Reports > The Second Report > CHAPTER SIXTEEN - Conclusions >
Recommendations to the Greater Manchester Police
|
16.27 |
Although senior officers of the GMP said in evidence that they hoped that I would make recommendations that might assist in improving their procedures, there is very little I wish to say. |
|
16.28 |
The main reason why this investigation failed was that the wrong people were in charge of it. If officers with the requisite experience had been assigned to it, there would have been no difficulty in devising a proper plan of action. It would be to state the obvious if I were to say that the GMP ought to put in place procedures which would ensure that investigations were assigned to and supervised by officers with appropriate experience. |
|
16.29 |
Nowadays, good police practice requires that there should be a protocol for the handling of many types of situation that occur on a regular basis. However, there will always be some sets of circumstances that are new and different from what has happened before. There cannot be a protocol for every eventuality. Some problems can be resolved only by the application of the minds of people with the necessary intelligence and experience. The investigation of Dr Reynolds' concerns was one such problem. The GMP know that as well as I do. |
|
16.30 |
Although I have said that there cannot be a protocol for every eventuality, it does appear to me that some guidance should be issued to those detective officers who have to undertake investigations into allegations of wrongdoing by health professionals. Such investigations may take place in the context of a criminal investigation and, at the present time, the police are often involved in investigations on behalf of the coroner into allegations of mistreatment where the conduct alleged falls short of gross negligence. Since the hearings into the first police investigation were completed, the Inquiry has learned that a group led by Detective Chief Superintendent Steve Watts of the Hampshire Constabulary is working on guidance for officers involved in work of this kind. I have seen the first draft and it appears that the guidance will be very useful. One of the problems discussed is the identification of an appropriately qualified and independent expert to assess the evidence gathered and to advise on the issues of culpability. At present, the draft guidance recognises the difficulties but makes no practical suggestions as to how they might be overcome. This is understandable; the solution is by no means straightforward. For reasons of confidentiality, the police must be extremely careful about whom they consult for advice. There are various published directories of experts. However, an officer cannot use a directory effectively if he does not know in which field of expertise he needs advice. In some cases, the police will readily recognise what sort of expert they need but not in all cases. Modern medicine is highly specialised. It seems to me that the police need an established route by which advice of this nature can be found. I make two suggestions. One is that, if and when the medical coroner service comes into being (as I will recommend in my Third Report), it would be appropriate for a medical coroner or a regional medical coroner to maintain a register of suitable experts and to provide confidential advice to the police. A second suggestion is that the police should invite the Crown Prosecution Service to provide access to an in-house solicitor with medico-legal experience. Such a solicitor should have available lists of suitable experts and of counsel with specialist medico-legal knowledge. |
|
The Greater Manchester Police Internal Investigation
