KENT POLICE AUTHORITY
FULL AUTHORITY MEETING
MINUTES of the 91st meeting of the Kent Police Authority, held at Kent Police Headquarters,
Sutton Road, Maidstone, Kent on 21 November 2012.
Attendance:
Members: Mr M Hill OBE (Chairman), Mrs E Bolton, Mr I Chittenden, Mr J Cubitt, Mr T Gates,
Mr P Godwin, Mr S Hiscock, Dr R Smith, Mr T Thompson (Vice Chairman) and Mr A Wickham.
Force: Mr I Learmonth (Chief Constable), Ms B Ashton (Head of Corporate Services), Mr A
Barker (Director of Kent & Essex IT), Mrs B Beautridge (Executive Support Manager), Ms A
Bishop (Staff Officer to Chief Constable), Mr P Brandon (Assistant Chief Constable), Ms A
Caldwell (Head of Finance), Mr G McKinnon (Head of Corporate Communications), Mr J Molloy
(Head of Professional Standards), Mr M Nix (Temporary Assistant Chief Constable) and Mr A
Pughsley (Deputy Chief Constable).
KPA Secretariat: Mr G Hooper (KPA Chief Executive), Mr M Campbell (Policy Research
Officer), Ms M Falcone (Communications Assistant), Mrs S Kehoe (Member & Committee
Support Officer), Mr D Lewis (KPA Financial Advisor), Miss J Mattin (Clerical Assistant), Ms K
Nicholson (Policy Research Officer), Mr S Nolan (KPA Interim Treasurer), Ms L Steward (Policy
Research Officer) and Mrs S Willis (Member & Committee Support Officer).
Others present: Mrs A Barnes (Police and Crime Commissioner Elect) and Mr D Harris (RSM
Tenon).
Announcements
The Chairman presented all Members, and Mr David Lewis (ex-KPA Treasurer), with a
certificate to mark their service with the Kent Police Authority.
Mr Hooper presented the Chairman with a certificate to mark his service with the Kent Police
Authority. Mr Hooper also presented the Chairman and the Committee Chairs with a gift to
recognise their extra dedication and hard work to their Committee’s. Mr Hooper also presented
Mr Lewis with a gift.
After item 5 the Chairman welcomed Mrs Ann Barnes, the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner,
to the meeting.
1. Apologies
Apologies were received an accepted from Mrs Stockell and Mr Gilmartin.
2. Minutes and action sheet from previous meeting – 12 September 2012
The minutes were agreed and signed as a true and accurate record, subject to one
amendment:
L:\Managing the Organisation\PCC Drive\PCC\6. REGISTER OF ADVICE & DOCUMENTATION\Freedom of
Information\Requests\2014\02 Bennett\Documents\Full KPA\2012 (November)\21.11.12 1 Minutes.doc
Mr Hooper requested a change to the minutes on behalf of Mr Gilmartin. On page nine,
paragraph 3, Mr Gilmartin is recorded as stating, ‘Mr Gilmartin confirmed that he had no further
updates at the present time, but there was a strong rationale for closing this Police Station.’ Mr
Gilmartin requested the following text to be added; ‘however there is a commitment to having
a local police base in Faversham.’
3. Matters Arising
There were no matters arising.
4. Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interest.
5. Chief Constable Briefing
Members were provided with a report that provided an update regarding Operation Art and any
wider considerations for the force on its crime recording or performance management. The
Chairman stated that this would also be discussed in the closed session of the meeting.
The Chief Constable provided Members with a presentation that related to Performance
Management and discussed the performance culture of Kent Police in detail, with reference to
Operation Art. In addition, the Chief Constable discussed the audit and governance
arrangements that are in place for Kent Police, and the pro-activity that takes place within the
organisation in relation to performance and corruption issues.
In relation to Operation Art, the Chairman stated that he would like to understand what failure
had occurred to allow the issues to have taken place. Secondly, the Chairman commented on
the fact that a ‘TIC’ disparity review was going to be conducted with other forces and stated
that this area would require further investigation. Thirdly, the Chairman stated that the report
identified the importance of a ‘dedicated decision maker’ in the process of agreeing the TIC; he
queried whether the person making this decision was of significant seniority. The Chief
Constable stated that he would take the first question in the closed session of the meeting. In
relation to the second and third comment/question DCC Pughsley stated that the force was
confident that the ‘dedicated decision maker’ was of the appropriate rank. DCC Pughsley also
explained what the ‘dedicated decision maker’ tests in relation to TICs, including what they
cannot test. He explained that this process would not be the tool to use to identify corruption
within Kent Police.
Mr Thompson stated that the Kent Police Authority was instrumental in driving the performance
culture of Kent Police. Mr Thompson then referred to the fact that the Operation Art
investigation had been reported to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC),
HMIC and the Home Office. He queried whether Kent Police had any response to date from
these organisations. The Chief Constable stated that he had personally spoken with HMIC and
the Home Office and informed Members that he had given an information only update. He
stated that both of these organisations had been satisfied with the actions taken by Kent Police
in relation to this investigation. Mr Molloy updated Members on the fact that although the IPCC
had not written formally, they would be working with Kent Police in relation to this
investigation.
Mr Thompson referred to the requested peer review of force practices by Devon and Cornwall
Police and queried what the intended scope of this review was to be, and whether the Police
and Crime Commissioner (PCC) would jointly commission the review with Kent Police. The
L:\Managing the Organisation\PCC Drive\PCC\6. REGISTER OF ADVICE & DOCUMENTATION\Freedom of
Information\Requests\2014\02 Bennett\Documents\Full KPA\2012 (November)\21.11.12 1 Minutes.doc
Chief Constable stated that he had already briefed the incoming PCC and would be further
updating her in due course. He added that the Deputy Chief Constable was leading on the
terms of reference and stated that this would also be shared with the PCC. DCC Pughsley
informed Members that the focus of Devon and Cornwall is to make sure that the Kent Police
response through the Professional Standards Department is appropriate, proportional and
necessary. DCC Pughsley explained that this force had been chosen to conduct the peer review
because their Chief Constable and their Deputy Chief Constable have previously held senior
positions within the Anti-Corruption Unit within the Metropolitan Police Force.
Mr Thompson then referred to paragraph 4.1 and quoted the following; ‘…no evidence to
suggest this alleged behaviour is any wider in Kent Police.’ Mr Thompson queried whether this
was based on evidence, or the fact that no other similar allegations had come forward. The
Chief Constable stated that he would address this within the closed session of the meeting.
Mr Godwin queried whether there were any concerns regarding the fact that the issues had
been identified through a whistleblower process, and not a performance management process.
In addition, Mr Godwin asked whether he could conclude that in the past TICs have only been
monitored effectively at force level, and not at location level. Mr Godwin referred to paragraph
3.5.7 and commented on the difference between the TIC figure for Kent and for Essex; he
questioned how there could be such a big difference in the cultures of these two forces when
they work closely in collaboration. The Chief Constable explained that the TIC process is a local
policy that a force can choose to pursue and reassured Members that the difference in figures
should not be any cause for concern.
Mr Cubitt asked if the data suggested it was outside the expected range and should have
prompted further analysis. DCC Pughsley commented on the fact that the area in question
would not have been identified as an ‘outlier’ based on its performance figures. He added that
local leadership and the whistleblowing policy are tools that would be used to identify any
issues not picked up by the ‘centre.’
Mrs Bolton referred to the Performance Improvement Unit (PIU) and queried if any other issues
were being looked at in relation to the Operation Art investigation, for example, officer
supervision. The Chief Constable stated that he would address this issue in the closed session
of the meeting.
Members noted the contents of the report and the presentation.
6. Athena Update (Oral)
Members received an oral update from Mr Barker on the progress that has been made in
relation to Project Athena. Mr Barker also provided Members with a short demonstration on the
Athena system.
Mr Barker stated that testing of the system was going to take a bit longer than originally
planned. Mr Barker informed Members that twenty three police forces are now seriously
engaged with the programme to some extent.
Mr Barker thanked all members of staff that had been involved in Project Athena. Furthermore,
Mr Barker thanked the Police Authority for their involvement in the project.
The Chairman thanked Mr Barker for all of his efforts in this area.
Members noted the contents of the oral update.
L:\Managing the Organisation\PCC Drive\PCC\6. REGISTER OF ADVICE & DOCUMENTATION\Freedom of
Information\Requests\2014\02 Bennett\Documents\Full KPA\2012 (November)\21.11.12 1 Minutes.doc
7. HMIC Crime and Incident Data Recording Inspections
Members were provided with a paper which gave an update on activity resulting from Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’s inspection of crime and incident data recording,
specifically with regards to ‘no criming.’
DCC Pughsley provided Members with an oral update of the report. He summarised the
background of the ‘no criming’ issue for Members and the previous difference of opinion that
had existed between the force and HMIC. DCC Pughsley informed Members that all issues had
now been clarified for the force by the HMIC and the National Crime Registrar and the test to
be applied is a ‘higher test.’ As a direct result of this, DCC Pughsley explained that force
processes are now being changed so that crimes are no longer ‘no crimed’ on the balance of
probabilities, but are undergoing a ‘higher’ test. DCC Pughsley discussed some examples to
provide some context where there could still be some subjective debate for the future. DCC
Pughsley stated that whilst this was no longer a Kent issue, it is a national issue as other forces
also have concerns about crime recording.
Mr Thompson stated that in order to monitor police performance there needs to be confidence
in the statistics. Mr Thompson added that a consequence of the new approach could be that
police officers could be tempted to ‘no crime’ an incident in the first instance as this would
involve a less complicated process. Mr Thompson added that this issue was picked up as a
legacy issue for the Police and Crime Commissioner. The Chief Constable stated that the force’s
view is that the balance of probabilities is the right test to be applied and gave an example. He
added that this issue is now a national debate.
DCC Pughsley referred to Mr Thompson’s concern and stated that there are checks and
balances in place to make sure that this does not happen; the Incident Management Unit (IMU)
and the Data Accuracy Unit.
The Chairman stated that this debate will continue.
Members noted the contents of the report.
8. Policing Performance Committee
This item was taken after item 10.
a) Legacy Issues Report
Members were provided with a paper that summarised ongoing scrutiny themes and legacy
issues that the Policing Performance Committee recommend are handed over to the Police and
Crime Commissioner.
Mr Thompson provided a short introduction to the report and thanked the force for the good
work that can be demonstrated in relation to performance. Mr Thompson referred to the fact
that based on the Chief Constable’s presentation Operation Art would also need to be added to
the report.
Action 1: Ms Nicholson to add Operation Art to the Policing Performance Legacy Issues
Report.
Mr Thompson referred to recent unhelpful media coverage that had implied that the Kent
L:\Managing the Organisation\PCC Drive\PCC\6. REGISTER OF ADVICE & DOCUMENTATION\Freedom of
Information\Requests\2014\02 Bennett\Documents\Full KPA\2012 (November)\21.11.12 1 Minutes.doc
Police Authority had criticised KCC for the placement of vulnerable children in the Thanet area.
Mr Thompson clarified that the Kent Police Authority had actually been referring to the London
boroughs and not KCC.
The Chairman referred to Troubled Families and stated that this would be a subject of
considerable interest to the force and the Police and Crime Commissioner in the future. Mr
Chittenden stated that he would also support this comment. Furthermore, he added that the
Margate Task Force had been a difficult area but some return was now being seen for the
effort.
Mr Cubitt clarified that looked after children are now referred to ‘Children in Care.’
Members noted the contents of the report and identified Operation Art as a further legacy issue
for the Police and Crime Commissioner.
b) Minutes and action sheet from final meeting – 26 September 2012
The minutes were agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.
c) Performance Update Paper
Members were provided with a paper that provided an overview of all the Policing Plan targets.
Mr Thompson stated that all Policing Plan targets, except one, are currently being met or
exceeded. He added that all performance indicators, except one, are being sustained or are
improving. Mr Thompson stated that overall performance will be handed over in good shape;
however he invited the PCC to maintain vigilance over the broad measure of public satisfaction,
and performance relating to domestic burglary and violence against the person, particularly in
the night time economy. Finally, he added that sanction detection rates show issues relating to
vehicle crime in Ashford and burglary dwelling in Dover. He highlighted that there are always
pockets of difficulty in general good performance results.
The Chairman stated that he agreed with Mr Thompson that some good performance figures
were being handed over to the Police and Crime Commissioner. He also echoed the comments
relating to issues with satisfaction.
Mr Chittenden queried whether the discussions on no criming what affect the performance
figures. The Chief Constable stated that this would have no affect.
The Chairman recorded the Committee’s thanks to the Force and Mr Thompson.
T/ACC Nix updated Members in relation to burglary dwelling. He provided some context and
stated that although there has been an increase compared to last year, on average there are
15 burglaries a day across the county. He stated that the force is not complacent in this area
and added that this is not an issue that there should be huge concerns about. He discussed
force activity in relation to this crime type. T/ACC Nix reassured Members that the force would
never be complacent in this area. The Chairman asked if there was a problem with ‘hotspots.’
T/ACC Nix stated that there was not specific problem.
Members noted the contents of the report.
9. Professional Standards Committee
L:\Managing the Organisation\PCC Drive\PCC\6. REGISTER OF ADVICE & DOCUMENTATION\Freedom of
Information\Requests\2014\02 Bennett\Documents\Full KPA\2012 (November)\21.11.12 1 Minutes.doc
a) Legacy Issues Report
Members were provided with a paper that gave an overview of the Professional Standards
Committee’s performance and highlighted some of the Committee’s and Authority’s areas of
success.
Mr Godwin highlighted some legacy issues that the paper suggested should be taken forward
by the Police and Crime Commissioner and briefly discussed Complaints, Stop and Search, the
ICV Scheme, ACPO/IPCC report on sexual predators in police forces; conduct dip-sampling and
oversight of Human Rights.
Mr Godwin placed on record his thanks to the KPA Secretariat and the force’s Professional
Standards Department.
Mr Thompson stated that it was his understanding that with changes to the complaints system
the handling of complaints in future will not be carried out by the Professional Standards
Department (PSD) but will be passed down to senior officers on district. He queried how public
confidence was going to be maintained in the system when the people that are being
complained about are on the same Division as those investigating the complaint. Ms Steward
stated that the appropriate authority for deciding on complaints investigations will be the Chief
Inspector at district level. She explained that this will then enable PSD to handle appeals which
are being pushed down from the IPCC. Ms Steward stated that this was being led as something
to cut bureaucracy, but added that it is recognised that there are going to be capacity and
public confidence issues. Ms Steward added that the force has new structures in place to deal
with these issues but highlighted that it is a work in progress.
Mrs Bolton referred to the ICV Scheme and stated that she felt the scheme requires a variety
of people involved including a greater representation of the different communities. Mr Godwin
stated that there is a need to recruit in the future but added that the nature of the scheme
does attract a particular age profile.
Members noted the contents of the report.
b) Minutes and action sheet from final meeting – 11 July 2012
The minutes were agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.
10. Audit and Governance Committee
This item was taken after item 7.
a) Legacy Issues Report
Members were provided with a paper that summarised the progress made on the Committee’s
Work Programme during the last eighteen months, in order to help its successor Committee
consider its own future programme. The paper also gave some specific legacy issues relating to
the Committee’s responsibilities.
Mr Cubitt referred to Workstream 2 ‘Delivering the PIR Programme meetings,’ and stated that
there had recently been a PIR meeting on IT.
Mr Lewis highlighted two suggestions for the successor Audit Committee; one related to
Workstream 7 ‘Analysis of comparative information with other forces’ and a consideration for
L:\Managing the Organisation\PCC Drive\PCC\6. REGISTER OF ADVICE & DOCUMENTATION\Freedom of
Information\Requests\2014\02 Bennett\Documents\Full KPA\2012 (November)\21.11.12 1 Minutes.doc
more comprehensive benchmarking. The second related to the consideration for continuing the
link between financial planning and workforce planning.
Mr Lewis referred to the setting up of the new Audit Committee and stated that progress was
going well.
Mr Lewis also confirmed that Grant Thornton will be the external auditor for both the Chief
Constable and the Police and Crime Commissioner.
Members noted the contents of the report.
b) Minutes and action sheet from final meeting – 3 October 2012
The minutes were agreed and signed as a true and accurate record, subject to two
amendments:
On behalf of Mr Gilmartin, Mr Hooper asked for the following changes; on p116, paragraph 6,
at the end of the paragraph, it refers to ‘detriment of sanctions.’ Mr Gilmartin requested that it
read ‘detriment of sanction detections.’ In addition, on p117, paragraph 9, it states ‘Mr
Gilmartin said that he would not get drawn into the manifesto of PCC campaigns,’ Mr Gilmartin
asked for it to be amended to, ‘Mr Gilmartin said that, given that police station closures was a
subject of interest to some PCC candidates, Mr Gilmartin would not get drawn into the PCC
campaign.’
c) Finalisation of Audit Reports
Mr Nolan welcomed Mr Harris to the meeting.
Mr Harris stated that an interim internal audit opinion had been issued and briefly discussed
the audit programme.
Mr Thompson referred to the Internal Audit Progress Report and asked for an explanation
around the recommendation for the Serious Crime Directorate to develop a single joint policy
for cash seizures. He queried if there had been a particular issue or if it was simply that a
policy was not in place. Mr Harris explained that the issue was the absence of a comprehensive
policy. Mr Thompson also referred to the recommendation that pending the arrival of Athena
each authority should define procedures for recording and cross referencing cash seizures, and
the management response stating that this may not be feasible in Kent as there are limits in
what can be achieved in terms of cross referencing because of the system design. Mr
Thompson queried what risks this could cause in practical terms. ACC Beautridge stated that
the longer term solution is Athena but in the meantime the lean event will look at sufficient
safeguards in the interim period. Mr Thompson stated that he was reassured that this situation
would be risk managed.
Members noted the contents of the Internal Audit Progress Report.
11. Human Resources Committee
a) Legacy Issues Report
Members were provided with a paper which advised the Authority of the progress made so far
in the Committee’s work programme and recommends matters that the Police and Crime
Commissioner may wish to develop further.
L:\Managing the Organisation\PCC Drive\PCC\6. REGISTER OF ADVICE & DOCUMENTATION\Freedom of
Information\Requests\2014\02 Bennett\Documents\Full KPA\2012 (November)\21.11.12 1 Minutes.doc
Mrs Bolton provided an oral summary of the report and discussed the achievements and the
legacy issues of the Human Resources Committee. Mrs Bolton expressed her thanks to the KPA
Secretariat and the force.
The Chairman added that the HR aspects of the force restructuring had been excellent.
Members noted the contents of the report.
b) Minutes and action sheet from final meeting – 24 October 2012
The minutes were agreed and signed as a true and accurate record, subject to one
amendment:
On behalf of Mr Gilmartin, Mr Hooper asked for the following change to the minutes; on page
139, paragraph 5, regarding a minute’s silence, it should read ‘Greater Manchester Police.’
12. Standards Committee
a) Legacy Issues Report
Members were provided with a paper that gave an overview of the Standards Committee’s
successful work during the life of the Authority.
Ms Steward provided a short summary of the report and stated that the Independent Members
of the Standards Committee had been formally written to thanking them for their involvement.
The Chairman added that the Authority would formally like to record it’s thanks to the
Standards Committee Members.
Members noted the contents of the report.
b) Minutes and action sheet from final meeting – 28 May 2012
The minutes were agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.
13. Legacy Issues from the Joint Statutory Committee
Members were provided with a paper that summarised ongoing themes and legacy issues that
have arisen from the Joint Statutory Committee (JSC).
Mr Hooper provided a short oral summary of the report. Mr Hooper highlighted that at the last
meeting of the JSC it was recommended that the incoming Kent and Essex Police and Crime
Commissioners hold a JSC like meeting to determine their own future governance
arrangements.
Mr Hooper also referred to the Strategic Policing Requirement and highlighted the importance
of this for the Police and Crime Commissioners.
Mr Hooper placed on record his thanks to all those involved in collaboration in both forces and
Authorities and stated that Kent and Essex provide a good example of what can be achieved in
this area. He added that he believed Kent and Essex had an extremely good reputation
nationally in their collaborative aims and ambitions.
L:\Managing the Organisation\PCC Drive\PCC\6. REGISTER OF ADVICE & DOCUMENTATION\Freedom of
Information\Requests\2014\02 Bennett\Documents\Full KPA\2012 (November)\21.11.12 1 Minutes.doc
Mr Cubitt stated that he believed the Serious Crime Directorate provided a very good
opportunity to work with the National Crime Agency at the highest level. He added that Kent
and Essex provided a very good example of what can be achieved.
Mr Thompson referred to a previous consistency issue in relation to the way Kent and Essex
were reporting their collaboration and in-house savings and queried whether the force was
now happy that the financial figures were being recorded in a consistent and correct manner.
Ms Ashton confirmed that she was content. Ms Caldwell seconded this.
The Chairman wished this important initiative well.
Members noted the contents of the report.
ITEMS TO NOTE
14. PCC Transition
Members were provided with a paper that represented the final update to Members on the KPA
Police and Crime Commissioner Transition Programme.
Mr Hooper placed on record his thanks to the force and Members for their help and assistance
in relation to Police and Crime Commissioner Transition work. Mr Hooper highlighted that a
security review of the Commissioner’s office had not yet been completed and stated that he
would still like to get this completed.
Ms Nicholson provided reassurance that as far as possible a seamless handover was going to
be provided to the Police and Crime Commissioner. She added that nearly all actions were now
complete and stated that the KPA Secretariat had achieved everything that they hoped to
deliver. Finally, Ms Nicholson stated that some actions were awaiting a steer from the Police
and Crime Commissioner.
The Chairman thanked all staff of the KPA Secretariat and stated that he was proud of the
work of the Kent Police Authority.
Members noted the contents of the report.
Motion to exclude press and public for Exempt Item
That under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the
meeting for the following business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act
and the public interest not to disclose the information outweighs the public interest in
disclosing it.
EXEMPT ITEMS
(During these items the meeting is likely NOT to be open to the public)
L:\Managing the Organisation\PCC Drive\PCC\6. REGISTER OF ADVICE & DOCUMENTATION\Freedom of
Information\Requests\2014\02 Bennett\Documents\Full KPA\2012 (November)\21.11.12 1 Minutes.doc
15. Request for Funding
This item was heard by Members only.
Members were provided with a paper that summarised the issues relating to the force’s request
for funding for the legal costs in respect of two officers who have been charged following the
death of a member of the public.
Mr Hooper and Ms Steward provided a short oral summary. Members discussed the required
decision in detail and came to the conclusion that there was not enough evidence available for
the Kent Police Authority to make a decision. Due to the fact that the Authority did not feel
there was enough evidence available they deferred the decision in the paper to the Kent Police
and Crime Commissioner.
Members decided not to take the decision in respect of this request from the force and to refer
it to the incoming Police and Crime Commissioner.
Extraordinary Report – Crime Recording and Performance Management
This item was taken after item 14.
D/Ch/Supt Molloy, the Chief Constable and DCC Pughsley provided Members with a further,
more detailed, update in relation to Operation Art.
Any questions not could not be dealt with in the open session of the meeting were addressed
by the force under this item.
The Chairman thanked the Chief Constable and his staff for the comprehensive and rapid
response in relation to this issue. The Chairman added that the Kent Police Authority had gone
as far as it could go with it’s questioning in this area.
L:\Managing the Organisation\PCC Drive\PCC\6. REGISTER OF ADVICE & DOCUMENTATION\Freedom of
Information\Requests\2014\02 Bennett\Documents\Full KPA\2012 (November)\21.11.12 1 Minutes.doc