|
Archived Transcript for 28 January 2002: Pages
1 to 50
1
1 Monday, 28th January 2002
2 (10.00 am)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
4 Mr Garnham, last Thursday when I announced my
5 decision in respect of the application made by
6 Miss Lawson and supported by Mr Williams and Mr Mason,
7 I omitted to say that in the new arrangements I think it
8 is only right that Counsel to the Inquiry also will have
9 an hour for his final submission to the end of Phase I.
10 I would like to clarify that now.
11 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much. Our first witness this
12 morning is David Kendrick.
13 MR DAVID KENDRICK (sworn)
14 MR GARNHAM: Mr Kendrick, good morning. Please have a seat.
15 MR KENDRICK: Good morning sir, ladies and gentlemen.
16 MR GARNHAM: Mr Kendrick would you give the Inquiry your
17 full name please.
18 MR KENDRICK: David Maldwyn Thomas Kendrick.
19 MR GARNHAM: And your professional address or your last
20 professional address.
21 MR KENDRICK: My last professional address was number 3 Area
22 headquarters, Fore Street, Edmonton, London.
23 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Mr Kendrick you have made one
24 statement to the Inquiry I think.
25 MR KENDRICK: I have.
2
1 MR GARNHAM: A copy of it I hope is now in front of you. We
2 find it in volume 4 of the witness bundle, page 190.
3 Mr Kendrick would you glance through that and confirm
4 that you have signed it?
5 MR KENDRICK: Yes, that is my signature.
6 MR GARNHAM: You have made one substantial alteration to it,
7 we can see in hand towards the end.
8 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: That aside, are you content with the statement
10 as representing an accurate statement of your evidence?
11 MR KENDRICK: I am, sir.
12 MR GARNHAM: Tell us about the circumstances of that one
13 amendment, will you please. How did it come about that
14 you made that?
15 MR KENDRICK: Sir, when preparing the statement, during the
16 course of that, I remembered -- you will appreciate that
17 some two and a half, nearly three years later -- that
18 I had introduced seminars for the detective inspectors
19 in addition to the senior supervisors, and I felt that
20 that was an important development that should be in my
21 statement.
22 MR GARNHAM: Yes, and you deal with that in the handwritten
23 paragraph at the end.
24 MR KENDRICK: I do, sir.
25 MR GARNHAM: You also cross out what was originally in
3
1 paragraph 27. Is that because the original 27 was
2 wrong? You have written beside it "error" and then your
3 initials.
4 MR KENDRICK: Indeed I have. No, that was in sequence, that
5 I am quite happy with the content of 27. It was an
6 error in relation to the sequence of the additional
7 manuscript at the end of the statement.
8 MR GARNHAM: Which is why in that additional manuscript you
9 go on to describe events on the 27th November 1998 and
10 5th January 1999?
11 MR KENDRICK: That is right, sir.
12 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much. Can I ask you a little
13 about your work history, please. You joined the Met in
14 1963?
15 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
16 MR GARNHAM: You retired in February 1999?
17 MR KENDRICK: That is correct.
18 MR GARNHAM: And for the last four years of your service you
19 have been the Commander responsible for crime and
20 criminal justice in the Met's North East Area, that is
21 3 Area.
22 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: What were you doing immediately before you took
24 up that post?
25 MR KENDRICK: I was the Commander (Operations) for a very
4
1 short period of time, a matter of months on the new
2 3 Area, which commenced in August 1994; and prior to
3 that, for four years I had been Commander (Operations)
4 for the old number 2 Area, which was the East End
5 corridor of London.
6 MR GARNHAM: Is your history then in uniform or as a CID
7 officer?
8 MR KENDRICK: Uniform, sir.
9 MR GARNHAM: Did you have any experience in CID?
10 MR KENDRICK: I had investigative experience at various
11 levels but never as a substantive confirmed detective
12 officer.
13 MR GARNHAM: You tell us that in addition in those last four
14 years of your service you held the domestic violence,
15 sex offenders and child protection portfolio.
16 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: So that responsibility you have Met-wide?
18 MR KENDRICK: Indeed, it is.
19 MR GARNHAM: And would it have involved policy coordination
20 for all CP units in the Met?
21 MR KENDRICK: It would have involved policy coordination for
22 all child protection units across the Metropolitan
23 Police.
24 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. In that role did you report to
25 Assistant Commissioner Johnston or Dunn?
5
1 MR KENDRICK: To Assistant Commissioner Johnston who was
2 Chairman of the Crime Operations Policy Group referred
3 to as COP.
4 MR GARNHAM: In your role as Commander responsible for crime
5 in North East Area who did you report to?
6 MR KENDRICK: Assistant Commissioner Anderson Dunn.
7 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. So you had two line management
8 reporting lines because of your two different roles?
9 MR KENDRICK: That is correct sir.
10 MR GARNHAM: Who was your predecessor in the portfolio job?
11 Do you recall?
12 MR KENDRICK: I cannot, sir. I am not sure whether there
13 was one.
14 MR GARNHAM: Right, and your successor?
15 MR KENDRICK: DAC William Griffiths.
16 MR GARNHAM: Your responsibility as Commander for Crime and
17 Criminal Justice in the North East Area would have taken
18 up how much of your time compared with the portfolio
19 job?
20 MR KENDRICK: The vast majority of my time, sir, bearing in
21 mind when you say my portfolio job there was child
22 protection, domestic violence, sex offenders and
23 latterly the implementation of the Sex Offenders Act and
24 that was quite problematic with the issue of paedophiles
25 being released into the community. Difficult to judge,
6
1 but I would say must be 90 per cent plus as a rough
2 sketch would be my geographical command responsibilities
3 on number 3 Area.
4 MR GARNHAM: So the less than 10 per cent that is left is
5 then divided between those various different sub-groups
6 in the portfolio?
7 MR KENDRICK: It is a very quick judgment sir off the top of
8 my head, approximately, yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Did you feel that enough of your time could be
10 devoted to this CP work?
11 MR KENDRICK: Bearing in mind that part of my work on number
12 3 Area, my command responsibilities incorporated --
13 MR GARNHAM: Child protection.
14 MR KENDRICK: Child protection, so I qualify that by saying
15 that I used to visit my CPT teams on the 3 Area at least
16 once a year.
17 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Because you had the geographical
18 responsibility, you were in a position to dip sample the
19 way child protection was being managed at least in your
20 area because you would have seen it with your other hat
21 on.
22 MR KENDRICK: Indeed, sir, yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: But looking at the portfolio role as a whole,
24 did you feel that you were able to devote enough of your
25 time to do that job properly?
7
1 MR KENDRICK: I believe I was. There was never enough time.
2 It was a particular time of unprecedented change. When
3 I took over portfolio responsibility, as I feel for my
4 colleagues in 1995, it was a different way of doing
5 business and it was demanding but I felt that I did it
6 to the best of my ability.
7 MR GARNHAM: For the moment I am not asking about that,
8 I simply want to understand whether you felt that you
9 were being given by those superior to you enough time to
10 spend on the CP portfolio matter.
11 MR KENDRICK: I believe with hindsight, yes, I was. I would
12 always like more but some of that of course was down to
13 me and how I allocated and how I managed my time, and
14 I learned a lot about myself in that area as well.
15 MR GARNHAM: Did you have staff centrally for the CP
16 portfolio work?
17 MR KENDRICK: Yes, there was. There was the CO41 referred
18 to as the Crime Policy Unit at New Scotland Yard and
19 I had a full-time detective sergeant plus assistance of
20 other office members, both police and civilians, who
21 were part of the Crime Policy Unit.
22 MR GARNHAM: We have seen reference in some of the papers to
23 a lady called Evelyn Macaulay. Was she one of those who
24 worked to you? Does that name not ring a bell?
25 MR KENDRICK: It does not ring a bell.
8
1 MR GARNHAM: How many staff altogether do you think were
2 answerable to you with regard to the child protection
3 portfolio work?
4 MR KENDRICK: One full-time with at least one other civilian
5 who was always engaged in minute taking and preparing
6 agendas, plus from time to time additional support from
7 one or two other detective members of the branch, plus
8 of course their own supervisors, who were responsible
9 for the work in CO41.
10 MR GARNHAM: Adequate? Did you feel you had enough staff?
11 MR KENDRICK: We would always like more but I felt it was
12 adequate at the time, sir, yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: Now, the two child protection teams on which we
14 focus in this Inquiry, Haringey and Brent, are both part
15 of the number 2 Area. Is that right?
16 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: One based at Edgware, the other based at
18 Highgate Police Station?
19 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: Your geographical responsibility was for number
21 3 Area and that would have included places like Bow and
22 Woodford and other north-east London areas?
23 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. You tell us in paragraphs 6 to 10
25 of your statement, and please have it open if it
9
1 assists, that you describe various meetings as part of
2 your role, the portfolio role, one of which was the
3 child protection senior managers or supervisors meeting?
4 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: It sounds as if, reading your statement, you
6 saw that as one of the principal vehicles for taking
7 forward your responsibilities on the portfolio side, is
8 that right?
9 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely so.
10 MR GARNHAM: Held in New Scotland Yard?
11 MR KENDRICK: Indeed.
12 MR GARNHAM: Monthly?
13 MR KENDRICK: No, they were held every three months.
14 MR GARNHAM: Attended by what rank?
15 MR KENDRICK: Normally they were attended by in the early
16 days by detective superintendents with one or two
17 detective chief inspectors, but during the course of the
18 years, because of other demands and availability, they
19 were occasionally attended by a detective inspector
20 standing in for their area representative, but in the
21 main the attendances were by detective superintendents
22 and/or detective chief inspectors who had the specific
23 responsibility on their geographical area for child
24 protection duties.
25 MR GARNHAM: Yes. You probably have heard of the debate we
10
1 have had amongst some of the police witnesses we have
2 called as to the appropriate person to be called to
3 these meetings, Mr Wheeler taking the view that he
4 should have been there on behalf of number 2 Area,
5 whereas in fact it was Ms Akers who was there. Was that
6 a live issue when you were handling this?
7 MR KENDRICK: Sir, this came after I had retired. Ms Akers
8 and Mr Wheeler never actually featured in any of the
9 meetings that I attended up to and including my
10 retirement.
11 MR GARNHAM: I phrased the question poorly. What I meant to
12 ask you was whether there had ever been an issue during
13 your period when people were debating which of those two
14 ranks across the Met should be attending to represent
15 their areas.
16 MR KENDRICK: Sir, perhaps it would help you if I explained
17 that originally the set-up of the Crime OCU on area post
18 1994 and the setting up of the five new areas, it was
19 the reactive detective superintendent in the Crime OCU
20 at area headquarters who had the overall responsibility
21 for child protection.
22 During the course of the establishment and
23 development of Crime OCUs, one area in particular, that
24 is number 4 Area in the South East, made a command
25 decision on their area that a detective chief inspector
11
1 in their Crime OCU would have a specific responsibility
2 for crime correction for child protection duties. This
3 was not the case with the other areas, including my own.
4 However, around about middle of 1998 we had an
5 additional detective chief inspector on my area and, in
6 consultation, I with my Detective Chief Superintendent
7 and Detective Superintendent Chaplain, we decided that
8 that additional chief inspector would have the sole
9 specific full-time responsibility as the senior
10 supervisor for child protection issues on number 3 Area.
11 MR GARNHAM: And therefore he attended the meeting.
12 MR KENDRICK: He attended the meeting and during the course
13 of the years that I had the portfolio responsibility,
14 that became the policies of some of the other areas, so
15 there was a gradual change from representation by
16 detective superintendents to full-time DCI.
17 MR GARNHAM: And you with your portfolio hat on were content
18 to leave it to the areas to decide who they should be
19 sending to these meetings, were you?
20 MR KENDRICK: I was, because I was satisfied that that
21 was -- that was at the requisite level in accordance
22 with the setting-up of -- establishing the new
23 Crime OCUs and I was satisfied that the areas were being
24 represented at the appropriate command level.
25 MR GARNHAM: You were content in other words with either
12
1 superintendent or DCI attending?
2 MR KENDRICK: I was, sir.
3 MR GARNHAM: And during your time nobody brought this to
4 your attention as being a big issue?
5 MR KENDRICK: No.
6 MR GARNHAM: Did you always chair these senior supervisors'
7 meetings?
8 MR KENDRICK: Yes, I did. I made a point that, because
9 I feel quite strongly about child protection duties,
10 that I chaired every one of those meetings I held.
11 MR GARNHAM: You tell us that during the course of these
12 meetings there was a deliberate attempt to try and
13 identify good practice.
14 MR KENDRICK: Indeed, and problems sir. You know, we did
15 not actually feel that it was all about good practice.
16 We wanted to identify some of the problem areas at
17 a time of unprecedented change.
18 MR GARNHAM: So you describe this as an important and
19 perhaps the most important vehicle for doing this job.
20 How did you translate a discussion about what was good
21 practice in the senior supervisors' meetings into
22 practice on the ground across the Met? What was the
23 process?
24 MR KENDRICK: We would agree a consensus and I would obtain
25 consensus and an agreement from those taking part that
13
1 they would go away and implement on their areas. I made
2 the point on a number of occasions, and it is with
3 hindsight when you refer to minutes about the importance
4 of child protection team work, about that we were
5 dealing with the most vulnerable members of society, and
6 to actually communicate with their teams, their
7 detective inspectors. It was as a result of
8 a suggestion made I think it was in early 1997 by the
9 meeting from the floor that we should involve the
10 detective inspectors, the actual leaders of each of the
11 child protection teams in our policy discussions and
12 give them a forum to be involved with policy.
13 MR GARNHAM: I will ask you about that in a moment but for
14 present purposes I want to make sure I understand how
15 a decision to adopt a piece of good practice is
16 implemented. You have explained that it would be
17 discussed amongst the group and a consensus hopefully
18 would be reached and your understanding then was that
19 each of those who represented each area would go away
20 and introduce that good piece of practice in their area.
21 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely.
22 MR GARNHAM: How did you ensure that that actually happened?
23 MR KENDRICK: I could not ensure totally, apart from at our
24 next meeting in actions outstanding to see whether or
25 not it has been done and if there were any practical
14
1 difficulties.
2 MR GARNHAM: Was there any force instruction issued to carry
3 out these decisions on good practice?
4 MR KENDRICK: On good practice, not policy in force
5 instructions.
6 MR GARNHAM: It was a matter of those attending taking the
7 sense of the meeting back to their --
8 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely. When issues of policy came up, of
9 course there was a special way that we did this, that
10 I would take it through a document properly prepared to
11 the COP meeting for that to be sanctioned by my
12 colleagues and the Assistant Commissioner (Crime).
13 MR GARNHAM: That would be AC Johnston?
14 MR KENDRICK: AC Johnston, sir.
15 MR GARNHAM: So if a policy decision was reached which
16 involved a change, at the senior supervisors' meeting,
17 that would be taken by you and a paper prepared on the
18 subject to the COP meeting chaired by Johnson?
19 MR KENDRICK: Indeed.
20 MR GARNHAM: And then what happened?
21 MR KENDRICK: That would actually be approved and then would
22 go back to the Crime Policy Unit at Scotland Yard where
23 a police notice would be prepared and that would be
24 published and that would then become standing orders,
25 police policy.
15
1 MR GARNHAM: Can you give an example of when that happened
2 in the child protection field in your area, in your
3 time?
4 MR KENDRICK: An example of?
5 MR GARNHAM: When COP made a decision that resulted in
6 a police notice being published.
7 MR KENDRICK: One that springs to mind is the question of
8 recording information on registered files, so that there
9 was a permanent record kept about child protection
10 issues, the number of years that those would be retained
11 and the manner of retention.
12 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Any others spring to mind? How
13 often was it happening? Was this a very common event?
14 MR KENDRICK: It was not common, no. Changes of policy were
15 not common. There was a lot of debate about good
16 practice, I recall. A lot of discussion regarding
17 welfare support and occupational health. We had started
18 the debate concerning referrals and getting a degree of
19 consistency across the Met.
20 MR GARNHAM: Did any of that result in police notices,
21 standing orders?
22 MR KENDRICK: It did not, no, but you asked earlier about
23 how did I go about to find whether good practice was
24 actually being implemented. Well, in early 1998
25 I requested through COP that a formalised full
16
1 inspection be undertaken.
2 MR GARNHAM: We have the report about that.
3 MR KENDRICK: Indeed.
4 MR GARNHAM: I will take you to that in a little while.
5 That is one way in which you would test that. But as
6 regards police orders, standing orders from COP, in this
7 field they were relatively few and far between, were
8 they?
9 MR KENDRICK: They were, yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: You will understand how it is important to our
11 understanding of what went wrong in Victoria's case and
12 what needs to be changed to reduce the risk of that
13 happening again that we understand how the relevant
14 agencies cooperated together, and if I may I want to ask
15 you a little about that now.
16 You tell us in paragraph 11 that interagency liaison
17 was undertaken through the ACPCs.
18 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: Did you regard that as an effective way of
20 ensuring good liaison between the agencies?
21 MR KENDRICK: I did, sir, yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: Any limitations?
23 MR KENDRICK: In any structure and system with people there
24 are limitations.
25 MR GARNHAM: Any that were knocking on your door?
17
1 MR KENDRICK: Not obvious ones during the course of my
2 period. I actually believed that they were effective,
3 they included the key people working at a local level.
4 I actually believe that that is where business is best
5 conducted and I was satisfied but not complacent that
6 that forum was actually operating effectively.
7 MR GARNHAM: You say that that is where in your view
8 business is best conducted and plainly there is
9 a benefit in having such business conducted locally, but
10 did you see any place for a form of supra-ACPC body,
11 because the way it worked in London was that there were
12 31 ACPCs, were there not?
13 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
14 MR GARNHAM: Did that ever cause difficulties as far as you
15 were concerned, the multiplicity of ACPCs?
16 MR KENDRICK: Never brought to my attention. I had no
17 experience or knowledge of that ever being a problem.
18 MR GARNHAM: You also tell us, paragraph 12, that CPTs
19 tended to forge relationships with other agencies in
20 their own area, and one could see how that could happen,
21 and you describe it; you tell us each agency had copies
22 of the other agencies' manuals.
23 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: So did each social service department have
25 a copy of the Met's CP manual?
18
1 MR KENDRICK: I was led to believe that they were. I cannot
2 categorically say that they did but there was total
3 openness between us.
4 MR GARNHAM: Does that mean that each CPT had a copy of the
5 relevant local authority's training manual?
6 MR KENDRICK: Within my knowledge on 3 Area that was the
7 case.
8 MR GARNHAM: That is one way in which you describe forging
9 of relationships locally. Sorry, second -- ACPC is the
10 first, the second one is shared manuals. The third one
11 you say is that relationships arose out of the fact that
12 these agencies were working together on a case by case
13 basis.
14 MR KENDRICK: Indeed, sir, and also of course very powerful
15 was the joint training --
16 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
17 MR KENDRICK: -- which I received quite positive feedback
18 about.
19 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
20 MR KENDRICK: Not only did it assist with training but it
21 actually broke down any perceived barriers between the
22 disciplines, whether it was social services or police,
23 and a greater understanding of respective roles and of
24 course assisting with working together.
25 MR GARNHAM: So four elements to the establishing of good
19
1 relations between the Met and local authorities: ACPC,
2 going to case conferences and meetings together,
3 training and shared manuals?
4 MR KENDRICK: And indeed there had been a number of
5 experiences over the years, starting off with Bexley
6 back in the late 1989, 1990s, and particularly commenced
7 on our area, we had a joint initiative at the London
8 Borough of Newham and the London Borough of Havering of
9 joint working together in the same actual building and
10 in adjoining offices.
11 MR GARNHAM: Yes. The idea behind those experiments?
12 MR KENDRICK: To improve even further the quality of the
13 service that we actually gave to the most vulnerable
14 people in our society.
15 MR GARNHAM: Did it work?
16 MR KENDRICK: It worked in part but there were frictions and
17 tensions. At the end of the day it was felt that they
18 would be better with individual space.
19 MR GARNHAM: What were the benefits and what were the --
20 tell us the benefits first of all of them working
21 together in the same office.
22 MR KENDRICK: Pooling resources, being available to deal
23 with enquiries, mutually instantly available to discuss
24 cases, reducing travelling time and the admin and
25 support.
20
1 Some of the disadvantages, well, very different
2 cultures, very different -- and this is not meant as
3 a criticism, it is meant as an observation -- different
4 ways of working, space, the separation between child
5 protection work and police work generally, in how one
6 managed those differences, and I felt it was a very
7 useful, positive experience, but when it was debriefed
8 there were good reasons why perhaps giving each body
9 space was even better.
10 MR GARNHAM: So the disadvantages outweighed the advantages?
11 MR KENDRICK: On balance, yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: And that remains your view?
13 MR KENDRICK: I am a born optimist and I actually believe
14 that you can only do so much to actually bring people
15 together and at the end of the day you try to create
16 a framework and an atmosphere, but if people are -- and
17 they are individuals, sometimes you have to accept and
18 on balance probably it was worth doing and I would
19 commend it to be done again, but I understand and agree
20 with the decisions made in these cases.
21 MR GARNHAM: I am interested when you say you think it might
22 be worthwhile doing it again. You saw enough positive
23 in those experiments to see benefit in trying that
24 experiment again, did you?
25 MR KENDRICK: I did, sir, but I did not have to operate it.
21
1 I was not a practitioner.
2 MR GARNHAM: Was there an attempt made at the end of those
3 experiments to see whether the problems that had been
4 identified, different approaches to work, space and the
5 like, could be ironed out to make that experiment work
6 better?
7 MR KENDRICK: I am pretty sure there was. I cannot remember
8 it now but I am confident that there was because
9 I actually do not believe that every experiment, every
10 pilot should be successful. I think we should have
11 a look at it and I am sure it was debriefed but I have
12 an open mind. It was not catastrophic, there were
13 certain tensions and difficulties, and it was felt,
14 without any animosity, that there should be space.
15 MR GARNHAM: Yes I see. You tell us, paragraph 4 of your
16 statement, that CPTs are all borough based and you tell
17 us in paragraph 13 that it was not practical in your
18 view to formulate a single set of protocols in relation
19 to the multiagency approach to child protection issues
20 because each borough had a slightly different approach.
21 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: So you see it, do you, as a consequence of two
23 things: that it is necessary to keep the single borough
24 approach to child protection in place, namely the fact
25 that the CPTs are borough based and the fact that local
22
1 authority social services is also borough based. That
2 is right, is it?
3 MR KENDRICK: Indeed, sir, yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: As a consequence of the fact that the CPTs were
5 borough based did they become pretty autonomous in
6 practice?
7 MR KENDRICK: No, I do not think they actually become
8 autonomous. If you could help me with how you see that?
9 MR GARNHAM: Others have used the expression "semi-detached"
10 as if the CPTs were not fully integrated either in a
11 Met-wide CPT structure or within the borough. Did you
12 see anything of that in your time?
13 MR KENDRICK: I did not see any overt evidence of that.
14 However, I was conscious of the fact by the very nature
15 of our restructuring with the five areas that we as
16 senior officers, as command teams, we regularly
17 discussed it, there were dangers that the five
18 geographical areas could become somewhat insular, and we
19 were very conscious of that, and drilling it down to
20 CPTs and domestic violence and sexual offences
21 investigation. I was conscious that whilst allowing for
22 the individual or preferences and working relationships
23 at a borough level, that there was some coordination and
24 degree of consistency right across the Met.
25 MR GARNHAM: So how, when you arrived in post in
23
1 January 1995, did you go about ensuring that that was
2 coordinated across the Met?
3 MR KENDRICK: By virtue of setting up the senior
4 supervisors' meeting, by hopefully leading by my
5 example, by chairing every meeting, by establishing the
6 ground rules as to how we were going to do business, by
7 stressing the importance of Child Protection Team work,
8 and the fact that there were specialised distinct units
9 solely concentrating on child protection work.
10 MR GARNHAM: I am sorry, help me a little further with that.
11 How does that result in consistency across CPTs?
12 MR KENDRICK: It does not regarding consistency across CPTs
13 but there was common training for CPTs.
14 MR GARNHAM: Right, so when we look to the drivers for
15 consistency we find first of all common training for
16 CPTs. What else?
17 MR KENDRICK: The fact that senior supervisors were involved
18 on a regular basis with my meetings.
19 MR GARNHAM: Right. Training, meetings.
20 MR KENDRICK: And come 1997 all the detective inspectors in
21 charge of each of the CPTs were involved with me at
22 biannual meetings.
23 MR GARNHAM: Right, those are the three means by which this
24 objective is obtained, is it?
25 MR KENDRICK: And in 1998 a very detailed --
24
1 MR GARNHAM: Report?
2 MR KENDRICK: -- inspection.
3 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
4 MR KENDRICK: You will also know, sir, that at the early
5 part of 1998 I requested a detailed piece of work be
6 done to establish the core competencies for Child
7 Protection Team work with a view to actually conducting
8 a detailed training needs analysis for Child Protection
9 Team officers.
10 MR GARNHAM: Prior to the inspection report in 1998, could
11 you be sure that your objective was being achieved, that
12 there was consistency of approach between Met CPTs?
13 MR KENDRICK: I could not be totally assured, sir, I had to
14 rely on the professionalism, the interest and the
15 commitment of senior supervisors, assisted by the forum
16 that I chaired.
17 MR GARNHAM: Because the possibility of them not adopting
18 similar procedures must have been fairly obvious, given
19 the way they were structured; all borough based?
20 MR KENDRICK: Sir, there had been established in 1995
21 a rewritten, updated Child Protection Team manual.
22 A lot of time and effort had taken place in 1995 via the
23 Crime Policy Unit to bring that manual up-to-date and
24 I actually believe that that was an important manual on
25 which policies and procedures were followed.
25
1 MR GARNHAM: So an important element you would say to
2 maintaining consistency of approach?
3 MR KENDRICK: Exactly.
4 MR GARNHAM: And the fact that everybody was singing from
5 the same hymn sheet?
6 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely.
7 MR GARNHAM: You tell us it was updated in 1995.
8 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Do you remember when and by whom that was done?
10 MR KENDRICK: I think it was towards the very end of 1995,
11 I cannot be specific, and --
12 MR GARNHAM: So immediately before you took up the post?
13 MR KENDRICK: No, I took up the post at the beginning of
14 1995.
15 MR GARNHAM: Immediately after you took up the post, within
16 the first year?
17 MR KENDRICK: First year, yes. I am pretty sure it would
18 have been done by individuals from the Crime Policy Unit
19 at New Scotland Yard.
20 MR GARNHAM: Can we have a look at that manual, please,
21 volume 31 of our papers, page 200. We have two manuals
22 in our papers. I want to make sure I have the right
23 one. First of all there is that one. Is that the 1995
24 version that you are referring to?
25 MR KENDRICK: Is there another one?
26
1 MR GARNHAM: Yes, volume 32 page 336 please. Go to the
2 second page of that. We see at the end of the preface
3 there is a date December 1995 and the note from the two
4 authors, Mr Bowker and Miss Proctor.
5 MR KENDRICK: That is the one that I gave evidence --
6 MR GARNHAM: This is the one you are talking about?
7 MR KENDRICK: Indeed.
8 MR GARNHAM: The other one I showed you, is that a later or
9 an earlier version?
10 MR KENDRICK: Sir, I can only assume that it is an earlier
11 one because -- I am making an assumption from the top of
12 the second page when it says "TO12 branch territorial
13 operations." I feel that that predates the second one,
14 I think; I am not 100 per cent sure.
15 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Was the nature of CP work that
16 these manuals would rapidly go out of date or did they
17 used to stand the test of time?
18 MR KENDRICK: Any manual, that is one of the difficulties
19 with manuals, is that they become out of date, some more
20 than others. I did not see that Child Protection was
21 any more vulnerable to becoming out of date than
22 virtually any other subject dealt with by the
23 Metropolitan Police. Perhaps if I was on balance
24 I would say maybe slightly less.
25 MR GARNHAM: Was there a sort of an ongoing amendment
27
1 process to this manual?
2 MR KENDRICK: My understanding is that there was a process
3 within the manual of a pro forma whereby that could be
4 completed by users and sent, a facility sent to CO41,
5 the Policy Unit, for that to be done. So it was not
6 done every time but when a certain amount of change had
7 to happen that would automatically happen.
8 MR GARNHAM: The reason I am asking these questions is
9 because we have had some evidence about events shortly
10 after you left in relation to this manual that I would
11 like to explore with you. It may well be that you are
12 not able to help us because they do take place after you
13 have retired but I wonder if you could look at
14 volume 33A, page 70. This is a senior supervisors'
15 meeting minutes for 19th October 1999, so nine months
16 after you left.
17 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: Chaired by your successor, Mr Griffiths.
19 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: Over the page, page 71, the manual is discussed
21 under the byline of Sue Akers:
22 "Sue explained it was decided in the CPT focus group
23 meetings that the existing manual was very old and
24 involved major rewriting. Demanded a lot of time, not
25 available. Asked present members how the issue could
28
1 progress in a sensible timescale. Macaulay explained
2 that unlike the past CO41 did not have the resources to
3 adopt this solely. Sue had asked if there was any
4 national work. Macaulay said she did not think so.
5 Akers questioned if we needed a manual at all
6 considering that we had the new Working Together. Every
7 borough had its own protocol and procedures where
8 presumably they write their own police responsibilities.
9 Whole idea was to incorporate sections from different
10 areas into one manual.
11 "Sue suggested the question be posed to Butler,
12 taking account of boundary issues. Turner proposed they
13 concentrate on training. Akers to produce for the next
14 meeting in the form of a notice terms of reference and
15 a service level agreement which will state what CPTs
16 will do and what is expected from divisions. Sue
17 explained that sections of the present CPT manual are
18 all drawn from other documents which rapidly become
19 outdated.
20 "Action: CPT manual discharged."
21 Do you see that?
22 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: We have had evidence from Ms Akers to the
24 effect that when there is a note there and elsewhere to
25 the manual being discharged she means that the task of
29
1 rewriting the manual was discharged but what appears to
2 emerge from this evidence is that during 1999, perhaps
3 the third quarter of 1999, there was a view widely held
4 that the manual was seriously out of date. Now, had
5 that happened in the nine months since you left or was
6 this a problem that predated your retirement?
7 MR KENDRICK: It certainly did not predate my retirement,
8 sir, because when I studied the Inspectorate report
9 there was no reference that the basic instruction manual
10 was out of date or was causing any difficulties for
11 anyone.
12 MR GARNHAM: Was inquiry about the manual part of the
13 Inspectorate's terms of reference?
14 MR KENDRICK: Working procedures certainly and it was
15 covered as a key issue in the main body of the report.
16 MR GARNHAM: I see. So you would say, would you, that if it
17 be right that by October 1999 the manual was seriously
18 out of date, it had fallen out of date in the eight
19 months since you had left?
20 MR KENDRICK: Sir, that would not be correct for me to say
21 that, because I think during the course of any
22 instruction manual through the years there are degrees
23 of updating. It is to what degree and to what relevance
24 does that updating impact on the usefulness and
25 relevance of that manual at that particular time.
30
1 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
2 MR KENDRICK: So I would not say that there were not aspects
3 of that manual that did not need to be updated.
4 MR GARNHAM: Because good sense says it must have been
5 falling out of date slowly over the time from the
6 publication of the earlier one.
7 MR KENDRICK: As soon as it is written, sir.
8 MR GARNHAM: Sue Akers in her evidence to the Inquiry,
9 Day 45, page 87, described the manual in this way: she
10 said that the manual in use in the Met throughout the
11 time with which this Inquiry is concerned, so 1999
12 principally, was becoming steadily more and more out of
13 date and more and more difficult to use and frankly more
14 and more a hindrance than a help. Do you recognise that
15 as describing this manual?
16 MR KENDRICK: No, I do not, sir, I take a different view on
17 that. I understand and I have accepted that there would
18 be the question of updating and things would have
19 required updating but I actually when I was in position
20 felt that the manual was a very, very useful toolkit
21 which people could refer to to do their job.
22 MR GARNHAM: And that remained so throughout your time?
23 MR KENDRICK: It did, sir, yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. It is right, I think, that in 1996
25 4 Area agreed a Child Protection Policy statement with
31
1 the seven boroughs covered by that area. Now, you are
2 familiar with that?
3 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: That policy statement laid down threshold
5 criteria for child protection issues. It outlined the
6 role of the various agencies, principally the police and
7 the local authorities. It identified when a single
8 agency approach was appropriate and when a multiagency
9 approach was appropriate and it is said that that was an
10 approach encouraged by Working Together, particularly
11 the latest edition of Working Together, encouraged in
12 fact by the edition that was current in 1986, which
13 would have been the first one, the 1991 edition.
14 We are told -- tell me if this corresponds with your
15 understanding -- that a standard form was devised on
16 4 Area divided into three parts for use by the Met and
17 the seven boroughs. Yes?
18 MR KENDRICK: That is my understanding, yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: Mr Wheeler says in his statement, volume 4,
20 page 223, that it was thought by some at least that
21 there might be merit in adopting and applying that
22 approach across the Met. Did you share that view?
23 MR KENDRICK: I saw advantages in that and it was discussed
24 at length at our senior supervisors' meeting.
25 MR GARNHAM: Yes, it was. He tells us that as a result,
32
1 boxes of the three forms and the child protection
2 statement were delivered to every CPT in the Met. Does
3 that correspond with your recollection?
4 MR KENDRICK: I recall reading this in the Inspectorate
5 report and that caused me considerable embarrassment and
6 frustration and disappointment.
7 MR GARNHAM: Yes, because the problem with it is obvious,
8 that if the forms go out as devised for 4 Area in seven
9 boroughs, it has precious little immediate application
10 to our CPTs.
11 MR KENDRICK: Especially when it had been discussed at
12 length at our senior supervisors' meeting and it had
13 been actioned by CO41, that this good practice, and
14 there was an agreement, should be continued across the
15 MPS.
16 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but it was obvious, was it not, that what
17 was intended by that is that this good idea should be
18 adapted before it was adopted?
19 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely right, sir.
20 MR GARNHAM: And it is an embarrassing error that instead
21 the old forms for the seven boroughs were simply
22 photocopied and sent round to everybody else?
23 MR KENDRICK: Indeed.
24 MR GARNHAM: And not surprising that the other local
25 authorities declined to use that form?
33
1 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely, but the principle and the concepts
2 were there and it was a considerable disappointment to
3 me.
4 MR GARNHAM: Yes, it does sound as if it was a good idea,
5 this, sorting out across a number of boroughs an
6 approach to child protection that could be signed up to
7 by all those concerned.
8 MR KENDRICK: Maybe, but that would have been for the
9 individual ACPs to hopefully adopt through their senior
10 supervisors and detective inspectors.
11 MR GARNHAM: It was seen as a good idea in the seven
12 boroughs down in 4 Area?
13 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely.
14 MR GARNHAM: And they were having to deal with not just one
15 local authority but several?
16 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely.
17 MR GARNHAM: They managed presumably with a degree of
18 initiative to get together to sort out a common approach
19 to these questions?
20 MR KENDRICK: Yes, they had.
21 MR GARNHAM: And that was seen by your senior supervisors'
22 meeting at a worthwhile exercise that ought to be
23 replicated across London?
24 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely.
25 MR GARNHAM: After the embarrassing failure of the sending
34
1 out of boxes of documents with the wrong names on, why
2 was this not reconsidered again and done properly?
3 MR KENDRICK: Well, sir, my memory is that I only became
4 aware of this when I actually read the inspection
5 report, I think this was early November 1998.
6 MR GARNHAM: Yes. That in itself is a little surprising,
7 given that this initiative in the seven boroughs had
8 taken place in 1996. Why did it take two years to get
9 to your notice that it was all an embarrassing mistake?
10 MR KENDRICK: During the course of our meetings my
11 information was from CO41, and I am going back from
12 memory now, that the matter was being processed. In
13 fact, there are minutes -- because we would revisit the
14 outstanding actions -- that this matter was being
15 processed by CO41 and I think at that time it was
16 Detective Sergeant Driscoll who was reporting back to
17 the meeting that that matter was being processed.
18 MR GARNHAM: You see, in a sense that is all even more
19 troubling, is it not, because that would suggest that
20 the system you had in place for rolling out good
21 practice across the Met and ensuring that where one area
22 comes up with a good idea others pick it up is not
23 working, because here we have a good idea that in fact
24 went badly wrong and nobody noticed for two years.
25 MR KENDRICK: Your words that it went badly wrong, sir --
35
1 MR GARNHAM: How would you describe it?
2 MR KENDRICK: It was an embarrassment, sir, it was an
3 embarrassment to me. It was circulated. I was
4 satisfied it was being actioned and when I read in the
5 Inspectorate report that this is what happened it was
6 a source of considerable embarrassment and
7 disappointment to me.
8 MR GARNHAM: I can well understand that. What I am trying
9 to understand is why it is that the fact that it was not
10 working out properly was not picked up by your system
11 earlier than November 1998.
12 MR KENDRICK: I can only rely on CO41 telling me what the
13 situation is.
14 MR GARNHAM: Is that right? You are having -- I cannot
15 remember what it was -- bi-monthly meetings with senior
16 supervisors?
17 MR KENDRICK: Every quarter.
18 MR GARNHAM: You are having these meetings, and the purpose
19 of this you have told us earlier in your evidence was to
20 provide the principal vehicle for ensuring consistency
21 of approach across the Met, and here is a useful initial
22 alternative that has gone wrong, through really rather
23 unfortunate mistakes, and it is not being fed back to
24 you. Why was that?
25 MR KENDRICK: I would have hoped that it would have been fed
36
1 back to me by the participants as well at our senior
2 supervisors' meeting.
3 MR GARNHAM: Absolutely, so the fact that it is not says
4 something about the quality of your receiving system for
5 discovering that things are not working out correctly,
6 does it not?
7 MR KENDRICK: I actually believe that the quality of how we
8 did our business was good, but yes, I was not informed
9 about the difficulties and the practical problems of
10 this particular situation.
11 MR GARNHAM: That being so, how can we, the Inquiry, be
12 confident that your senior supervisors' meeting was
13 hearing of problems coming up from the ground in other
14 areas?
15 MR KENDRICK: Because it was, they were frank and forthright
16 discussions.
17 MR GARNHAM: But do not know whether they were
18 comprehensive?
19 MR KENDRICK: I could never be totally sure that they were,
20 no, that is why I introduced a situation whereby the
21 detective inspectors had a direct access to me.
22 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but they too had not brought to your
23 attention the failings of the seven borough plan, had
24 they?
25 MR KENDRICK: They had not brought it to my attention, no.
37
1 MR GARNHAM: So the position still remains that you with
2 your portfolio hat on have a system for ensuring
3 consistency of practice across the Met that was not
4 working and you were not in a position even to know
5 that?
6 MR KENDRICK: In this particular case it did not work.
7 MR GARNHAM: We cannot be confident, can we, that it is not
8 similarly failing in other examples?
9 MR KENDRICK: Sir, I was confident that at the time that
10 I was chairing these meetings that action was -- as best
11 I could that action was being taken and that I asked for
12 the inspection to actually make sure that practices,
13 policies, were being checked so that I was not
14 complacent, so that I was introducing mechanisms to see
15 whether these things -- that is why it was identified.
16 If I had not have instigated the inspection, it may be
17 that I would still be ignorant today.
18 MR GARNHAM: When was the previous inspection? 1992?
19 MR KENDRICK: I understand it was 1992/1993, sir, yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: So inspections on that basis at gaps of five
21 years. It does not provide a very rapid response, does
22 it, as a means of discovering what is going wrong in
23 CPTs?
24 MR KENDRICK: In addition to the force-wide inspections it
25 is up to individual areas to instigate their own local
38
1 inspections. That is a matter or a view that has been
2 expressed. I felt that in early 1998 I wanted to get as
3 much detailed information about the working of CPTs,
4 strengths and weaknesses so that I could improve them,
5 and I certainly was not complacent, and as a result of
6 that a number of issues were clearly identified.
7 MR GARNHAM: You see, what I have to suggest to you is that
8 the system we have been talking about that you
9 established for ensuring consistency across the Met
10 simply was not working and you were not discovering the
11 information you needed to do your job as portfolio
12 manager, if you like, properly.
13 MR KENDRICK: In this particular case I am vulnerable and
14 I accept that and it was not brought to attention.
15 MR GARNHAM: My criticism, my suggested criticism is wider
16 though. I am saying that this is indicative of a system
17 that was not sufficiently responsive.
18 MR KENDRICK: I take a different view to that, sir.
19 MR GARNHAM: In paragraph 13 you have told us that it was
20 not possible to formulate one set of protocols across
21 London, because CPTs are borough based and because there
22 are 31 boroughs in London or whatever it is. That is
23 right?
24 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: Why does that mean you cannot have a single
39
1 protocol London-wide?
2 MR KENDRICK: It all depends what you actually mean and what
3 that protocol contains. If it is a statement of intent,
4 general intent, then so be it. But if you are drilling
5 down into actual working practices then I take the view
6 that it was better to be left to a local level, at
7 a borough level.
8 MR GARNHAM: Why?
9 MR KENDRICK: Because of multiagency working. There were
10 from my knowledge, I do not know the detail but there
11 were differences in working practices between certain
12 boroughs.
13 MR GARNHAM: Yes, I am sure, but even that is not written in
14 stone, is it?
15 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely.
16 MR GARNHAM: It may well be that it is not only the Met that
17 need to be more flexible but the boroughs as well, but
18 in principle what is the objection to a single
19 London-wide protocol, the equivalent of the seven
20 boroughs approach across London?
21 MR KENDRICK: Subject to consultation and agreement,
22 depending on what the protocols contained, that is
23 feasible.
24 MR GARNHAM: Because it would be possible to draft
25 a protocol, would it not, that allowed for some local
40
1 variation where for good reason that was necessary, but
2 which insisted otherwise on a common approach across
3 London?
4 MR KENDRICK: But there was a common approach by working
5 together.
6 MR GARNHAM: Yes, what I am suggesting is something that
7 turns from those general statements of high principle
8 that you find in Working Together into a working
9 document for use in London.
10 MR KENDRICK: Sir, if there was an identified -- if there
11 had been a clearly identified need and we had taken the
12 discussion regarding the South West Area debate for that
13 to be pursued across the MPS.
14 MR GARNHAM: You had taken that decision, had you not? That
15 is what you told us.
16 MR KENDRICK: That is right.
17 MR GARNHAM: That would have resulted, had it been worked
18 out properly, in a single protocol to cover London.
19 MR KENDRICK: Well --
20 MR GARNHAM: Or at least a series of larger local protocols.
21 MR KENDRICK: The outcome is conjecture but towards that
22 end, sir.
23 MR GARNHAM: What was the idea, when you talked about
24 rolling out the seven boroughs initiative across London,
25 what was intended to be done?
41
1 MR KENDRICK: Hopefully to get a degree of continuity in
2 referral forms.
3 MR GARNHAM: So that I understand you, that would mean that
4 everybody in London, all the CPTs would be using the
5 same referral forms?
6 MR KENDRICK: Working towards that, and that was a key issue
7 raised by not just the referral form but actually
8 getting some clarification on what was a referral.
9 MR GARNHAM: Yes, so definition of referral.
10 MR KENDRICK: Because that was the subject of some comment
11 in the Inspectorate report.
12 MR GARNHAM: Yes, it was, but if the rollout from 4 Area had
13 worked then it might have been possible to get a common
14 definition of referral, to get a common set of forms
15 used across London, to get a common definition of when
16 the police became involved and when it was a single
17 agency policy, would it not?
18 MR KENDRICK: Working towards that, in many of those areas,
19 yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: And that would have brought with it substantial
21 benefits, would it not, which presumably is why you have
22 indicated it --
23 MR KENDRICK: I would see that there were some benefits but
24 in addition of course I had to respond to any specific
25 problems that may arise, and there were not problems
42
1 specifically, but we saw this as a good practice that
2 should be encouraged.
3 MR GARNHAM: Because your role as portfolio holder is not
4 just reactive, is it?
5 MR KENDRICK: No.
6 MR GARNHAM: You are also trying to be proactive?
7 MR KENDRICK: To improve the overall quality of service.
8 MR GARNHAM: Was there any suggestion that the Met should
9 sit down with representatives of the London boroughs
10 with a view to trying to come up with such a protocol?
11 MR KENDRICK: It is going back a long time now but in 1995
12 or 1996 I recall visiting the Social Services
13 Inspectorate -- it is going back a long time now -- to
14 actually discuss the whole issue of working together and
15 interface between police and social services across
16 London. And those issues of a consistency, a degree of
17 consistency were discussed.
18 MR GARNHAM: My interest in pursuing this line is
19 principally to discover whether this is something that
20 this Inquiry should be looking at for the future. You
21 understand that?
22 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely, sir.
23 MR GARNHAM: There seem, it might be suggested, considerable
24 advantages with that sort of common approach. Let us
25 see if we can identify them and you tell me whether
43
1 there is anything wrong about this. It would mean that
2 the same forms were used applying the same definition
3 across London, yes?
4 MR KENDRICK: There would be clear advantages in that, yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: It would mean that police officers or social
6 workers moving from one London borough to another would
7 still be working to the same protocol?
8 MR KENDRICK: Advantages there.
9 MR GARNHAM: It would mean that best practice, having been
10 identified in one borough, could be applied universally
11 across London?
12 MR KENDRICK: Subject to the willingness of managers to
13 actually do that.
14 MR GARNHAM: Absolutely. I mean clearly it would require
15 cooperation not only from the Met but also from each of
16 the London boroughs.
17 MR KENDRICK: Indeed.
18 MR GARNHAM: It would mean that it would make transfer of
19 staff around London easier for that reason.
20 MR KENDRICK: There would be advantages in that.
21 MR GARNHAM: Can you see any disadvantages in a London-wide
22 protocol?
23 MR KENDRICK: I cannot, no, sir.
24 MR GARNHAM: Were there ever occasions when problems were
25 identified in one ACPC that were relevant to another?
44
1 MR KENDRICK: Not that I am aware of, sir. I cannot
2 recall --
3 MR GARNHAM: I wonder whether there was even a mechanism for
4 spotting that sort of thing.
5 MR KENDRICK: In the minutes, I have refreshed my memory and
6 reference is made on a number of occasions to ACPCs for
7 aspects to be dealt with locally. If they were cross
8 border or were bigger than could be dealt with at
9 a local level through the detective inspector who was
10 a permanent member of the local ACPC and could not be
11 resolved, then the senior supervisor would bring it to
12 my forum.
13 MR GARNHAM: Then what would you do about it?
14 MR KENDRICK: I would discuss it with my colleagues, see
15 whether it was identified as a problem elsewhere.
16 MR GARNHAM: And if it was?
17 MR KENDRICK: We would address it, sir.
18 MR GARNHAM: And how would you do that? Was there a forum
19 in which you could address things that were relevant
20 outside the single London borough?
21 MR KENDRICK: There was not a forum that I had established
22 or that was established.
23 MR GARNHAM: So that would be difficult for anybody to do,
24 if you had identified from ACPC minutes a problem that
25 was of London-wide application, it would be difficult to
45
1 deal with that except by going to each individual ACPC?
2 MR KENDRICK: I am sure we could have come over if it ever
3 became the case, sir. I would have thought if that had
4 been an issue, like a number of issues, I would have
5 taken it up or arranged for it to be taken up.
6 MR GARNHAM: You were concerned, you tell us in
7 paragraph 14, that the Metropolitan Police had widely
8 differing procedures across the five areas, at least
9 I take that to be what you mean. You actually say the
10 opposite but I think there is an excess "not" in that
11 sentence:
12 "I was concerned that the Metropolitan Police ..."
13 MR KENDRICK: Yes, I had a general concern that there was
14 not.
15 MR GARNHAM: That there was not?
16 MR KENDRICK: That there was not too wide a difference. Of
17 course there would be individual differences but I was
18 concerned that there was some degree of consistency and
19 corporacy and coordination particularly from the police
20 point of view, bearing in mind our approach to child
21 protection issues.
22 MR GARNHAM: So the word "not" is there in error, is it:
23 "Having said that, as child protection was a vitally
24 important area of policing, I was concerned that the
25 Metropolitan Police did not have widely differing
46
1 procedures ..." or you were concerned to ensure that
2 they did not?
3 MR KENDRICK: That is right.
4 MR GARNHAM: It is all right as long as we understand it.
5 You were concerned to ensure that they did not because
6 you saw a downside in there being widely differing
7 procedures?
8 MR KENDRICK: Widely differing procedures, yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: So that supports what we have been discussing
10 earlier, that there might be merit in us considering
11 a recommendation to the effect that there should be
12 a common approach across London?
13 MR KENDRICK: Subject, sir, to the individual wishes of area
14 ACPCs that have stood the test of time, that are locally
15 based, and the working relationships that have been
16 built up now over the last 10 years that in my view are
17 in the main an example of working together with the key
18 agencies, both social services, police and the medical
19 profession. That is not to say there is not room for
20 more improvement; of course there is.
21 MR GARNHAM: Quite right. It is necessary to maintain that
22 which is good, if there were to be any change.
23 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely right.
24 MR GARNHAM: By the time you left the Met, was there in your
25 view a corporate standard of service delivery in child
47
1 protection?
2 MR KENDRICK: My response to that, sir, is based on the
3 inspection and the report of the inspection. Overall,
4 yes is my answer, but with a number of provisos.
5 MR GARNHAM: Yes. The report came out three months before
6 you left.
7 MR KENDRICK: Approximately, sir, beginning -- I feel it was
8 around about the beginning of November 1998.
9 MR GARNHAM: And you retired in January 1999.
10 MR KENDRICK: February.
11 MR GARNHAM: Let us look at the origin of that report, if we
12 may, please, Mr Kendrick. You tell us in paragraphs 15
13 to 18 of your statement that there were considerable
14 areas for improvement in the way CPTs were being
15 operated in 1998, considerable scope for improvement.
16 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: You identify four: operational procedures,
18 selection of the most suitable officers, training and
19 development and officer welfare, support and
20 supervision.
21 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: Those were the areas of concern that were
23 becoming apparent to you by the beginning/middle 1998.
24 Was that the totality of your areas of concern as
25 regards the CPTs?
48
1 MR KENDRICK: No.
2 MR GARNHAM: Tell us what else was bothering you by 1998
3 then.
4 MR KENDRICK: Sir, in that context one needs to perhaps
5 understand how I used to operate. I had a philosophy of
6 never being complacent in my duties and what I had
7 responsibility for. I was regarded as a hard task
8 master of my colleagues and of myself. I visited my own
9 CPTs on 3 Area and I actually talked to people at all
10 levels and I was very appreciative and very proud of
11 those officers working in CPTs, often in difficult
12 circumstances, dealing with some of the most difficult
13 situations regarding children and young people.
14 I wanted to make sure that I did personally
15 everything that I could to make sure that they were
16 supported, that I actually knew as best I could what was
17 going on, and when I was going around I was observing
18 the officers working and wanted to make sure that they
19 were supported by training, by facilities, to make sure
20 that they were better.
21 That was not to say that I was very, very concerned
22 about what was happening. I was constantly seeking to
23 improve, bearing in mind that they were dedicated units
24 and in the main their morale was high. I sensed that
25 there was very good team work. People were working
49
1 together. They were mutually supportive. They had
2 their own supervisors, dedicated supervisors, and the
3 ratio of supervisors to investigators was high. It
4 needed to be.
5 MR GARNHAM: You rightly say, and it is apparent from the
6 Inspectorate report, that there were many good things
7 about CPTs around London but for the present I want to
8 make sure that I have understood what you regarded as
9 the areas of concern to be. You refer to four in your
10 statement and I wanted to make sure from you whether
11 there were other areas that we ought to be looking at.
12 MR KENDRICK: Well, overall I was obviously conscious of
13 this question of their facilities, their accommodation,
14 and everything else regarding call out procedures,
15 assistance to divisions, bearing in mind the requirement
16 for memorandum training, the whole aspect. Whilst
17 I have focused on in here, sir, they were not totally
18 exclusive.
19 MR GARNHAM: We should not take this as a comprehensive
20 list.
21 MR KENDRICK: Totally exclusive. All aspects of child
22 protection were of concern to me.
23 MR GARNHAM: But it was those four in particular that
24 motivated you to commission this report and they are
25 reflected in the Inspectorate's terms of reference.
50
1 MR KENDRICK: Focused not exclusively but in the main on
2 those areas, yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: In your statement, in the paragraphs that
4 follow your identification of those areas of concern,
5 you develop what you saw as the problems in two areas.
6 In paragraphs 17 and 18 you discuss staff welfare, if
7 I can put it loosely like that, and attracting the right
8 staff in the other.
9 Can I ask you about the first of those, welfare
10 support and supervision? You tell us that this was
11 discussed with Occupational Health and you encourage the
12 use of debriefing days for CP officers. Now, how during
13 your tenure in office was that matter taken forward?
14 MR KENDRICK: I recall having informal discussions with
15 Occupational Health. I know that it was a sensitive
16 subject requiring a lot of debate at our meetings. Some
17 areas made it a requirement that there would be regular
18 sessions with Occupational Health. Others felt it would
19 be more appropriate for that to be done on an individual
20 basis when the need arose. I kept on with this for
21 many, many months. It is a sensitive area within the
22 police service.
23 MR GARNHAM: Police are not amongst the first to recognise
24 that they are affected by stress.
25 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely right and it is a very, very big
|
