Question
At the Performance Committee meeting in January 2023, Officers made reference to an Audit of Hate Crime Report. Could the Chief Constable provide a timeframe for when this report can be shared with Committee members?
Answer
- Professional Standards’ Department (PSD) is composed of three elements:
- Counter Corruption;
- Misconduct;
- Service Vetting Unit.
- The Department is answerable to the Deputy Chief Constable (DCC), who is the Chief Constable’s discipline lead for the police service. The DCC chairs a PSD Governance Board monthly and the Department also reports to the Audit & Risk Committee and other relevant Service Boards. Changes to PSD policy are generally referred to the Strategic Management Board or Service Performance Board for governance purposes.
- A Chief Superintendent leads the Department on a day to day basis and the Chief Superintendent is supported by Superintendent Investigations, Superintendent Operational Support, and Superintendent Integrity. This is a new management structure brought about as a result of the Continuous Improvement Programme in PSD.
- Professional Standards’ processes are governed by legislation. The primary regulatory basis for decision making and the conduct of investigations is The Police (Conduct) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. These regulations apply to the Police Ombudsman also.
- There are a number of ways that investigations begin in PSD. Typically investigations are the result of intelligence, a referral from one of our internal reporting mechanisms or following the arrest of a police officer.
- These referrals are dealt with daily by the PSD Senior Management Team, which risks assesses the matter and identifies next steps for every allegation.
- If an allegation does not require additional research the matter is referred to an Appropriate Authority (AA). An Appropriate Authority is a Superintendent or Chief Inspector delegated by the Chief Constable to review misconduct issues. The AA must formally assess whether the conduct alleged would amount to misconduct or gross misconduct.
- Gross misconduct refers to those allegations which, if proved, would lead to dismissal with or without notice.
- If an initial finding of gross misconduct is made (Regulation 12) there is consideration of an officer’s duty status. If PSD considers it necessary a recommendation will be made to the DCC to either suspend or reposition an officer to a non-public facing role or a role outside of the evidential chain.
- The DCC does not rubber stamp PSD recommendations but applies his independent judgment to these.
- If there is no initial finding of gross misconduct then the Appropriate Authority will forward the matter to a local Appropriate Authority who will consider the matter and be able to progress the matter to a misconduct meeting where a lower level of sanction may be applied.
- Once a Regulation 12 is completed, an allegation moves to investigation.
- If at the conclusion of the investigation the Appropriate Authority decides there is a case to answer for gross misconduct the matter proceeds to a misconduct hearing where the full range of sanctions are available, up to and including dismissal.
- Professional Standards’ Department deals with misconduct issues up to and including the rank of Chief Superintendent.
- 366 officers in total were directed to misconduct proceedings in the form of either a meeting or a hearing before a panel between 2016 and 2022. 14 of those subject to such proceedings were of the rank Inspector or above. Within the overall cadre of officers ranked Inspector or above, this represents 2.62%. In comparison, those Constables who have been subject to misconduct proceedings represent 4.0% of their rank, and those Sergeants who have been subject to proceedings represent 2.5% within their rank.
Misconduct Meetings
- There were 237 officers subject to a misconduct meeting during this time period. 82.2% of those were Constables, 11% of those were Sergeants and 3.4% of those were of the rank Inspector or above. The latter mentioned represents 1.5% of the overall cadre of Senior Officers.
- The most common charges of those brought to a meeting related to the following breaches of the Police Service of Northern Ireland Code of Ethics: Article 1 (Professional Duty), Article 2 (Police Investigations), Article 7 (Integrity), and Article 10 (Duty of Supervisors).
- These were in relation to various allegations such as inappropriate remarks and language; inappropriate behaviour at work; failure to supervise; knowingly making false, misleading or inaccurate written statements; inappropriate usage of a Police Service of Northern Ireland fleet vehicle; breach of DPA; and breach of Covid-19 regulations.
- With regard to outcomes in these misconduct meetings, one officer was given a final written warning, two officers received written warnings, one retired with ill health, and five had no further action. A representation of 62.3% of senior officers brought to a misconduct meeting between 2016 and 2022 received the outcome of ‘No Further Action’.
Misconduct Hearings
- In total 124 officers were subject to a misconduct hearing between 2016 and 2022. 86.3% of those were Constables, 9.7% were Sergeants, and 4% were of the rank Inspector or above. Officers subject to proceedings of senior rank included Inspectors, and Chief Inspectors.
- The most common charges for those brought to hearing were breaches of: Article 1 (Professional Duty), Article 6 (Equality), Article 7 (Integrity). Other breaches included Article 2 (Police Investigations), Article 3 (Privacy and Confidentiality) and Article 10 (Duty of Supervisors).
- These were in relation to allegations of harassment, abusive behaviour towards colleagues, the use of racist and homophobic language, involvement in a WhatsApp chat using racist language, making inappropriate posts on social media, and a conviction for common assault.
- Of these senior officers four were either dismissed or required to resign, with the remaining two having been either reduced in rank or sanctioned by way of reduction in pay. In all cases where a senior officer was directed to a misconduct hearing, a sanction was given and one charge, if not all were proven.