JERSEY should introduce a fast-track process to sack officers who admit serious misconduct, police chief Robin Smith has said.
Mr Smith was responding to recent developments in England and Wales where concerns about a string of high-profile cases – including the murder of Sarah Everard – have prompted disquiet about the inability of police chiefs to fire those guilty of serious misdemeanours.
In Jersey, such powers do exist and four officers have been dismissed since 2013, with a further two “required to resign”.
Mr Smith said he was satisfied by his own powers as police chief but expressed frustration that some disciplinary cases, both serious and routine, currently took too long to resolve.
“In England and Wales, there is a fast-track process, where there is obvious and clear evidence, so that an officer can be dismissed. We don’t have that in Jersey and I have asked that we look at a fast-track process.
“We are still looking at the current regulations, which have been looked at for some time now, to bring them more alongside the regulations in England at Wales.
“At the other end – the lower end – where the vast majority of the complainants want nothing more than an officer simply being spoken to, we will find a less bureaucratic way of doing that with the new regulations,” he said.
Concern about discipline within police forces in England and Wales last month [Aug] prompted Home Secretary Suella Braverman to give police chiefs new powers to discipline officers. They had complained that, since the introduction in 2016 of lawyers overseeing disciplinary panels, they had effectively been left without the authority to dismiss their own officers.
Commenting on approaches in the UK and Jersey, Mr Smith said: “I have some sympathy with the reports I read in the UK where there is a view that police chiefs cannot fire their own staff. Frankly that sounds bonkers to me – where else does that happen? The boss cannot fire someone who has clearly done something wrong? That’s not the case here.”
In Jersey, cases are investigated by the Police Professional Standards Department whose work is overseen by the Jersey Police Complaints Authority. Serious allegations are referred to a disciplinary hearing chaired by the police chief himself. With legal representatives present, he determines the guilt or innocence of the officer, and imposes sanctions which can include dismissal for those guilty of serious misconduct. If found guilty, officers have the right of appeal to a panel of Jurats.
Since 2013, there have been 17 such disciplinary hearings – Mr Smith has held five since he was appointed in 2020. In addition to the six officers forced to leave the service, one was reduced in rank from sergeant to constable, two were fined, seven reprimands were issued and one officer was cautioned.
Information contained in the Police Complaints Authority’s last annual report shows that last year there were a total of 64 complaints made, nine more than in 2021. Only one led to a hearing before the police chief. Eighty complaints were made in 2020 and 53 in 2019. The majority were either dealt with by informal resolution – often simply involving an explanation or apology – or were withdrawn, or could not be investigated.
Mr Smith stressed the importance of what he described as “procedural justice” – confidence in a process guaranteeing the right of officers to a fair hearing at which they could put their case – but he expressed concern that in some cases the existing system was susceptible to abuse.
“My view is that, because it can be quite a complicated and lengthy process. Some staff – maybe in this jurisdiction and certainly in others I’ve worked in – almost gamed the system. They extend the time it takes because they are receiving salary, even though there may be an inevitability to the outcome.
“What I would like is that in those very, very rare cases – if there is clear evidence that something wrong has been done and [an officer] admits to it, we should have a fast-track process where that individual exits the organisation. I want to stress that there would be very, very few cases, but it does take a long time for the current procedural process to find an end.”
Two years ago, Mr Smith called in two experienced former officers from outside the Island to review their counter-corruption procedures. “We are exposed to other challenges in a small jurisdiction where you’ve got a relatively wealthy island, lots of financial services, a number of wealthy people, and officers and staff who may have gone to school together and known each other for a long time. Does that make us susceptible to potential corruption?
“We did the counter-corruption inspection and the reinspection, so I am as content as I can be, but I recognise that we must always be vigilant because we must maintain the trust and confidence of Islanders,” he said.
