Staffordshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner Matthew Ellis said: “I have now written to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to say that I consider that Temporary Chief Constable, Mrs Jane Sawyers, has no case to answer on misconduct or gross misconduct in relation to the “Operation Kalmia” inquiry into matters relating to the investigation and trial of five men for the murder of Kevin Nunes in 2002.
“It is clear that over the last decade something went wrong in relation to the investigation of the murder and the wider criminal justice proceedings, and it is right and proper that further investigations were established to understand what actually happened.
“The public have every right to expect that this whole issue is examined in a fully open and transparent way. Too often, people feel that accountability is lacking in public services where scandals or failures happen because things are perceived to be brushed under the carpet, ignored or not dealt with in a way that inspires public confidence.
“It is important that the Police in Staffordshire are held to account for the quality of their service and to ensure high standards of behaviour. This has informed the approach of me and my advisers to our work, to my determination on the IPCC report, and why I have made my decision public today.
“Driving this level of openness, transparency and public scrutiny, however, is made harder by the way this kind of investigation is carried out and the levels of secrecy imposed by the system on everyone involved.
“This is why Staffordshire’s independent Ethics, Transparency & Audit Panel (ETAP) was offered an opportunity to examine in public the way that I set about assessing and understanding the facts prior to my determination. The Panel agreed to carry out this work and meets at 1.30pm today to test and challenge how I have reached my decision.
“The IPCC’s report, which I received on 21 November last year, runs to 556 pages – and the supporting evidence material, which I received at my request in December, covers several thousands of pages.
“The issues, allegations and recommendations outlined in these documents were substantial, complex and detailed – and it was important that I gave this very serious matter thorough and careful consideration.
“To make sure my considerations were thorough, informed and logical, I also commissioned two pieces of separate independent advice – one from a leading, specialist Queen’s Counsel, and the other from the Head of Professional Standards at a police force outside Staffordshire.
“My conclusion is that, whilst there were undoubtedly different actions and decisions that should have been taken at the time, the IPCC report does not produce evidence that Mrs Sawyers has a case to answer in respect of misconduct or gross misconduct.
“I have been clear, however, in my letter to the IPCC that Jane Sawyers could have been more intrusive and sceptical about the actions of others at the time. But in the climate and culture of the times 10 years ago, there is no evidence that there was such a breach of professional behaviour to justify a conclusion of gross misconduct or misconduct.”
A live webcast of the ETAP scrutiny session at 1.30pm will be broadcast at http://www.staffordshire-pcc.gov.uk/webcast/
Introduction by Matthew Ellis to determination letter to Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
It falls to me to determine whether Staffordshire’s Temporary Chief Constable should appear before a disciplinary panel to answer allegations of gross misconduct or misconduct relating to historical events in Staffordshire Police dating back to 2002, when the murder of Kevin Nunes took place.
It is clear that something went wrong in relation to the investigation and wider criminal justice proceedings of the Kevin Nunes murder. As such it is right and proper that further investigations were established to understand what actually happened.
The public have every right and expectation to see this whole issue examined in a fully open and transparent way. Too often, people feel that accountability is lacking in public services where scandals or failures happen because things are perceived to be brushed under the carpet, ignored or not dealt with in a way that inspires public confidence.
From day one in Office as Staffordshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner I have consistently promoted the benefits of greater openness in the way police and other criminal justice services go about their business and ensuring more transparency in the way decisions are made on behalf of the public. I hope and believe that I have been good to those words and demonstrated such consistently.
The priority for me with regard to Kalmia has been about making a fair, honest and detailed determination that examines circumstances, culpabilities and responsibilities specific to those concerned. A close second in my mind has been ensuring the most open, public, transparent and credible process possible in reaching my determination, particularly in the context of such complex and important matters.
The process I have to follow is set out in legislation and guidance. It makes the full transparency and openness I want as a matter of course impossible to achieve at this stage of proceedings.
Whilst it’s understandable that information which could prejudice the formal process cannot be put in the public domain, I also believe the public interest aspect in a case like this is highly significant, as it should be.
It is a matter of fact that those barriers to transparency could translate into a lack of public trust in the system. It is crucial that all parties involved do everything possible to ensure that does not happen.
With regard to my first priority of achieving a fair and honest determination I have utilised a number of experts to provide me with counsel and advice, legal, general and practical, in relation to the complexities of this investigation and its conclusions by the police investigation team.
All of the advice has been objective, specific to the individual expertise individuals have and all done in isolation to each other. Consensus is not something I have tried to achieve, more so the ability to listen and question experts in their field in order to help me reach what I consider to be a well-informed personal decision as the officer’s appropriate authority.
The advisers have included my Chief of Staff who has a unique ability to ‘chunk’ complex issues into manageable parts, Queen’s Counsel to advise, translate and help me apply the law and regulations as practical tools and approaches as well as an eminent serving Head of Professional Standards from outside Staffordshire who regularly advises on Standards issues at a national level.
In addition, once I made my determination, I wanted independent assurance to satisfy myself, the wider public and all concerned that the decision making process, and purely the process, I used was credible, appropriate, legal and logical.
In order to test that I offered the opportunity for Staffordshire’s independent Ethics, Transparency & Audit Panel (ETAP) (1) to examine in public the way that I set about assessing and understanding the facts and determining the outcome. The panel decided to carry out that piece of work, to be webcast publicly soon after I formally notify the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) of my determination.
The statutory Police and Crime Panel for Staffordshire (2) has also indicated it will be examining the actual decision and that is something I strongly welcome.
Public confidence might be achieved in part by shining a light on issues like this through independent scrutiny or oversight. That is often lacking in areas of public life and whilst this has been an immensely complex determination involving several thousand pages of reports, evidence and supporting evidence sitting within a regulatory framework which makes public oversight difficult, I hope that I have made every effort to be more transparent than would traditionally have been the case in these circumstances.
A statement from Temporary Chief Constable Jane Sawyers is at http://collateral.vuelio.uk.com/RemoteStorage/staffordshirepolice/RELEASES/613/Release.pdf
