Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Panel finds ‘serious error of judgement’ on part of Police and Crime Commissioner Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Panel has found that Police and Crime Commissioner Sue Mountstevens demonstrated a serious error of judgement and breached her Code of Conduct by revealing the identity of a whistleblower to Chief Constable Nick Gargan, the person at the centre of misconduct allegations. As a result the Panel has today, Thursday 30th October, opted to publish its findings as a matter of public interest. The findings follow a complaint alleging that the Commissioner, having been notified that an individual had raised concerns about Mr Gargan’s conduct, revealed the identity of this person to Mr Gargan before he was suspended. The complainant stated that the Commissioner’s Office did not admit to the disclosure for several months and that the issue was compounded when their identity became known to several news agencies. Due to the serious nature of the complaint, the Panel was required to refer the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) who concluded that there were insufficient grounds to suspect that a criminal offence may have been committed. The IPCC referred the complaint back to the Panel for informal resolution. By law, the informal resolution process prohibits the Panel from investigating the complaint and limits its considerations to the personal conduct of the Commissioner. In light of this the Panel sought Home Office clarification which confirmed its limited powers to request documents and its full ability to call the Commissioner to answer questions from the Panel. The Commissioner was limited in what she could disclose to the Panel given the IPCC investigation of the suspended Chief Constable. The Commissioner acknowledged that as part of a discussion with the Chief Constable before his suspension, she had made him aware of the complainant’s name, maintaining that at the time she was not in full possession of the facts or aware of the complainant’s whistleblower status. The Commissioner subsequently made a written apology to the complainant and has recently publicly acknowledged and apologised for the issue. This public statement pre‐empted the conclusion of the process by the Panel, which has opted to clarify its finding of a serious error of judgement as opposed to a ‘mistake’, to make its position clear in light of this. Cllr Nigel Ashton, Leader of North Somerset Council, is Chairman of the Avon and Somerset Police and Crime Panel. He said: “A complainant provided sensitive and personal information to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, and in doing so had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Panel has found that the Commissioner demonstrated a serious error of judgement, not only in revealing their identity but by doing so to the person at the centre of the allegations. “The Panel has recommended to the Commissioner that all staff in her office are familiar with and trained where appropriate in the key policies and procedures which underpin the standards of behaviour expected of her staff. This includes the Whistleblowing Policy and Staff Code of Conduct. “It is fair to add that the Panel has experienced a degree of frustration given the unfortunate and highly‐restrictive constraints around the investigation of complaints, dictated by legislation. There are no formal sanctions available to the Panel, but in publishing this information we are clearly demonstrating our commitment to holding those in public office to account. We acknowledge that the Commissioner has publicly and privately apologised for her actions, though it is regrettable that the Commissioner chose to issue a public statement before the process concluded. In response I must underline that we take this matter very seriously and consider her lapse in judgement to be serious. As the Home Office reminded us, ultimately Police and Crime Commissioners are accountable to the public at the ballot box, and in publishing our findings we are ensuring that people are aware of our stance on this incident.” ENDS Notes to Editors: About the Police and Crime Panel: The Police and Crime Panel scrutinises and maintains a regular check and balance on the performance and activities of the Police and Crime Commissioner. It has the power to request reports and call the Police and Crime Commissioner to attend its meetings. Its activities include: • Scrutinising the Commissioner’s proposed council tax precept for policing, with the power to veto if the Panel considers necessary. • Scrutinising the Commissioner’s proposed appointment of a Chief Constable, with the power to veto if the Panel considers necessary. • Reviewing the police and crime plan and annual report. • Considering complaints against the PCC of a non‐criminal nature. In Avon and Somerset its memberships comprises local councillors and independent co‐opted members. Authorities represented on the Panel are: • Bath and North East Somerset Council • Bristol City Council • Mendip District Council • North Somerset Council • Sedgemoor District Council • Somerset County Council • South Gloucestershire Council • South Somerset District Council • Taunton Deane Borough Council • West Somerset Council For Panel membership details, visit www.bristol.gov.uk/page/council‐and‐democracy/avon‐and‐ somerset‐police‐and‐crime‐panel Complaints: The Police and Crime Panel (the Panel) has responsibility for handling: • All non‐criminal complaints directed against the Police and Crime Commissioner including conduct matters, • Criminal complaints and conduct matters that are referred back to the Panel by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). National regulations contained in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 mean that the Panel cannot conduct an investigation, but may exercise its delegated powers to require the person complained against to provide information or documents or attend before it to answer questions or give evidence. Steps designed to gather information about or corroborate the complaint such as taking statements from witnesses or seeking documents from other parties are prohibited. .