In 300 vetting files looked at by official inspectors, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMICFRS) found 13 cases of concern in six of the ten forces sampled. That’s according to a ‘review of progress’ in the inspection of vetting, misconduct and misogyny in the police.
The inspectors since the 2021 murder of Sarah Everard have been tasked with assessing vetting and counter-corruption capacity and capability in policing across England and Wales; including forces’ ability to detect and deal with misogynistic and predatory behaviour.
The 300 files were handled in December and January. The 13 included cases where the applicant had:
a connection with an organised crime group;
a history of allegations of domestic abuse against several partners;
a history of allegations of dishonesty (including a criminal charge);
unexplained debts; or
deliberately omitted significant information from their vetting application form. They also included cases where the applicant had a family member who had been imprisoned for drug dealing; or serious sexual offences and was now a registered sex offender.
In all 13 cases, the inspectorate disagreed with the vetting decisions and wasn’t satisfied that the forces had adequately considered the risks associated with appointing the applicants. The inspectorate gave several cases in anonymised detail:
‘An applicant for a police staff role had previously come to police attention. He was suspected to have sent an unwanted explicit image to a 16-year-old girl when he was also aged 16. The force was aware of several domestic incidents between 2014 and 2018 involving a pattern of threatening words towards his mother and several former partners. None of the incidents resulted in a prosecution. He was granted clearance, but the rationale recorded on the vetting file wasn’t completed in sufficient detail. It didn’t demonstrate that the force had considered the identified risks. The force agreed with our assessment, but we don’t know if it has acted on it.’
‘An applicant to be a direct entry detective constable declared on his vetting application form that police received three allegations of dishonesty against him between 2005 and 2016. One case in 2014 resulted in a charge of theft of a phone at a family business. The case resulted in a not guilty outcome when the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence. He was recruited. The rationale for the vetting decision to grant clearance was insufficient. It focused on the lack of criminal conviction rather than examining why the case was discontinued. In granting clearance, the vetting decision-maker stated they would give the applicant “the benefit of the doubt”. In our thematic report, published prior to this decision, we criticised the use of such phrases. We said it didn’t reassure us that the protection of the public, police information or operations was prioritised by decision-makers. The force has accepted our finding, but we are unaware of any subsequent action it has taken.’
In a November report, HMICFRS made nine vetting-related recommendations to each of the 43 police forces in England and Wales, amounting to 387 recommendations in total. The inspectorate estimates that 73 percent have been or are likely to be addressed by the deadline. Matt Parr, His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, has written to the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman about the inspection.
Comment
For the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) Chair Marc Jones said: “I am grateful for the commitment and speed in which Chief Constables have acted to address and implement the recommendations put forward by His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary. We are encouraged to see that notable improvements have been made in police vetting-decisions. However, we must not become complacent going forwards. Forces must continue to maintain strong processes and standards if we are to rebuild public trust and effectively drive out those who are not fit to wear the uniform.
“At local level, Police and Crime Commissioners continue to hold their Chief Constables to account for their vetting standards and are closely monitoring the effective implementation of these recommendations.”
