and the Clerk’s decision reported to the meeting as part of the regular report on action taken under delegated authority. Without fettering that discretion, reasons why a question may not be accepted include the following:

1. The reasons set out in 2.6.2 above
2. The question cannot be answered satisfactorily without the disclosure of exempt information (as defined in the Access to Information legislation)
3. In the Clerk's opinion, the question has already been answered by another means and contains no issues of wider public interest that require a public answer
4. The question actually contains a number of different questions, in which case the Clerk will ask for an amended question to be submitted
5. The question is similar to, or on a similar theme to, a question asked by someone else in the preceding three months

2.7.4 Any question(s) shall be included on the agenda for the meeting, in the order of receipt, as the next item of business after the approval of the minutes of the last meeting, and must be addressed to the Chair. The Chair will then invite the Clerk to respond, orally or in writing, on behalf of the Authority. Following the Clerk’s response, the person asking the question may speak further for no more than three minutes. Members may also comment on or discuss the issues raised by the question and answer.

2.7.5 The person asking the question can attend the meeting to put the question. If they are not present, the answer as reported to the Authority shall be sent to them following the meeting. If the person asking the question needs some clarification in relation to the answer, this will be given by the Clerk or appropriate officer, in person or in writing, within ten working days of clarification being sought.

2.7.6 The Chair may use discretion to limit the number of questions asked by members of the public in order to avoid the business of the Authority being disrupted. In any event, no more than 30 minutes will be allowed for public questions and answers. Any questions that remain unanswered within the timescale shall receive written responses only.”

Appendix 2

Response to Mr M Farrant’s question from the Chief Executive and Clerk

1. What steps does the MPA take to ensure that investigations following a death in custody are "rigorous, speedy and effective"

There is no specific statutory role for police authorities in relation to individual cases of death or serious injury in police contact. The investigation of deaths or serious injury following police contact is (since July 2005) principally the responsibility of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). In most cases IPCC will carry out the investigation using their own investigators. Previously, and under the old system before the IPCC was set up, investigations were carried out by police forces under supervision by the Police Complaints Authority.

The responsibilities of the MPA arise from its core statutory duty to secure effective efficient and fair policing in London, and its statutory oversight of police misconduct matters under the Police Reform Act 2002. Section 12 of the Police Reform Act 2002 requires the MPA to keep itself informed about all matters of police conduct, discipline and public complaints.

The Professional Standards Complaints monitors the performance of the MPS and holds the MPS to account on these matters. Following the Morris Inquiry, the Authority has introduced a Case Management model for reviewing complaint investigations and other cases where the investigation time appears excessive, and a rolling programme of such reviews is being set up.

In relation to deaths in contact, the Committee is in general concerned to see that investigations are carried out in a timely and proportionate manner, that there is learning from all incidents to prevent recurrence, and that questions of misconduct are dealt with appropriately.

The Authority has also engaged with the Commissioner and the IPCC in relation to the Commissioner's policy and decision making about the suspension of officers involved in death in contact cases.

This and other dimensions of the problem are the subject of a scrutiny currently being carried out by an external consultant for the MPA which will be reported and available to the public in due course.

2. What steps have been taken in respect of Enzio Stompanato who died in Holborn Custody suite on 15 December 2002 to ensure that the investigation is "rigorous, speedy and effective".

In this case the investigation was not completed until September 2004 owing in part to delays in obtaining expert medical advice and evidence. The Report was sent to the IPCC and the Crown Prosecution Service in October 2004. The CPS took until August 2005 to make a decision to proceed with serious criminal charges against two officers. However, in November 2005 the CPS reversed its position and decided to discontinue all criminal proceedings. The Coroner decided to hold the inquest in October 2006.

The Investigation has throughout been subject to internal review under the procedures of the Directorate of Professional Standards.

The MPA has no reason to suppose that the investigation has not been rigorous. The decision whether or not to prosecute was a matter entirely for the CPS. The Authority understands that there are still misconduct issues to be dealt with (as they had to be put on hold pending the criminal proceedings).

In this case the length of time taken to complete the investigation was considerably longer than desirable, and this was compounded by the further delay by the CPS. Over the past few years the MPA has consistently challenged the CPS on its timescales for decision making as this is a crucial part of the whole process over which neither the MPS nor the IPCC has any control.

3. Does the MPA not have a responsibility in the case of Enzio Stompanato to ensure that his parents, the police officers concerned and the public at large have confidence in the investigation, including a speedy conclusion? What steps have been undertaken to do this.

All deaths or potential deaths in police custody are identified as being “critical incidents” and should be managed by the Directorate of Professional Standards in conjunction with the borough commander under critical incident protocols. Family liaison is a central element of these protocols.

In this case, the MPA understands that the MPS has maintained contact with Mr Stompanato’s family in Italy, that they have been kept informed by their Family Liaison Officer of progress, and that they are aware of the current position. They have been offered financial assistance to enable them to attend the coroner’s inquest if they wish.

Disclosure of the investigation report, which is one significant means of building public confidence, is always subject to completion of relevant legal processes, including the inquest and disciplinary proceedings. In this case, the Inquest will provide the first opportunity for a review of the circumstances of the death in public. For that to be 4 years after the event is clearly unsatisfactory.

The MPA believes that the new arrangements that have been in operation since July 2005 under which in most cases of death in custody the IPCC will carry out the investigation, will deliver swifter and more transparent investigations, and we support the role of the IPCC in this regard. This will require continued fast time decision making by the CPS too.

There are still disciplinary matters to be considered in relation to the officers, and those matters will be dealt with as swiftly as possible allowing for the inquest.

4. Does the MPA track the progress of all investigations and decisions following death in police custody (not only that related to police cells) in the MPS area.

At present, the monitoring information presented to the Professional Standards and Complaints Committee does not include detailed tracking of investigations of deaths in custody, but these cases are within the coverage of the Case Management Model. The Professional Standards and Complaints Committee regularly reviews the scope of the performance information it requires from the MPS and will be able to consider whether more information should be routinely reported on death in contact matters.

The Professional Standards Complaints Committee will want to consider whether a full scale Case Review of this case, after the outstanding matters are dealt with, and in conjunction with the IPCC will enable lessons to be learned from the case to improve practices in future.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback