|
|
|
| NEWS > 07 July 2008 |
Other related articles:
Opinion: How to police the pol
Anil Dharker
As I write this on Saturday morning, the newspapers are full of the Alistair Pereira judgement. ‘Sentenced to six months for killing seven people’ tells its own story, the sub-text of which is the judge’s scathing criticism of the police investigation. He has called it ‘shoddy’, condemned the police team’s ‘casual approach’ and gone so far as to say that the officers in charge do not know how to ‘investigate the matter when such accidents take place’.
Sharing front page with this report is a seemingly unconnected issue, except that it’s also about the ... Read more
|
 Article sourced from
|
|
WalesOnline - United Kingdom
07 July 2008
This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.
|
|
UK: Police superintendent will
A POLICE disciplinary panel has overturned a recommendation from the Independent Police Complaints Commission that a senior officer involved in reinvestigating Wales’ most notorious miscarriage of justice case should be disciplined for misconduct.
Instead, despite a finding of misconduct, Superintendent John Penhale is to be offered “suitable advice”, without further penalty.
Lynn Powell, a former police officer with more than 20 years’ experience who worked as intelligence officer on the Lynette White reinvestigation, complained she was humiliated in front of colleagues when she was arrested, put into a cell and accused of making fraudulent cash claims for her work from South Wales Police. She says her treatment by the force left her feeling suicidal.
Investigations by both South Wales Police and the IPCC established conclusively there had been no criminal conduct on Ms Powell’s part, and that the whole matter arose out of an administrative error.
The original South Wales Police investigation into Ms Powell’s complaint said Detective Chief Inspector (now Temporary Superintendent) John Penhale and Acting Detective Inspector Gavin Lewis had given statements suggesting that Ms Powell had added false information to claim forms after they had signed them. This was disproved by forensic analysis. In fact, overpayments to Ms Powell were due to an error by her employer.
In the wake of the police investigation, Deputy Chief Constable David Francis wrote to Ms Powell stating: “It is clear that the officers made errors of professional judgement, which had serious consequences for you... For that, and on behalf of South Wales Police, I offer my unreserved apology.”
Mr Francis went on to say that he considered Mr Penhale’s and Mr Lewis’s actions amounted to “errors of judgement rather than misconduct”. He concluded that the matter did not warrant formal disciplinary action but “suitable advice” offered to the officers.
Ms Powell appealed to the IPCC, arguing that the force should have taken the matter more seriously. Upholding her appeal, the IPCC report on the case stated: “Overall we are unimpressed by both the handling of the original matter, which started from an unjustifiable and not entirely rational assumption of deliberate fraud rather than error – it is a classic case where counter arguments were not explored and hence evidence to test the incrimination by two witness statements was not pursued, even though it was easily available.
“If it were not for the diligence of DS Critchley (the investigating officer for the fraud investigation) and his decision to make further inquiries following the interview of Ms Powell, a grave miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
“We are also unimpressed with the subsequent complaint investigation. The irony, of course, is that Ms Powell was part of a team investigating the most serious miscarriage of justice in South Wales Police, and as the investigating officer does admit, a further grave miscarriage of justice may well have taken place.
“Furthermore, the lack of reflection on their own culpability by the two officers involved is disturbing and very disappointing in senior police officers.”
The report proposed that Mr Penhale and Mr Lewis should receive written warnings “for failure in performance of duties, both in authorising inaccurately completed expense forms and then providing inaccurate statements regarding that original error”.
Now, as a result of an appeal by Mr Penhale last week, his written warning has been revoked, although the finding of misconduct was upheld.
A South Wales Police spokeswoman said: “A disciplinary hearing into an allegation of misconduct has concluded with the panel finding the allegation proven.
“The hearing was based on what amounts to a minor clerical error and we anticipate the officer will learn from this experience. There has always been a commitment to finalise this matter and South Wales Police stresses this was not a matter of honesty and integrity on the part of the officer concerned.”
“The full hearing was held before three chief officers and was also conducted in the presence of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The complainant was present throughout the hearing.”
A spokeswoman for the Superintendents’ Association, which represented Mr Penhale, said: “As an association we are disappointed that a member has had to be put through such an ordeal for what is and always has been nothing more than a minor learning opportunity.
“This finding has vindicated the officer’s decision to refuse the sanction directed by the IPCC, a direction which the panel viewed to be disproportionate and excessive.”
An IPCC spokesman said the commission noted the outcome of the hearing and its involvement was now ended.
Ms Powell said: “I am very disappointed that my original complaint appears to have been diluted and trivialised in such a manner. The whole fiasco appears to serve to undermine the authority of the IPCC.”
The Lynette White reinvestigation was launched five years ago after advances in DNA technology led to the conviction of the Cardiff prostitute’s real killer, Jeffrey Gafoor. A number of witnesses at the trial in 1990 of three men convicted of murdering Ms White made statements saying they had been pressured by police officers to implicate the original defendants. Their convictions were later quashed by the Court of Appeal.”
|
| |
 EiP Comments:
|
|---|
|
| |
* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
 |
Ethics in Policing, based in the UK, provide information and advice about the following:
Policing Research | Police News articles | Police Corruption | International Policing | Police Web Sites | Police Forum | Policing Ethics | Police Journals | Police Publications |
|
| |
|
