‘Integrity screening’ of police leads to just NINE investigations
POLICE chiefs faced questions yesterday after a landmark review of wrongdoing looking at the records of every officer in the country led to only nine criminal probes.
Only five officers and four members of staff were flagged as requiring investigation out of the UK’s 307,452 officers, staff and volunteers.
Yesterday, victims’ campaigners were incredulous at the tiny number of probes suggesting policing’s ‘clean bill of health’ may reveal more about the shortcomings in collecting data. Notably, in the Metropolitan Police, the review didn’t find a single case worthy of criminal investigation even though its own commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has previously said he wants to root out hundreds of officers for wrongdoing.
Checks on the Police National Database for every employee were ordered by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) after the conviction of a series of predators including Sarah Everard’s killer Wayne Couzens.
Analysts looking at criminal records, HR information and police intelligence logs held on staff unearthed 461 cases classed as serious enough to warrant assessment by a senior officer. Of those, only nine cases led to a criminal investigation for sexual offences, drugs, theft and fraud.
Another 88 individuals faced a disciplinary probe, 139 had their vetting reviewed, 128 faced management intervention and 97 cases were found to require no further action. But the ‘integrity screening’ looked only at ‘new information or intelligence’ held by forces, excluding previous criminal convictions, ongoing probes or alleged wrongdoing that bosses were already aware of.
Yesterday chief constable Serena Kennedy, the NPCC lead for the ‘data washing’ exercise, was unable to say how many of the 461 officers and staff flagged had criminal convictions, saying the assessment did not consider this.
She stressed that the review team had gone to great lengths to interrogate intelligence on police systems, for example assessing whether an officer’s home had ever been used in criminal activity.
She said: ‘While the historical data wash has resulted in some cases which require criminal or disciplinary investigation, this low number, together with the fact these people have now been identified and appropriate action taken, should provide reassurance that we are committed to the highest standards of integrity and will continue to deal robustly with those who fall below these standards.’
But former victims commissioner Vera Baird, QC, said: ‘Surprise, surprise, there isn’t very much on the police’s own intelligence systems about their own officers because otherwise many more would have been under investigation long ago.’
Harriet Wistrich, from the Centre for Women’s Justice, questioned whether it was ‘data wash or whitewash?’, adding: ‘The figures simply do not stack up.’
She said: ‘ The explanation for such a virtually clean bill of health must lie in the significant problems in the collection of data that the police themselves have identified.’
The Home Office has promised £500,000 to establish a continuous integrity screening programme so forces are automatically notified when officers are convicted.
Policing minister Chris Philp said: ‘While we know that the vast majority of officers and police staff . . . are dedicated to protecting the public, new serious concerns have been raised in a small number of cases as a result of this work.
‘We will continue to work with the police to remove those who fall short of the standards we expect.’