THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF ESSEX. -and- DEPUTY CHIEF CONSTABLE MATTHEW HORNE REPORT OF THE MISCONDUCT PANEL

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF ESSEX. -and- DEPUTY CHIEF CONSTABLE MATTHEW HORNE REPORT OF THE MISCONDUCT PANEL"

Tracy Carpenter
6 years ago
Views:

1 IN THE MATTER OF THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF ESSEX -and- DEPUTY CHIEF CONSTABLE MATTHEW HORNE REPORT OF THE MISCONDUCT PANEL 1. This report is submitted to the Appropriate Authority for Essex [ AA ] for the persons who have conducted discipline proceedings in respect of Deputy Chief Constable Matthew Horne [ MH ] and in compliance with regulation 33(16)(a) to (d) of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 [ the Regulations ] The persons appointed to the panel to conduct the proceedings were: Dorian Lovell-Pank QC HMI Mrs Wendy Williams Mr Richard Gutowski 1

2 2. The Allegations 2.1. On 15 th January 2018, Deputy Chief Constable Mr Matthew Horne appeared before the panel, sitting at the Civic Centre, Chelmsford, to answer allegations that he had breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour [ SPB ] as follows: Allegation One 1. On a date unknown in June 2015 you were on duty in uniform when you attended the Essex Police Force Control Room (FCR) in Chelmsford. 2. Outside the FCR, near the Orchard Car Park, you approached SuperintendenMaleary and confronted him about the performance of the FCR. 3. During this confrontation, which took place in a public area, you: a. Angrily swore at SuperintendentMaleary about the performance of the FCR using the words fucking and cunt ; b. Called SuperintendentMaleary a fucking cunt ; 2

3 c. Stood with clenched fists, leaning in towards SuperintendentMaleary; and d. Said that you had to leave before you punched something. 4. Senior police officers are critical role models and are expected to lead by example and confronting a junior colleague in public in this manner was a breach of the Authority Respect and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct paragraphs of the Standards of Professional Behaviour. Allegation 2 1. On a date unknown between 16 th October 2015 and 9 th May 2016 you were in an office at the Chief Executive s House at Essex Police Headquarters with ChieSuperintendentO Malley and Assistant Chief Constable Mason. 2. During a conversation about policing matters, and for no apparent reason, you pushed ChiefSuperintendentO Malley with two hands, causing him to fall onto a desk. 3. Senior police officers are critical role models and are expected to lead by example and pushing a junior colleague in this manner was a breach of the Authority, Respect and Courtesy paragraph of the Standards of Professional Behaviour. 3

4 Allegation 3 1. On a date unknown between 16 th October 2015 and 9 th May 2016 you were in your office at the Chief Executive s House at Essex Police Headquarters with ChiefSuperintendentO Malley and AssistantChiefConstableMason. 2. Suddenly, and for no apparent reason, you threw a rubber stress ball at ChiefSuperintendentO Malley, which hit him in the throat and left a red mark. 3. Senior police officers are critical role models and are expected to lead by example and throwing a ball at a junior colleague was a breach of the Authority, Respect and Courtesy paragraph of the Standards of Professional Behaviour MH denied the allegations. On 19 th January 2018, we found as follows: Allegation 1: (a) Use of word fucking proved; cunt, not proved. 4

5 (b) Use of phrase fucking cunt proved. (c) and (d) Not proved. Allegations 2 and 3: Proved. We found that all three allegations were breaches of the SPB as to Authority, Courtesy and Respect and as to Discreditable Conduct in Allegation 1. We found that each breach of the SPB, taken alone or together, amounted to misconduct only. These are our reasons. 3. The History and Background to the Allegations 3.1. All interested parties are familiar with the facts of the case. It is not necessary, therefore, to go into detail in this report save as is sufficient to explain the reasons for our findings and our recommendations to the AA The case arises out of MH s treatment of two senior officers and colleagues in the period June 2015 to May

6 3.3. The particulars of the Allegations give a snapshot of the story but a small measure of fleshing out is needed. Allegation 1 In 2015 Essex Police was the subject of scrutiny by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and had been judged inadequate on various fronts in respect of its handling of domestic abuse The Essex Police Force Control Room [ FCR ] is the hub of Essex policing. In 2015, the FCR was losing staff from unusually high levels of sickness from the remaining levels of personnel, resulting in increased workload and a backlog of police response to cases of domestic abuse On a day in June 2015, MH, then ACC for Essex, visited the FCR unannounced to check for himself the assurances that all was under control. What he saw, after an hour with an operative looking through the data, made him furious (our word). As he left the FCR building he met SuperintendentGlenMaleary [ GM ] GM had been posted some ten days previously to implement the changes needed at the FCR. He and GM met outside. There followed the exchange in the particulars of Allegation 1, partly witnessed by Superintendent Adrian Coombs [ AC ] and partly reported to DCC Benson (now retired) shortly afterwards. 6

7 Allegations 2 and Chief Superintendent Carl O Malley [ COM ] worked in the Chief Officers building at Essex Police HQ in Chelmsford between October 2015 and May Neither he, nor ACC Maurice Mason (now retired) [ MM ] can remember which incident came first, but we have dealt firstly with the push. All three senior officers were in an office next to COM s when MH, suddenly, without warning and without any apparent reason, pushed or shoved COM causing him to fall over a nearby desk. Although it did not hurt, the push was forceful and made COM lose his balance and fall onto the desk About two weeks later, the same three officers were together in another office in the same building when, as on the previous occasion, for no apparent reason, MH picked up a stress ball and threw it at COM, hitting him in the throat and leaving a red mark. 4. The Hearing 4.1. The AA was represented by Mr Stephen Morley and MH by Mr John Beggs QC In respect of Allegation 1, we heard evidence from: 7

8 Superintendent Glen Maleary [ GM ] Superintendent Adrian Coombs [ AC ] In respect of Allegations 2 and 3 we heard from: Chief Superintendent Carl O Malley [ COM ] Assistant Chief Constable Maurice Mason (retired) [ MM ] 4.3. These four witnesses were central to the AA s case. Our principal task has been to judge them and MH himself and to assess their credibility and reliability. Then to decide if, on the balance of probabilities, any of the breaches of the SPB are made out and, if so, to what they amount We have taken into account all the other material in our papers and, in particular, the impressive array of character evidence provided on behalf of MH. We have well in mind the case urged upon us by Mr Beggs, namely: Allister Walker v Bar Standards Board [Royal Courts of Justice Case No: PC 2011/0219] 8

9 as it relates to the threshold to be reached before a breach of professional standards can be deemed to amount to misconduct. We have fully on board that the events are old even stale that none of the principal five officers concerned made any notes or, in GM s case, any notes that have seen the light of day and that their memories differ Allegation 1 GM gave his evidenced along the lines of his witness statements. [W/S pp and 70A-B] He has a brother, Paul, who at the material time was an Inspector with Essex Police and who had an employment action then running against the force. After the incident the subject of Allegation 1, GM was transferred to Stanstead Airport before he was due to take up his new post as a Chief Superintendent with the City of London Police Mr Beggs cross-examined GM closely and at some length. In spite of GM s maintaining the stance set out in his witness statements, the panel was left with the impression that he was bitter and disappointed at his and his brother s lot in Essex police and that he felt that MH did not rate him. 9

10 4.7. In our view GM was a witness who might be tempted or given to overstating the case and so looked for support before relying on his evidence as to the particulars of the allegation. That support came in part from AC and MH himself GM and AC differed as to when they were together at the encounter with MH. AC told us he was with GM at the outset and left in the middle of it. GM told us that AC joined them midway and MH could not remember AC having been there at all. AC was clear that he heard MH use the C word. MH was clear that he was angry, he may well have sworn, using the F word, and would have left GM in no doubt as to his views of the situation in FCR. Accordingly, we found as set out at paragraph 2.2 above Allegations 2 and 3 We had less difficulty with these allegations than we had with Allegation 1. Put bluntly, there were three men in a room. One says the second man pushed him on one occasion and threw a stress ball at him on another. The third man says he saw both incidents happen. The second man says neither incident happened at all. 10

11 4.10. Like GM and AC, we had ample opportunity to assess COM and MM. Both were impressive and compelling witnesses. Neither overegged the pudding nor had any axe to grind. Indeed, MM gave us his unsolicited views about how MH was an excellent officer who should not lose his job, comments we accepted in the spirit in which they were made and which we mentally passed to the character evidence bundle MH himself was vague to the point of amnesia on both topics, although Mr Beggs, in his final address to the panel, conceded that:... these incidents probably occurred. We are in no doubt that they did, as described by COM and MM. We found both Allegations 2 and 3 proved. 5. The Recommendation of the Panel 5.1. In some ways this is an unfortunate case. Unfortunate that such a high-ranking officer should find himself before a disciplinary panel at all. Unfortunate, because the process by which he comes before us has been the result of late enquiry and a lack of proper documentary evidence. Unfortunate, because 11

12 the events might well have been considered and MH dealt with informally and to the satisfaction of all concerned a long time ago The enquiry has drawn into its web several senior present and former officers of Essex Police. None of the events would have emerged onto the public stage but for complaints made by Inspector Maleary GM s brother against Essex Police in an entirely unconnected matter. No-one expected the events ever to be played out at a misconduct hearing. None of the four witnesses called by the AA wanted to give evidence but were obliged to do so under the Regulations. But the panel is still required to consider the evidence before it, regardless of its age, its quirks and frayed edges We remind ourselves of our two principal duties, namely: The preservation of the reputation of the police service and the confidence of the public in it. To ensure that is achieved by taking the minimum action properly required A misconduct panel is not a machine. It is a living thing. It deals with human beings and human relationships in often stressful and challenging situations. 12

13 The business of policing from police constable to chief constable is difficult, frequently thankless and always demanding. That comes with the job Allegation 1 took place against a background of acute crisis at FCR. MH was appalled and angered at what he discovered when he went to the FCR to look into things for himself. Allegations 2 and 3 took place closely together in time and in private (although the officers were on duty). But in respect of all three allegations, MH needs no reminding that all police officers, especially senior ones, have to keep a watch on their behaviour both in public and in private. That too, comes with the job We are dealing with a senior officer who has had an outstanding career and who is spoken of in the highest terms by 92 witnesses whose statements we have read with care. In the joint experience of the members of the panel we have not seen before such an impressive array of character evidence As a panel we are concerned to ensure that we approach the case in a firm but fair way, a way that not only meets the expectations of the public and the police service itself but that is just and proportionate towards MH himself. 13

14 5.8. Mr Beggs argues that the appropriate action is no further action. We disagree. We have been particularly troubled by MH s at no time recognising or admitting his actions. He did not begin to make an apology until his regulation 22 notice and even in evidence to us such apology as he gave was qualified Be that as it may, we fully take on board Mr Beggs s point that had these matters been dealt with at the time they occurred, there would never have been an enquiry and no discipline proceedings Taking into account the full background to the case and what has unfolded before us over the week of the hearing we are in no doubt that the appropriate and proportionate outcome in respect of each allegation is one of management advice. Accordingly, we so recommend to the AA under regulation 33(16)(c) of the Regulations It remains only for the panel to thank all parties in this case for their commitment to its proper resolution. We recognise the effort and hard work of the legal teams on both sides in putting together their cases for us to consider. We are particularly grateful to Mr Beggs and Mr Morley for their characteristic skill in the presentation of their cases. 6. Postscript 14

15 6.1. The panel wishes to add the following. No-one can have anything but the highest regard for MH both as a police officer and as a man. He has brought strength and honour to each force in which he has served. He now takes his formidable abilities to his secondment with the National Crime Agency [ NCA ] where he hopes his post will be confirmed We quote from just one of the 92 character witnesses, namely DAC Lucy D Orsi: I hope that any panel reflects on my sentiments as they are very personal and I have written this in the hope that as a panel you will put the interests of policing, communities and hard working officers and police staff first and retain Matthew as a senior leader. He is one of the few senior leaders I know who has the ability and leadership to lead policing through the current challenges we have and ensure we protect vulnerable people, address crime and design a police service fit for the future. [See pp of character bundle] 6.3. We agree. If anything the panel says carries any weight, we endorse the view of DAC Lucy D Orsi and that the interests she espouses would be best and immensely served by MH being confirmed in his post at the NCA. 15

16 The panel is confident that MH can now put this trying episode for him and his family behind him and that he can look forward to higher and greater achievements.... DORIAN LOVELL-PANK QC... HMI MRS WENDY WILLIAMS... MR RICHARD GUTOWSKI 16

against Members of Staff

Procedural Guidance Security Marking: Police Misconduct and Complaints against Members of Staff Not Protectively Marked Please click on the hyperlink for related Policy Statements 1. Introduction 1.1 This