OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE – Until Approved.

Not to be circulated beyond Panel members until approved for publication

National Oversight Group Minutes

10th Meeting – Wednesday 19th October 2016, 11.00am at

Riverside House, Southwark.

Attendees:

Name / Role
Alex Marshall (Chair) / College of Policing
Sue Mountstevens / APCC
Katerina Hadjimatheou / University of Warwick – on phone
David Tucker / College of Policing
Alan Pughsley / Chief Constable Kent, Chair of National Undercover Working Group
Joe McGuigan / HMRC, by phone
D/Ch Supt Chris Green / North West ROCU
Maria Conroy / CPS,
Teena Chowdhury / College of Policing – Undercover Registrar
An NCA representative
Matt Parr / Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary
Andy Ward / NPCC, Public Inquiry Coordinator
Natalie Williams / Kent Police
Chris Nathan / University of Warwick – by phone
Apologies:
Mick Creedon / NPCC Lead for Serious and Organised Crime
A psychologist
Simon McKay / Barrister
John Dilworth / CPS
Michael Lupton / A/Det.Chief Supt - Head of Operations - NCTPOC
  1. Welcome & Introductions (Alex Marshall)
  2. Alex Marshall welcomed all attendees. Introductions were made. There were two new members, one of whom was able to attend and introduced himself. There are some changes in the police officers attending. CC Jon Boutcher has vacated his role as chair of NUWG. CC Pughsley has taken that role. ACC Jeff Hill has retired.
  3. There was a discussion about the terms of reference for the group. It was agreed that they will be discussed at the next meeting to give new members a chance to express views.
  4. Action – Terms of Reference to be on agenda for the next meeting
  1. Apologies noted
  2. Previous minutes

3.1.The minutes of 5th July 2016 had been circulated ahead of the meeting and were accepted as accurate and approved for publication on the College website.

  1. Actions
  2. Four actions were outstanding one was on the agenda for this meeting.
  3. The action to consider feedback from the ethics event as part of the APP development has been taken forward and a final draft of APP is expected in the next few weeks.
  4. David Tucker has discussed gathering good practice from undercover operations with the College research team. There may be some difficulties in achieving this because of the covert nature of work. To be discussed with Kat Hadjimatheou outside of the meeting.
  5. The invitation list has been reviewed and two new members have been recruited.
  1. HMIC Action Plan Update

5.1 CC Pughsley and David Tucker described the work that has been undertaken to implement the 49 recommendations from the HMIC report of the inspection of undercover policing.

5.1.1 Selection – the College, working with NUWG, has designed a new selection process, intended to ensure that the right people are selected for training for undercover roles. A key part of the process is psychological or personality assessment, depending on the role applied for.

5.1.2Training – there are training courses for a range of roles, covering practitioners, supervisors, managers and authorising officers. In addition, instructions have been issued by the College and National Police Chiefs’ Council setting out the levels of training required for authorising officers.

5.1.3Support – the College has developed a list of approved providers of psychological support and has made clear, through training, selection and guidance, that the responsibility for officer welfare rests with officers themselves, but also supervisors and managers.

5.1.4Guidance – new authorised professional practice was released for consultation in June. Feedback is now being incorporated into the document and a final draft is expected in the next few weeks.

5.1.5Undercover online – the College has developed undercover online training.

5.1.6Accreditation – a new appointment has been made to the role of Registrar. The Registrar is now reviewing all the work that has been done to establish the accreditation process. Work to embed the accreditation process will now begin.

5.2CC Pughsley stated that NUWG is reviewing progress against the Action Plan. He offered to give a presentation on progress and outstanding issues. Matt parr confirmed that there are no current plans for HMIC to revisit this issue. It was noted that the Undercover Policing Inquiry will be a significant contribution to reviewing undercover policing.

5.3Review of HMIC Action Plan to be on next agenda

6.Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI) Update

6.1Andy ward informed the meeting about the amount of activity being required of policing to meet the requirements of the UCPI team.

6.2There have been a limited number of hearings and most of these have focused on restrictions of information that has been provided to the Inquiry and anonymity of witnesses.

6.3The Metropolitan Police has been supporting the Inquiry with information regarding the special Demonstration Squad. The team has also visited a number of forces.

6.4The terms of reference for the Inquiry cover events since 1968. This has meant that forces have had to undertake very significant enquiries, requiring significant resources. One investigation alone has involved 11.5 million document. The issues around confidentiality of tactics and personnel have added further complexity.

6.5Where anonymity is not offered, forces are having to carry out risk assessments for officers and their families.

6.7The College has also received requests for information and the team visited the Ryton training facility. A further request for statements is anticipated.

6.6 Alex Marshall said that it is important for improvements in practice and management to improve in undercover policing but that there should be care to ensure there is no trespassing on the role of the Inquiry.

7.Ethics Exercise

7.1Following the desk top exercise, Sam Lincoln had developed a branched, computer based undercover exercise, based on the table top story line. He had circulated the exercise ahead of the meeting.

7.2Discussions took place about how the exercise could be used. Sue Mountstevens felt there was potential for it to be used to gather views of the public and inform them of the process required to authorise undercover policing activity.

7.3 Some were concerned about the potential to disclose covert tactics, but members felt that content could be designed carefully for different audiences.

7.4 Sam Lincoln felt that the exercise could be used as a pre-course exercise for officers ahead of their authorising course. He did not feel it could sit as a training tool on its own, but could be augmented by teacher input. It could also be a good CPD tool because it allows delegates to write down their considerations for authorising and then compare their record with a model answer provided by a panel of experts.

7.5There was agreement that the public are ill-informed about the requirements of the police in relation to undercover policing. The public needs to know about the complexity and nuances of the authorising process and the careful consideration of issues that is required.

7.5 It was agreed that further work was needed to, initially, look at a public facing model. There will need to be discussions about ownership of the intellectual property and the potential for conflict of interest.

7.6 A number of members of the Panel expressed interest in helping to develop the exercise

7.7David Tucker to take forward development of public facing exercise

8.Future Development of Undercover Policing

8.1Alex Marshall reflected on the previous items on the agenda: that most requirements of HMIC Inspection have been achieved; that UCPI will continue their work but that this shouldn’t stop further developments in the undercover world. He invited thoughts about areas where further development may be needed.

8.2Members were keen for the Panel to continue its work to scrutinise undercover policing, particularly in overseeing the progress against the HMIC action plan. There was also enthusiasm to continue to scrutinise development of APP.

8.3There was also interest in seeking to ensure greater consistency of practice and management through supporting the work of the Registrar.

8.4There was a discussion about the complexity of ethical considerations. Ethics can often be explored as a concept. The challenge is to ensure that ethics lives as part of operational work and there is a role for the Panel is ensuring that ethics form an integral part of decision making.

8.5Panel members were also keen to ensure that changes were happening and that they were having an impact. It was noted that there isn’t a national regulatory body, but that the College was taking on part of the regulatory role through the accreditation process.

8.6 Members discussed the changing nature of demand. There is consideration of demand through the NUWG.

8.7 The following issues were felt to be of further consideration-

  • Ensuring that changes are happening, both at policy level and on the ground
  • Supporting more consistent practice through the work of the Registrar
  • Scrutinising the development of guidance
  • Ensuring that ethical considerations are an integral part of decision making and operational work

8.8David Tucker to consider how to make these issues part of the Panel’s work.

8.9It was agreed that the presentation on progress against HMIC recommendations at the next meeting will be a good way to begin the scrutiny process and that the next meeting should be after the next NUWG because this matter will also be considered at that meeting.

9.Next meeting

9.1 Provisionally set as 19th January 2017 at 11am

Terms of Reference to be on agenda for the next meeting / David Tucker
Review of HMIC Action Plan to be on next agenda / David Tucker
David Tucker to take forward development of public facing exercise / David Tucker
David Tucker to consider how to make these issues part of the Panel’s work. / David Tucker

Undercover Scrutiny Panel OFFICIAL – SENSITIVE UNTIL APPROVED Draft Minutes 19/10/2016