Correspondence

Letter from Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, to the Home Secretary, dated 29 July 2021 (accessible)

Updated 15 June 2023

This was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government

From:

Cressida Dick
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Metropolitan Police Service
New Scotland Yard
Victoria Embankment
London
SW1A 2JL

www.met.police.uk

To:

The Rt Hon Priti Patel MP
Home Secretary
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

29th July 2021

Dear Home Secretary,

I write in response to your letter following the publication of the report by the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel. This is a very large and extremely significant report and I am determined we carefully consider the recommendations and any learning. This letter sets outs our initial reflections and our next steps.

It remains a matter of great regret that no one has been brought to justice for Daniel Morgan’s murder and that our mistakes have compounded the pain suffered by his family. I have written directly to Daniel Morgan’s family to apologise on behalf of the Metropolitan Police. As you know, we do not completely close unsolved homicide investigations, however remote the possibility of a successful prosecution may appear to be. A new forensic review of this case has recently been commissioned.

I would also like to recognise the very significant efforts undertaken by the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which have culminated in this report. A significant amount of this material is sensitive and restricted which meant disclosure had to be carefully managed and controlled. Failure to have managed this could have placed the safety of people connected to the case at significant risk of harm.

Since the publication of the report a month ago, we have been working at pace to consider its findings and recommendations. As you would expect I have also discussed the report with the Mayor of London and with the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime. I have also received a letter from the Deputy Mayor following the publication. You may be aware I also appeared before the London Assembly’s Police and Crime Committee last week to answer questions on the report from the Panel.

As you set out in your letter, the report found examples of corruption and significant mistakes by the Met during the initial investigation and subsequently. These failings and corrupt influences are profoundly regrettable. It is vital that the Met I lead continues to do everything it can to ensure that corruption is rooted out and prevented, and that we learn from this case. I know that the Met of today is not the Met of 34 years ago. We have transformed how we investigate and prevent corruption, investigate homicide and major crimes, liaise with families, how we ensure our professionalism and conduct forensics, covert operations and vetting to name but a few. We are however committed to continual organisational learning and this report provides us with an opportunity to reflect on where we still have further to go.

Shortly after the Panel’s report was published, I asked Deputy Assistant Commissioner (DAC) Barbara Gray to lead the Met’s response to the report. DAC Gray is reporting directly to the Deputy Commissioner and me on a regular basis. Under her leadership are a new dedicated team of officers and staff who will work to embed the learning from this report supported by subject matter experts across the Met as appropriate. Internal oversight of this work is being led by a Diamond Group chaired by the Deputy Commissioner.

As you will recognise the recommendations from the Panel are wide ranging. Some are nuanced and complex. The Met is still in the process of considering each recommendation in the context of the report from the Panel. A number of these recommendations are exclusively for the Met, some are for the Met and policing partners including the College of Policing and the NPCC. As you know, there are also recommendations for the Home Office and other Government departments. Specifically those recommendations that focus on the approach to future non-statutory inquiries and panels and the proposed statutory ‘duty of candour’. I would welcome your guidance on how best the Met can support the Home Office as you consider these recommendations.

The Met has begun discussions with the College of Policing and the NPCC to ensure that we are working collaboratively to consider the recommendations that are for policing to address. I will write again within the next few months with a detailed response to each of the Panel’s recommendations and our plans to take them forward. I will also write in response on the wider findings in the report, as you requested. As part of this the Met will develop and publish an action plan as requested by the Deputy Mayor.

At this stage however I think it is important to address the Panel’s findings relating to corruption in the first investigation, the ‘form of institutional corruption’ finding and the criticisms of the Met’s engagement with the Panel. These are serious issues and ones on which we continue to reflect.

As you know the Met publicly recognised in 2011 that the first investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan was impacted by corruption. We recognise and accept the Panel’s finding that relates to corruption in the first investigation. This is shameful and should never have happened and I apologise on behalf of the Met.

The Met of today is utterly different from the Met of 34 years ago. We are confident that over that time the Met’s approach to rooting out corruption has been transformed. We have a dedicated anti-corruption command in place that runs proactive and reactive operations across the Met. We also have a range of policies and procedures in place which reduce the ever present risk of corruption. The current MPS Counter Corruption Strategy was introduced in September 2020. We are absolutely committed to continually improving our approach to anti-corruption and DAC Gray will assess any lessons learned or areas for improvement identified in the report. I will welcome HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) work, once it is scoped, in assisting in identifying where we may have more to do in dealing effectively with potential wrongdoing and/or corruption.

For the sake of clarity the Met utilises the definition of corruption set by the National Police Counter Corruption Advisory Group (NPCCAG) and has done so since 2018. This definition was updated in 2020 to drive a new National Counter Corruption Strategy, presently with NPCC for sign-off. The Met and NPCCAG definition of corruption is “The improper exercise of a power or privilege for the purpose of achieving a personal benefit, or a benefit or detriment for another person. Including activities intricately linked to corruption and matters defined as ‘Serious Corruption’, by section 8.13 of the IOPC Statutory Guidance.”

The Met does not accept the Panel’s findings that our actions during this case “constitutes a form of institutional corruption”. The Daniel Morgan Independent Panel creates a new definition for “institutional corruption”. What they describe does not in my view reflect the Met I know or our actions in recent times. We are intensely scrutinised, have highly effective internal and external governance arrangements and a default position to publish what we can. We aim to be as transparent as possible and we do not place our reputation ahead of transparency. It is to the Met’s and the public’s benefit that a number of partners provide extensive oversight of our activity including the Mayor of London, the Home Office, the London Police and Crime Committee, the Home Affairs Select Committee, HMICFRS and the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). We are also supported by a number of regulators (including of course the Information Commissioner), auditors and other formal and informal bodies who take an interest in our standards and openness.

The Panel criticised the way the Met engaged and disclosed information to them. I want to take this opportunity to underscore that the Met takes its responsibilities to engage fully and transparently with panels and inquiries extremely seriously. Indeed police officers have a duty placed on them by the schedule 2 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 to “… to give appropriate cooperation during investigations, inquiries and formal proceedings, participating openly and professionally in line with the expectations of a police officer when identified as a witness.”

The Met also has duties to protect victims, informants, data, intelligence and due process. We have to make balanced judgements. We recognise the Panel’s concerns about how we engaged with them. However it is also important to recognise that members of the Panel with appropriate security clearance had full and unrestricted access to all the material they requested and that exceptional levels of disclosure were achieved.

As an organisation we are proud of the men and women who work for us and the work they do every day serving the public. We do acknowledge that occasionally this can lead to an overly defensive attitude. We accept that as an organisation we could listen more. We could do even more to be - and to show ourselves to be - open and transparent, to explain what we do and why we do it. This is a vital part of gaining and retaining public confidence and trust.

I think it is important to highlight the Met’s current approach to homicide investigations. Sadly during 2020/21 the Met recorded 124 homicides. We achieved a sanction detection rate of 98%. Victims’ families are at the heart of family liaison strategies in these investigations. As you would also expect the Met adheres with the national standards set out for homicide investigation which have changed significantly over recent decades. This includes ensuring officers in key roles, such as Senior Investigators and Family Liaison Officers, are formally accredited. The Met has also worked closely with the NPCC and College of Policing on an updated Murder Investigation Manual which is due to be published imminently.

Finally you will be aware that HMICFRS are giving consideration to how they may inspect the Met following this report. As I mentioned above, I welcome this and I have spoken to Sir Tom Winsor following publication of the report; I await confirmation of HMICFRS’s plans.

I hope this letter provides you with assurances that the Met is taking the Panel’s report extremely seriously and that we are committed to learning from this report. I look forward to discussing this with you further.

Yours sincerely,

Cressida Dick

Commissioner

CC Sophie Linden, Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime - Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime