Police Integrity and Corruption – an Inspection of Suffolk Constabulary
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Police Integrity and Corruption Suffolk Constabulary November 2014 © HMIC 2014 ISBN: 978-1-78246-605-5 www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic Police Integrity and Corruption – Suffolk Constabulary 2 Contents To what extent has the force put in place arrangements to ensure its workforce acts with integrity? 4 The force in numbers 8 Introduction 11 What progress has the force made on managing professional and personal relationships with integrity and transparency since HMIC’s December 2012 report? 12 What progress has the force made in communicating and embedding ethical and professional behaviour to all staff, including the new Code of Ethics? 13 How well does the force proactively look for, and effectively challenge and investigate misconduct and unprofessional behaviour? 16 How well does the force prevent, identify and investigate corruption? 19 Recommendations 21 3 Police Integrity and Corruption – Suffolk Constabulary To what extent has the force put in place arrangements to ensure its workforce acts with integrity? There is clear leadership from the chief constable to create a climate of ethical behaviour, and staff and officers are familiar with ‘what you need to know’, a booklet issued by the chief constable, together with his counterpart in Norfolk Constabulary, that sets out what is expected in terms of standards and integrity. Staff are prepared to challenge inappropriate behaviour and feel the organisation will support them when doing so. However, the rigour of initial assessments of misconduct cases where there is a potential of criminal offences is unsatisfactory and there is limited proactive work to identify trends, risks or vulnerabilities in respect of corruption. Summary There is clear leadership from the chief constable to create a climate of ethical behaviour, and staff and officers are familiar with ‘what you need to know’, a booklet issued by the chief constable, together with his counterpart in Norfolk Constabulary, that sets out what is expected in terms of standards and integrity. Supervisors and line managers are positive role models, encouraging professional behaviour. Staff are prepared to challenge inappropriate behaviour and feel the organisation will support them when doing so. An integrity working group has been established which is chaired jointly by the deputy chief constables of Norfolk and Suffolk and the force has good plans in place to manage the introduction of the Code of Ethics. Joint policies have been developed with Norfolk Constabulary around business interests and gifts and hospitality, and staff have a knowledge of these policies. Police staff feel that they were not treated fairly and equally in terms of how investigations into conduct and public complaints were assessed, recorded, investigated and sanctions imposed. The rigour of initial assessments of misconduct cases where there is a potential of criminal offences is unsatisfactory, and where criminal interviews are conducted with staff, there is little evidence of supervisory oversight or guidance prior to any misconduct determinations being made. 4 To what extent has the force put in place arrangements to ensure its workforce acts with integrity? There is limited analytical, research and intelligence development capacity within the anti- corruption unit (ACU) and what does exist is being used to react to and support ongoing investigations. Limited proactive work is therefore undertaken to identify trends, risks or vulnerabilities in respect of corruption. The force does not use random or with cause (intelligence-led) drug testing, or intelligence-led integrity testing to identify corruption. Suffolk and Norfolk Constabularies have a joint vetting unit that complies with the national vetting policy and identifies corruption risks at the recruitment stage for officers and staff. 5 Police Integrity and Corruption – Suffolk Constabulary What progress has What progress has How well does the How well does the force made the force made in force proactively the force prevent, on managing communicating and look for, and identify and professional making sure staff effectively challenge investigate and personal knew about ethical and investigate corruption? relationships and professional misconduct and with integrity and behaviour to all unprofessional transparency, since staff, including the behaviour? HMIC’s December new Code of 2012 report? Ethics? HMIC highlighted one There is clear The force’s The force maintains area for improvement leadership from the capacity to identify effective security of in the December chief officer team, and investigate systems, exhibits and 2012 report. who deliver important misconduct could be case papers. messages using a enhanced. 1: The monitoring variety of means. There is limited and review of The force responds analytical, research the procurement Staff are able to to reports of and intelligence register against the challenge poor wrongdoing by staff development gifts and hospitality behaviour and effectively and does capacity within the register. feel they will be so in as timely a ACU. supported if they manner as other The force now do so. similar forces. Limited proactive audits the registers work is undertaken to regularly and Police staff feel they Staff in the identify trends, risks inappropriate entries are not treated fairly professional or vulnerabilities to are challenged or and equally in terms standards the force. investigated, up to of how investigations department (PSD) into conduct and and the ACU receive The PSD and ACU and including chief public complaints are training for their role. have access to the officers. assessed, recorded, Two days a year are force’s specialist investigated and allocated for team teams, such as the sanctions imposed. training. surveillance teams and they have access to additional specialist resources from the region. 6 To what extent has the force put in place arrangements to ensure its workforce acts with integrity? What progress has What progress has How well does the How well does the force made the force made in force proactively the force prevent, on managing communicating and look for, and identify and professional making sure staff effectively challenge investigate and personal knew about ethical and investigate corruption? relationships and professional misconduct and with integrity and behaviour to all unprofessional transparency, since staff, including the behaviour? HMIC’s December new Code of 2012 report? Ethics? The force has good The rigour of plans in place to initial assessment ensure the Code of misconduct of Ethics is fully cases where there understood and is a potential of applied. criminal offences is unsatisfactory. There is a joint vetting unit that complies with the national vetting policy. 7 Police Integrity and Corruption – Suffolk Constabulary The force/constabulary in numbers Complaints Total public complaints against officers and staff, 353 12 months to March 2014 Total public complaints against officers and staff, 16.4 12 months to March 2014, per 100 workforce Total public complaints against officers and staff, 15.7 per 100 workforce – England and Wales Conduct Total conduct cases against officers and staff, 32 12 months to March 2014 Total conduct cases against officers and staff, 1.5 12 months to March 2014, per 100 workforce Total conduct cases against officers and staff, 2.6 per 100 workforce – England and Wales 8 The force/constabulary in numbers Business interests Applications in 12 months to March 2014 163 Approvals in 12 months to March 2014 159 Resources Proportion of workforce in PSD/ACU 0.6% Proportion of workforce in PSD/ACU 1.0% – England and Wales Information above is sourced from data collections returned by forces, and therefore may not fully reconcile with inspection findings as detailed in the body of the report. 9 10 Constabulary Police IntegrityandCorruption–Suffolk a smallproportioninthe forcehavingtheworkconductedforthem. forces itcangivetheappearanceofalarge proportion intheforceconductingworkand beingemployedinoneforcetoundertaketheworkofanother force.Forthese with staff Someforcessharetheseroles includes civil/legallitigation,vettingandinformation security. The proportion professional standardsoranti-corruptionroles asatthe31March2014. workforcethatworkedin The chartaboveisonlyindicativeoftheproportion offorce’s 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 . 2 6 0 4 4 6 8 0 2 % % % % % % % % % West Midlands E Norfolk and Suffolk n g l P Essex a n r opo d Sussex a n r Beds, Herts and Cambridgeshire d t i on Dyfed-Powys W a l o West Yorkshire e f t s 1 North Yorkshire o % t Leicestershire a l Lincolnshire w o i n r Devon & Cornwall k f o f o South Wales r m r c a Humberside e t i i on Avon & Somerset n PS Hampshire s e D Northumbria c u / A r Metropolitan Police i CU t y South Yorkshire ) a ( i s Dorset n c a l Kent t ud 31 Staffordshire i ng Nottinghamshire M a c r North Wales i v c il h Wiltshire / l e 201 Lancashire ga l 4 Warwickshire and West Mercia li t i Cumbria g a Merseyside t i Gloucestershire on , Durham v e Northamptonshire tt i Greater Manchester ng Derbyshire a nd Surrey Gwent Cleveland London, City of Cheshire Thames Valley Introduction During HMIC’s review of police relationships, published in 2011 as Without fear or favour1, we did not find evidence to support previous concerns that inappropriate police relationships represented endemic failings in police integrity. However, HMIC did not give the police service a clean bill of health. We found that few forces were actively aware of, or were managing, issues