Letter from Home Secretary to Michael Lockwood (IOPC) (accessible version)
Updated 10 May 2021
© Crown copyright 2021
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/home-secretary-response-and-letters-operation-midland/letter-from-home-secretary-to-michael-lockwood-iopc-accessible-version
Michael Lockwood
Director General IOPC
10 South Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 4PU
16 March 2021
Dear Michael,
Sir Richard Henriques’ questions in relation to Operation Kentia
I am clear on the necessity to demonstrate that the policing system is responding to the issues that have arisen from Operation Midland and subsequent reviews. I welcome the work you have done to improve the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), but there remain concerns about the conduct of Operation Kentia which perpetuate this sense of misjustice.
I am glad that, as part of the Home Affairs Committee inquiry on the police complaints system, you will likely have the chance to address some of these concerns head on. I would be grateful if, ahead of this, you can respond directly to the points raised by Sir Richard Henriques in his open letter published in the Daily Mail on 11 February. In particular, responding to the following questions which are specific to decisions taken by the IOPC in relation to Operation Kentia:-
Q4: Whose decision was it to investigate mere misconduct as opposed to gross misconduct or criminal conduct when a district judge was misled by false evidence?
Q5: How can the exoneration of the DAC without cross-examination be justified?
Q6: Whose decision was it to exonerate the DAC and detective superintendent (DSU) after four months – long before an attempt was made to interview the more junior officers?
Q8: Why did it take some three years to complete an investigation when the two most senior officers were exonerated after four months?
Q9: Why was a person lacking the appropriate skill and experience appointed as lead investigator in such a high profile and important investigation?
In the interests of transparency, I would be grateful if you could publish your response so that it is available to the Committee and to the public.
Rt Hon Priti Patel MP