|
Archived Transcript for 28 January 2002: Pages
51 to 100
51
1 step to actually seek personal counselling or support.
2 That is why we felt by it being done as a matter of
3 routine, which I with my colleagues had done for
4 domestic violence -- which was in a far more difficult
5 situation because there were only one or two officers in
6 a divisional station, working under considerable
7 pressure, and I wanted to make sure that that facility
8 was properly available to all CPT officers.
9 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. That explains what you were doing
10 with regard to stress welfare and stress management.
11 What about supervision? You mention that as one of the
12 topics of your particular concern. You have told us
13 earlier in your evidence that CPTs were relatively well
14 off in the number of supervisors they had to supervise.
15 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: Who supervised the inspectors?
17 MR KENDRICK: That should have been done by the senior
18 supervisor on the area.
19 MR GARNHAM: What position would that person have held?
20 MR KENDRICK: Originally the detective superintendent but
21 latterly more particularly specifically by the detective
22 chief inspector on area who had the specific
23 responsibility for Child Protection Team matters.
24 MR GARNHAM: We have heard some evidence, not yet concluded
25 in fact, to the effect that in the North West Area there
52
1 were real problems about the level of supervision being
2 provided by Mr Wheeler for the DIs in his area. Were
3 you conscious of that?
4 MR KENDRICK: No.
5 MR GARNHAM: Was there anything parallel to that that came
6 to your attention during your tenure in office?
7 MR KENDRICK: No, there was not.
8 MR GARNHAM: In your portfolio role would those sorts of
9 practical issues be ordinarily fed through to you or
10 would that be regarded as something for the area, the
11 competency, the adequacy, the supervision of say DIs?
12 MR KENDRICK: Primarily that would be a geographical area
13 responsibility on my area. I would see that as
14 ultimately being my responsibility through the chain of
15 command. That is a day-to-day practical operational
16 leadership management command issue.
17 MR GARNHAM: What is the supervision concern that you had,
18 that you refer to in these paragraphs? Paragraph 16 you
19 say:
20 "Some of my main areas of concern included ..." and
21 the last one is "officer welfare, support and
22 supervision."
23 What was your concern about supervision?
24 MR KENDRICK: Supervision generally?
25 MR GARNHAM: What was the concern?
53
1 MR KENDRICK: Would be that --
2 MR GARNHAM: Adequacy?
3 MR KENDRICK: -- officers were being supervised properly.
4 MR GARNHAM: Why were you concerned about that subject? Was
5 there some evidence that they were not?
6 MR KENDRICK: No, there was not.
7 MR GARNHAM: So what was your concern?
8 MR KENDRICK: I was always concerned about supervision. It
9 is the key issue in my career in the police service,
10 about supervision.
11 MR GARNHAM: When you commissioned this Inspectorate report,
12 did you have in mind that they would explore the
13 adequacy and competency of supervision in CPTs?
14 MR KENDRICK: That was my understanding.
15 MR GARNHAM: I see. Paragraph 18 you talk about the
16 difficulties of attracting experienced CID officers to
17 CP teams. Was that difficulty apparent to you before
18 you received the 1998 Inspectorate report?
19 MR KENDRICK: It was, sir, yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: How was it being voiced? "We ain't got enough
21 detectives in our team"?
22 MR KENDRICK: No, I was generally concerned about the
23 selection and appointment of staff to CPTs. I always
24 wanted to see more people applying for these posts, both
25 uniform and CID.
54
1 There were a number of reasons, sir, why this was
2 a difficulty. One, that it is distressing and difficult
3 and stressful work and there are many officers who are
4 not of the right aptitude. They have families, they
5 have children, whatever, and they do not have the desire
6 to work in this field.
7 Another reason is that it is a specialism,
8 a specialism focusing on children and young people, and
9 there are many officers who like the variety and the
10 scope of the main operational context of policing.
11 Particularly with detectives at this time there was
12 a Metropolitan Police 10-year policy regarding CID
13 detective duties and there was a feeling by many
14 detectives that they did not actually -- by going into
15 child protection, they would be taking up their CID
16 10-year period.
17 MR GARNHAM: They had 10 years, did they?
18 MR KENDRICK: They had 10 years.
19 MR GARNHAM: If you lose three on CPT?
20 MR KENDRICK: You lose three or five on CPT, that would
21 reduce their opportunity for detective duties in the
22 main office which had this range of variety of work.
23 I did not necessarily agree with that and we actually on
24 our area tried to encourage officers to join but these
25 were practical problems.
55
1 MR GARNHAM: Yes, and the report says that it was notorious
2 that there was a difficulty -- it might be sensible,
3 I will take you to the report in some detail in a
4 moment, but it might be sensible if you see volume 31,
5 page 44, paragraph 4.29. This is the Inspectorate's
6 report and we will come back to look at it more later.
7 Under the heading "Detectives" the authors write:
8 "It is notoriously difficult for most CPTs to
9 attract detectives on to their staff at any level."
10 That notoriety had certainly reached you before
11 this, is that right?
12 MR KENDRICK: Sir, I was conscious of the fact that it was
13 not easy to get applicants from experienced, mature,
14 suitable detectives.
15 MR GARNHAM: "There is a widely held belief that this is
16 because of widespread ignorance about CPT roles and
17 because CPT work is not considered to be as exciting,
18 varied or glamorous as other forms of CID work. This is
19 a complete misapprehension, CPT work being amongst the
20 most complex and demanding imaginable."
21 I imagine you would agree with all of that?
22 MR KENDRICK: I would not use those words and I have just
23 previously explained in my view some of the reasons why
24 Child Protection Team work was not seen as the first
25 choice for both uniform and CID officers and
56
1 particularly CID officers, but one of the main reasons
2 in my opinion was this question of the 10 year policy.
3 MR GARNHAM: Do you agree that detective skills are
4 essential, an essential element to good quality child
5 protection work?
6 MR KENDRICK: I actually agree that investigative skills --
7 I think that sometimes the use of the word "detective"
8 can convey things that may not be appropriate, but
9 I actually believe that investigative skills are very
10 important but there are a range of other skills
11 necessary for Child Protection Team work.
12 MR GARNHAM: Absolutely. Investigative skills, to use your
13 phrase, is one of the elements that goes to make up
14 a good Child Protection Team.
15 MR KENDRICK: Yes, indeed.
16 MR GARNHAM: There are two ways to obtain those skills, are
17 there not? Either you attract officers into the teams
18 who have already got them or you train up those who do
19 not but who are already there. Is that correct?
20 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely right, sir, but my view would be
21 that once confirmed as a police officer after two years
22 initial training you should be basically competent in
23 basic -- in the basics of investigation.
24 MR GARNHAM: Really? You do not regard there as being
25 a need for additional investigative training for those
57
1 who are to work in CP teams?
2 MR KENDRICK: I do see that there is a need for additional
3 training, certainly, and the SOIT course, the sexual
4 offences investigative techniques course, the memorandum
5 of good practice training, the joint training with
6 social services, mentoring on the job training and,
7 which was available throughout the MPS as a matter of
8 course as a requirement for everyone, I cannot recall
9 when it was introduced but the investigative
10 interviewing techniques course for every police officer
11 was a requirement which I felt was again an essential,
12 a necessary part of CPT training.
13 MR GARNHAM: How do you go about attracting more -- how did
14 you go about attracting more detectives, more of those
15 with investigative skills into CP teams?
16 MR KENDRICK: On my area by speaking to detectives, by
17 speaking with my senior officers at our monthly command
18 meetings, particularly speaking to my Detective Chief
19 Superintendent, Mr Duffy and Mr Chaplain, to encourage
20 the whole question of people to apply for the Crime OCU,
21 and it was not just CPT that had a shortage of
22 detectives, sir, at this time. There was a shortage of
23 detectives for the crime work in the Crime OCU on my
24 area. We had an embargo on promotions and there was
25 little CID training for a substantial time that I had
58
1 the portfolio responsibility at the detective training
2 school, and there was a shortage of detectives, and
3 everybody wanted detectives, but I wanted to make sure
4 that the CPTs on my area and in our discussions that
5 there was a proper balance of uniform to CID across the
6 MPS.
7 MR GARNHAM: I understand that that is the aim. What is the
8 means? How did you go about achieving that?
9 MR KENDRICK: I have already said by --
10 MR GARNHAM: What you did on your area?
11 MR KENDRICK: Indeed.
12 MR GARNHAM: What about with your portfolio hat on?
13 MR KENDRICK: It was never identified to me as a major
14 problem on any of the specific areas, but --
15 MR GARNHAM: I thought I understood you to say that it was
16 well-known that there was difficulty attracting
17 detectives to CP teams.
18 MR KENDRICK: Generally, sir, but never as a specific
19 problem regarding the shortage of actual -- in relation
20 to their establishment on each individual CP team.
21 MR GARNHAM: Let us look at the general before we turn to
22 the particular then. You were aware generally of
23 a difficulty in recruiting, attracting detectives to
24 CP teams. What did you with your portfolio hat on do
25 about that?
59
1 MR KENDRICK: First of all, sir, I wanted to make sure that
2 the work of CPTs was actually advertised and documented
3 and we actually published a colour -- part of the job,
4 a newspaper -- a pull-out, in I think it was 1997,
5 highlighting the work of CPTs, the challenging nature of
6 it, the comprehensive nature of the investigations
7 dealing with some of the more serious crimes.
8 In addition, in 1998 we commissioned a laminated
9 card setting out the roles and responsibilities for
10 child protection officers again with the view to
11 attracting people.
12 MR GARNHAM: Did these initiatives work? Do you know
13 whether the number of detectives applying to CP teams
14 rose in consequence?
15 MR KENDRICK: No, I am not aware of that information, no.
16 MR GARNHAM: It is difficult to know whether your need to
17 press on or whether you have done your job if you do not
18 know whether it is working.
19 MR KENDRICK: You can be assured that I was never
20 complacent. This was an ongoing situation.
21 MR GARNHAM: Because it was an ongoing problem?
22 MR KENDRICK: I actually believe that ongoing problem to get
23 the right people, both uniform and CID, in sufficient
24 numbers so that we had a greater capacity to choose. So
25 often the applications were very, very low.
60
1 MR GARNHAM: Yes. You say in paragraph 18 of your statement
2 that it is one of your regrets, looking back on your
3 time in this job, that CP teams did not have a high
4 status. That was one of the reasons why officers were
5 not applying -- detective officers were not applying for
6 CP posts, was it, the low status?
7 MR KENDRICK: This issue of status and esteem is an emotive
8 word, sir. I have used it. There were a number of
9 reasons for this and it was one of my regrets,
10 particularly now in the last six months, particularly,
11 looking at this horrendous case, and I have reflected
12 very deeply on that, as to what if anything more that
13 I could have done to actually raise the position of
14 CPTs.
15 I actually required a major work to be done for core
16 competencies by a team who interviewed many, many scores
17 of CPT officers. That I believe is one way that you
18 enhance their feeling about what they do and how they do
19 it, that somebody at a very senior level is actually
20 doing something about their job and how they do it.
21 I actually did something about their training.
22 I actually commissioned a very detailed inspection into
23 all aspects of their work which actually on balance,
24 subject to a number of areas, which I am sure you will
25 come to, sir, showed the CPTs in general as centres of
61
1 excellence, of people being very dedicated and committed
2 people, and I did what I could to make sure by my
3 personal chairing of meetings, by involving the
4 detective inspectors, by telling the detective
5 inspectors how important their work was and particularly
6 as a result of the inspection in November, when I had
7 a very full meeting with the inspectors, where the
8 persons who did the inspectorate, the persons who did
9 the core competencies were present, where we had a very
10 full and forthright discussion as to the way forward, as
11 to how CPTs were being recognised and were doing their
12 job.
13 MR GARNHAM: But it remained one of your regrets when you
14 left that status was still not as high as it should have
15 been.
16 MR KENDRICK: I would have liked it to be one of the top
17 units in reputation throughout the MPS and it is
18 a regret to me that they are not.
19 MR GARNHAM: And you regarded that as at least in part
20 a cause for the difficulty in recruiting to the CP
21 teams?
22 MR KENDRICK: One of the reasons is that sir, and you will
23 appreciate that I have already given you my reasons why
24 there were difficulties in recruiting, because there
25 were other challenges and other opportunities at this
62
1 time in the Metropolitan Police with all sorts of new
2 units being established and there were new initiatives
3 taking off which were all competing for static -- or in
4 fact by the time I was leaving 1998 -- 1997/1998, our
5 pool of resources was actually gradually being
6 considerably reduced. So it is against that background.
7 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Sir would that be a convenient
8 moment to break?
9 MR KENDRICK: Thank you very much indeed Mr Garnham, that is
10 thoughtful of you.
11 Mr Kendrick we will be having break now and during
12 the break you are not allowed to discuss your evidence
13 with anyone. I am sure you understand that. Ladies and
14 gentlemen, by that clock it is after 11.30 so we will
15 get back after 20 to 12. Thank you very much.
16 (11.33 am)
17 (A short break)
18 (11.43 am)
19 MR GARNHAM: Can we turn to the report of 1998, please.
20 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: You tell us that as a result of the concerns we
22 were discussing before we broke, you commissioned a full
23 review of CPTs early in 1998.
24 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: That is a full three years after you took up
63
1 the job.
2 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: And you have told us that the previous such
4 review was in 1992, three years before you took up the
5 job, 1992/1993 I think you said.
6 MR KENDRICK: I think it was indeed, thereabouts, yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: Why did it take or why did you decide to leave
8 it for three years before conducting this review? The
9 reason I ask is I wonder if it was not essential for you
10 to have such a view early on in your tenure so you knew
11 the basis from which you were working?
12 MR KENDRICK: I cannot give an explanation.
13 MR GARNHAM: It is always easy to be wise after the event
14 and we are very conscious of the fact that we are doing
15 that.
16 MR KENDRICK: And I have asked that question myself over the
17 last six months.
18 MR GARNHAM: Was it that these issues, these concerns you
19 have identified were bubbling up and had reached a pitch
20 where you thought it was necessary to commission this
21 review?
22 MR KENDRICK: Sir, there was nothing during the first few
23 years that would have said there are problems here,
24 I need to get a real handle on these problems et cetera,
25 I need to have accurate information as to where we are,
64
1 but I felt that as you say, three years in office, I had
2 concerns generally as I had about all my portfolios.
3 This was not just done in isolation. I had asked
4 inspections and reviews of all my portfolio
5 responsibilities. It was the way that I did my job.
6 I always wanted to check and balance where we were and
7 with the benefit of hindsight maybe a year earlier, but
8 at the end of the day I was satisfied that this was
9 conducted and it was thorough and that we acted upon its
10 recommendations and its conclusions.
11 MR GARNHAM: You tell us that this report came out of the
12 concerns you had of which four particular ones are
13 described in your statement and you have told us they
14 were not your only concerns. I am trying to understand
15 what the process was which led to it. Was it that you
16 were more and more conscious of these concerns and
17 thought, "It is about time I had a review", or did
18 somebody ask you to conduct a review?
19 MR KENDRICK: No, it was my own instigation that I asked for
20 this inspection, because I actually believe it is
21 a very, very useful management tool.
22 MR GARNHAM: Yes, so it must have been then that you were
23 becoming more and more conscious of these concerns.
24 MR KENDRICK: Well, that is part of it but also it is good
25 practice because I think it is equally as important if
65
1 I did not have any concerns, I would have done it.
2 I had that philosophy, that there comes a time,
3 I actually believe independent checking and review is
4 a very useful and powerful management tool to actually
5 assess the state of the nation and it is so important
6 and sometimes it is not often done.
7 MR GARNHAM: It was not done systematically in the Met.
8 MR KENDRICK: If I could just mention that several -- around
9 about this time or I think it was around about 1996 or
10 1995, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary then had
11 the mandate to formally inspect all and any aspect of
12 the Metropolitan Police. Prior to that they had not
13 done so, they were called in on invitation. But
14 I believe actually 1995/1996 Her Majesty's Inspectorate
15 of Constabulary started to then, on a rolling programme,
16 on a proper schedule, formally inspect all aspects of
17 Metropolitan Police performance.
18 MR GARNHAM: And we have seen the thematic inspection on
19 CP work.
20 MR KENDRICK: In addition to that of course we had our own
21 in-house Inspectorate.
22 MR GARNHAM: And it was they who were commissioned to do
23 this report?
24 MR KENDRICK: It was they who were commissioned to do this
25 report. I had no influence or control over HMI.
66
1 MR GARNHAM: No, but as regards the internal inspection,
2 that was not done systematically, there was not
3 a regular auditing process the Met conducted. It needed
4 the initiative of somebody like you to say time has come
5 for another inspection, yes?
6 MR KENDRICK: Regarding my policy portfolio that was my
7 understanding, although my memory says, please bear with
8 me, that prior to the HMI being involved totally with
9 the Met Police there was a structured, formalised
10 programme of inspections by the in-house MPS
11 Inspectorate.
12 MR GARNHAM: Do you remember when that was? When was the
13 last one of those before this?
14 MR KENDRICK: I cannot, sir.
15 MR GARNHAM: In the first three years before, first four
16 years nearly before you had this report in your hands,
17 how were you managing the concerns that you were
18 identifying, in particular the four concerns that we
19 have looked at? How were you dealing with your fears
20 and concerns about operational procedures, selection of
21 officers, training, welfare, supervision?
22 MR KENDRICK: By my own visits and discussions on my own
23 area and then via the concerns, general concerns and
24 through the forum of the senior supervisors' meetings.
25 MR GARNHAM: I see. The report was prepared by the MPS
67
1 Inspectorate?
2 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: And you ought to have a copy of the report in
4 front of you please, it is volume 31 page 1. The
5 purposes of the inspection are set out at paragraph 1.2,
6 if you turn to that:
7 "Establish the different staffing levels and working
8 practice currently in operation in CPTs throughout the
9 Met, review selection processes, training, tenure,
10 workload, resources and support, performance and
11 sickness."
12 That pretty well covers the areas of concerns you
13 identified.
14 MR KENDRICK: Indeed.
15 MR GARNHAM: The only area it does not expressly cover is
16 supervision. Was there any particular reason for that?
17 MR KENDRICK: No. I take it as read that it would, but it
18 is not specifically covered there.
19 MR GARNHAM: No. We will come and look at the
20 recommendations later but the recommendations do not
21 deal with the substance of supervision either. There is
22 one recommendation related to supervision but otherwise
23 the quality of supervision is not dealt with.
24 MR KENDRICK: The actual quality of supervision, sir, yes.
25 The issue about, if memory serves me correctly, about
68
1 the involvement of sergeants in the allocation of work.
2 MR GARNHAM: Quite right.
3 MR KENDRICK: And ongoing involvement and interest and
4 supervision, there is an issue.
5 MR GARNHAM: That is one subject of a recommendation, you
6 are quite right, but otherwise supervision is not
7 discussed, is it, quality of supervision?
8 MR KENDRICK: I cannot recall without going through it
9 chapter and verse whether the overall quality of
10 supervision is actually discussed. From memory I cannot
11 say specifically that it was.
12 MR GARNHAM: No. Very well, we will look at it as we go
13 through. Did you feel in your time between your taking
14 up this post and your commissioning this report that the
15 state of CPTs was improving, declining, remaining the
16 same, various -- on the issue?
17 MR KENDRICK: Would you repeat that?
18 MR GARNHAM: I am trying to understand whether you felt that
19 CPT states performance, morale, services was maintaining
20 at a constant through those three years or whether it
21 was declining or improving.
22 MR KENDRICK: Looking back now, I think it was on an even
23 keel and I was concerned that it should improve.
24 MR GARNHAM: Mr Cox told us when he gave evidence that the
25 same sort of issues had been coming out of CPTs for
69
1 decades. Your experience as well?
2 MR KENDRICK: My experience back from when I began to have
3 a responsibility at chief officer level for child
4 protection teams, that was back in 1998 on the old North
5 West Area, in the early days, that we had some work to
6 do to build up the reputation, working together, very,
7 very new field, very, very difficult area, and
8 I actually believed that we had made progress. I was
9 very conscious that we should not become complacent
10 about that and that I should, with my colleagues, make
11 sure that we did all that we could to develop the
12 relationship, the professionalism, the recognition of
13 CPTs.
14 MR GARNHAM: Did you mean 1998 which you just said or did
15 you mean 1988?
16 MR KENDRICK: I do apologise. Since I started in 1998 --
17 sorry, 1988 -- when they originally started in the
18 North -- when we started I had a first responsibility at
19 Chief Officer level in 1988 in the North West Area.
20 MR GARNHAM: So you are going back to decade or more?
21 MR KENDRICK: A long time.
22 MR GARNHAM: So in that decade between 1988 and 1998 when
23 this report was commissioned, were the same issues
24 coming up repeatedly as Mr Cox has suggested to us?
25 Mr Thwaites tells me it is Mr Copson and I am prepared
70
1 to agree that he is right since he tends to be in these
2 matters. Mr Copson maybe told us. One of the officers
3 has given evidence, has told us that the same sort of
4 issues were coming up repeatedly.
5 MR KENDRICK: There were common themes, sir, about this
6 question of recognition, the emotive word "status", but
7 position, recognition within the organisation and
8 a clear understanding, a much clearer understanding of
9 what was involved with Child Protection Team work.
10 MR GARNHAM: You had to be, did you not, the champion for
11 CPT at senior level in the Met?
12 MR KENDRICK: I tried to be.
13 MR GARNHAM: It had to be you who was demanding more
14 resources and higher profile and more interest in CPTs,
15 did it not? There was no one else, it was you or nobody
16 really, was it not?
17 MR KENDRICK: I was the Child Protection Team person.
18 MR GARNHAM: Were you doing that? Were you going out and
19 demanding a bigger slice of a restricted cake for CPTs?
20 MR KENDRICK: I was making my points at the senior
21 supervisors' meeting and at the COP meeting when
22 I requested the inspection and after the inspection when
23 we spoke about it again, but particularly when I asked
24 for resources to be allocated for the -- to identify the
25 core competencies and the training needs analysis.
71
1 MR GARNHAM: This is what Mr Griffiths told us, that you
2 were the person who was demanding, I think was his word,
3 from the MPS proper resourcing from CPT. Day 49,
4 page 174 of the transcript sir. Is that fair, that you
5 were demanding better resources from the Met?
6 MR KENDRICK: I would not say the word "demand", sir. I was
7 a senior officer of the Metropolitan Police who --
8 I actually believe in cabinet and corporate
9 responsibility.
10 MR GARNHAM: Change the verb.
11 MR KENDRICK: I would certainly fight my corner.
12 MR GARNHAM: Successfully? Were you getting a bigger slice
13 of the cake?
14 MR KENDRICK: I was getting all the support that I felt was
15 necessary. I did not always get what I asked for but
16 one never does, but I was satisfied that I was being
17 supported in the inspection, I was supported in getting
18 a very detailed work done on core competencies for
19 training needs analysis.
20 MR GARNHAM: What about cash, what about the hard stuff that
21 makes teams run, that provides them with equipment?
22 Were you demanding that and were you getting it?
23 MR KENDRICK: Well, the situation how one does that, sir,
24 was not quite -- was not simple, in that money was
25 allocated to each of the individual areas.
72
1 MR GARNHAM: Mr Griffiths says to us that you were demanding
2 proper resourcing for CPTs.
3 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: I want to know whether that is correct, you
5 were, and if so what the response was.
6 MR KENDRICK: I was endeavouring to make sure that Child
7 Protection Team work and duties had its fair allocation
8 of resources and I used to make that point at COP so
9 that my colleagues who were at senior level at their own
10 individual area level, when they were deciding at an
11 area level how the cake was divided, took my requests
12 into consideration.
13 MR GARNHAM: Were you content in the three years before this
14 report was commissioned that as a result of those
15 efforts by you adequate resources were being provided to
16 CPTs?
17 MR KENDRICK: In the main, yes, I would always have liked
18 there to have been more. I was obviously concerned but
19 it did not surprise me when I read the Inspectorate
20 report that there were vacancies.
21 MR GARNHAM: You were content that you had enough buildings
22 and money and cars and IT equipment and the like to do
23 the job of CPTs properly, were you? You were not
24 concerned about that, prior to this report?
25 MR KENDRICK: I was never seriously concerned about certain
73
1 deficiencies but I always had an ongoing concern as to
2 whether they have enough and of course you never have
3 enough and at this time the slice of the cake was being
4 reduced.
5 MR GARNHAM: I want to know whether you felt you had enough
6 to do the job properly. I know one never has enough
7 resources for anything but did you feel you had enough
8 to do the job properly?
9 MR KENDRICK: In what context? On my area or across the
10 Met?
11 MR GARNHAM: Across the Met, your portfolio hat.
12 MR KENDRICK: In general terms I felt that we had
13 a reasonable slice of the cake.
14 MR GARNHAM: Yes, that might be right but that is not the
15 answer to my question. Did you feel you had enough to
16 do the job properly?
17 MR KENDRICK: In the main, yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: So we have to look at the evidence we have
19 heard about inadequacies of resources in the light of
20 your view that you had enough. The Chairman and his
21 colleagues have to reach a view about the complaints, to
22 put it loosely, of more junior officers about inadequate
23 resourcing for CPTs. We are to take it from you, are
24 we, that you took the view that there was no such
25 inadequate resourcing?
74
1 MR KENDRICK: I believe they had enough to do the job, sir.
2 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Paragraph 21 to 22 of your
3 statement you tell us about the methodology of the
4 review and we can see from paragraph 1.4 of the report
5 itself, and you will need to have that open in front of
6 you as well, that the team, the Inspectorate team
7 visited the majority of CPTs.
8 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether they visited Brent, which
10 would have been Edgware Police Station, I think?
11 MR KENDRICK: Sir, without referring to the schedule, it is
12 in the report, I cannot recall. I have a feeling that
13 they did.
14 MR GARNHAM: If it is in there I have missed it I am afraid,
15 but I suspect Mr Thwaites will find it before I finish
16 the sentence. Not quite. Do you know whether they
17 visited Haringey?
18 MR KENDRICK: Again, without reference to the schedule,
19 sir~...
20 MR GARNHAM: Do you know how many of them they did visit?
21 MR KENDRICK: I think they visited the majority of them.
22 The vast majority they visited.
23 MR GARNHAM: There were 27.
24 MR KENDRICK: 27.
25 MR GARNHAM: So more than 14 then were visited?
75
1 MR KENDRICK: I believe so, yes. Or at least if not visited
2 certainly contacted.
3 MR GARNHAM: Yes, questionnaires were sent to everybody so
4 there was contact across the piece but I am interested
5 in whether they visited the police stations. You do not
6 know?
7 MR KENDRICK: Without reference now that is not immediately
8 available to me.
9 MR GARNHAM: What was this visiting intended to achieve as
10 far as you were concerned?
11 MR KENDRICK: Accurate, reliable information as to the state
12 on the issues we covered, the terms of reference as to
13 where we were with child protection work in the Met.
14 MR GARNHAM: So understanding the current state of CPTs with
15 a view to identifying good practice and problems?
16 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely, with a view to addressing those.
17 MR GARNHAM: Was it intended to identify or suggest
18 solutions to these problems?
19 MR KENDRICK: Certainly, sir. I would -- in any inspection
20 report I would wish to see recommendations, good
21 practice, areas of concern and ideas as to how they
22 could be addressed. That is particularly so because the
23 Inspectorate are in a unique position by the very nature
24 of their work and to be able to do that.
25 MR GARNHAM: Identify current problems, suggest some
76
1 solutions by way of recommendation; those are two of the
2 functions of this.
3 MR KENDRICK: Indeed, yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: You presumably felt you had quite a good grip
5 on what the problems were already, given the fact that
6 you had been in post for three years.
7 MR KENDRICK: That would be rather arrogant and naive of me
8 to say that.
9 MR GARNHAM: So you were expecting to learn more about the
10 state of the problems from this report?
11 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely so.
12 MR GARNHAM: So you would have expected the report to
13 suggest solutions to problems you already knew, to
14 identify problems that had not yet reached you and to
15 suggest solutions for those as well?
16 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely right, but of course accepting that
17 even the Inspectorate do not have the monopoly of all
18 the answers but it was a catalyst, a very important
19 catalyst for finding out accurate information as to
20 where we are to respond positively to develop CPT work.
21 MR GARNHAM: Were you pleased with the job they did?
22 MR KENDRICK: I was. I actually felt that Mrs Evans, and we
23 had a number of discussions prior to the inspection and
24 during the time, and she was involved with the meetings
25 that I had with senior supervisors and with the
77
1 detective inspectors after the Inspectorate report was
2 published.
3 MR GARNHAM: So she lived up, she and her colleague lived up
4 to the brief you had given them?
5 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely, a professional lady and a very
6 thorough lady who would in my experience, I recall, who
7 would challenge accepted norms.
8 MR GARNHAM: So if we were to come to a conclusion that
9 there are inadequacies in the report, it is to those who
10 commissioned them, in other words you, rather than to
11 those who carried them out that we should look?
12 MR KENDRICK: Well, sir, I will be the first to admit that
13 I have inadequacies and so do other people.
14 MR GARNHAM: I want to understand, you are not saying that
15 there was anything in this report that did not live up
16 to the brief that you had given those who wrote it?
17 MR KENDRICK: Indeed, that they did a thorough job as far as
18 I was aware.
19 MR GARNHAM: You entirely fairly observe that the report
20 notes a number of strengths in CPTs and it is important
21 we do not lose sight of that but there are also, as you
22 acknowledge, areas of less than perfect performance,
23 yes?
24 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: There are five aspects of this report I want to
78
1 ask you about and so that we know where we are going let
2 me identify them to you first. Working practices, IT,
3 staffing and resources, training and status.
4 Central to good working practices in CPTs are
5 relations with the other agencies, are they not?
6 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: In the past it is right, is it not, that the
8 Met would ordinarily send an Area DCI, Detective Chief
9 Inspector or a superintendent to ACPC meetings?
10 MR KENDRICK: Would you repeat that please?
11 MR GARNHAM: In the past -- and I am not quite sure I know
12 when, I was going to ask you about that -- in the past
13 it had been Met practice to send to ACPC meetings either
14 a DCI or a superintendent?
15 MR KENDRICK: I have a vague recognition that that used to
16 be the policy, yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: I will take you to the paragraph in a moment.
18 It is said that is what the Met's CP manual required and
19 that that had been the practice noted in a previous
20 thematic inspection, paragraph 3.30, page 15 of the
21 report.
22 "At the time of the last thematic inspection ACPC
23 police representatives tended to be the CPT senior
24 supervisors (ie the area DCI superintendent) in line
25 with the CPT manual."
79
1 So that appears to have been the old practice.
2 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Then they note:
4 "Although it is not known when the change came
5 about, the current attendance by DIs seems to work very
6 well and to support the delegation in the MPS of
7 accountability to the most appropriate level."
8 Let me ask you about that first of all. Before we
9 discuss whether it is a good idea to delegate that far
10 down, can you tell us when the change happened?
11 MR KENDRICK: From memory I cannot, no.
12 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether the change was authorised?
13 Was the manual changed?
14 MR KENDRICK: Sir, I have no memory of that, I regret.
15 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether this change happened during
16 your period of tenure?
17 MR KENDRICK: Not during my -- my memory is that it was not
18 during my period of tenure.
19 MR GARNHAM: Can you tell us from any positive recollection
20 that the reason for that change was the one identified
21 in this report, namely delegation to the most
22 appropriate level, or was it simply that people were too
23 busy at a senior level to go?
24 MR KENDRICK: I cannot.
25 MR GARNHAM: Do you regard it as sufficient for DIs to be
80
1 the Met's representative at ACPC?
2 MR KENDRICK: I do, sir, yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Do you know what happens in other
4 constabularies?
5 MR KENDRICK: I think it varies. I do not know for sure but
6 I am aware that during my discussions I did actually
7 mention that it would be good policy for the senior
8 supervisor to actually attend with their detective
9 inspector from time to time.
10 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether that happened?
11 MR KENDRICK: I know it happened on my area.
12 MR GARNHAM: Do you know whether it happened in the other
13 areas?
14 MR KENDRICK: I do not know for sure.
15 MR GARNHAM: Because you did not have in place a system
16 whereby this sort of information could be fed back?
17 MR KENDRICK: And it was not my responsibility for the
18 operational command level on the other areas, but I take
19 and understand what you have just said.
20 MR GARNHAM: Yes, that your portfolio role might have been
21 involved, if there had been a generalised practice that
22 meant that more senior supervisors were never attending
23 ACPC's, that might have been something relevant to you?
24 MR KENDRICK: Yes indeed.
25 MR GARNHAM: And you do not know whether or not that was the
81
1 case?
2 MR KENDRICK: But I did not see it as being a key factor.
3 MR GARNHAM: I see. Another change in working practices
4 noted by the report was the attendance of the police at
5 review meetings.
6 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: It has previously been the practice for the
8 police to attend all strategy meetings and all review
9 meetings. That changed in some areas, as I understand
10 the report, because of the pressure of work and staff
11 shortages. We in this Inquiry have seen a letter
12 written by Ms Akers to Haringey on this subject setting
13 out an intention on the part of the Met to change their
14 practice so that there would not routinely be a Met
15 representative at review meetings.
16 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: The Inspection report recommends that all CPTs
18 follow suit. It is 3.35, bottom of that page:
19 "The inspection team represents that all CPTs follow
20 suit. In an ideal world CPT staff would attend all
21 relevant meetings; however, with limited staff numbers
22 this is just not feasible."
23 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: To your knowledge did that happen? Was the
25 practice then changed so that all CPTs would only attend
82
1 review meetings where they were specifically required or
2 needed?
3 MR KENDRICK: Sir, this was raised following the inspection
4 at our meeting, I think it was with all the DIs of the
5 27th, and with the increase in work there was a view
6 that we should go towards consistency in this and I am
7 trying to memorise now what happened. There was some
8 concern that this made sense in many cases because
9 people were feeling that many attendances were
10 unnecessary, there was no useful input or contribution
11 or relevance to the police inquiry.
12 However, there was a concern that the review meeting
13 was an issue whereby children were taken -- could be
14 taken off -- a decision made -- off the At Risk
15 Register.
16 MR GARNHAM: That is what is discussed in 3.36, the next
17 paragraph, I think.
18 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: Is that right?
20 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
21 MR GARNHAM: Help us with this if you would. That paragraph
22 says, it is 3.38:
23 "One real concern is that children can be removed
24 from the At Risk Register at such review meetings. If
25 not in attendance, police may only discover this
83
1 afterwards and might well have objected to such a move,
2 had they be present. It is therefore important [writes
3 this report] that if police are not informed prior to
4 a meeting that this is likely to occur or be discussed,
5 they record their objections to such a move in writing
6 at the earliest opportunity afterwards." And then these
7 words: "This would cover police if a child who had been
8 removed from the register subsequently suffered harm."
9 We can well see that it might cover the police but
10 it does not do many favours for the child, does it?
11 MR KENDRICK: Indeed, sir. That issue as I say was
12 discussed, and I actually remember in general terms that
13 it was felt that there had to be clear understanding and
14 agreement between all the parties, should police
15 actually not go to review meetings, and I did not make
16 it, bearing in mind that this was within a short time of
17 me leaving the service and I wanted to make sure that
18 these recommendations and suggestions were progressed in
19 a balanced way, that if people had the resource, they
20 should -- it is my view they should attend review
21 meetings.
22 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but with respect that does not answer the
23 point at all, does it? This report is recommending what
24 was becoming practice, namely that police would not
25 routinely attend review meetings.
84
1 MR KENDRICK: No, sir, it was still down to us and my
2 colleague who took over the whole process that these
3 recommendations were debriefed.
4 MR GARNHAM: I understand that and we will talk about that
5 in a moment.
6 MR KENDRICK: But they were not -- they did not become
7 policy until that had been formalised.
8 MR GARNHAM: I understand that but this did become policy,
9 did it not?
10 MR KENDRICK: Not --
11 MR GARNHAM: Not in your time?
12 MR KENDRICK: Not in my time.
13 MR GARNHAM: But you had no objection in your time to this
14 becoming policy?
15 MR KENDRICK: Subject to certain safeguards and provisos.
16 MR GARNHAM: Do any of those safeguards or provisos deal
17 with the problem I have just alerted you to and that
18 this report flags up, namely that absent the police from
19 review meetings, it was possible for a child to be taken
20 off the At Risk Register, because it seems from this
21 report that the only proviso was a suggestion that the
22 police should write a letter to cover themselves.
23 MR KENDRICK: No, indeed, sir and that actually -- I do
24 recall a debate, an ongoing debate about this issue of
25 the Child Protection Register and the certain dangers of
85
1 that if correspondence, meetings, relationships, contact
2 broke down.
3 MR GARNHAM: Would you agree with me that we do not need to
4 give a fig about whether the police had covered
5 ourselves, our sole concern is whether the child was
6 protected?
7 MR KENDRICK: The most important part is the safety and
8 well-being of the child or young person in all
9 considerations.
10 MR GARNHAM: Right, so given that that is the primary
11 concern, how in the light of this change is the child's
12 position to be protected given what is said in
13 paragraph 3.38?
14 MR KENDRICK: That last sentence there, particularly, and
15 the implications there, you know, are of concern.
16 MR GARNHAM: I am glad you agree with that, thank you for
17 that. What is done about it? How do you in the new
18 arrangements that are set up post -- how were you
19 intending, since you left, how were you intending this
20 problem to be dealt with?
21 MR KENDRICK: I cannot answer that because when -- I did
22 what I thought was a robust response debrief with all
23 the detective inspectors in November, documented for
24 Mr Griffiths, reviewed again at length on 5th January
25 1999 before I retired.
86
1 MR GARNHAM: What I want to know is what in that robust
2 debriefing process you did about this sentence which
3 appears to suggest that what matters is the police
4 covering themselves rather than ensuring that the best
5 outcome for the child is achieved. What did you do
6 about it?
7 MR KENDRICK: With hindsight now, I cannot say to you that
8 I did anything about it, that particular statement, but
9 I will say that we did talk about this question of at
10 risk.
11 MR GARNHAM: Talking about it is a necessary precursor to
12 action, but what matters is the action. You cannot tell
13 us, can you, what action was taken to deal with this
14 identified problem?
15 MR KENDRICK: I cannot, no.
16 MR GARNHAM: It may be that that is a question we ought to
17 ask Commander Howlett when she gives evidence.
18 One of the other consequences of this change was
19 noted upon in the review at paragraph 3.36, namely:
20 "Considerable time and effort spent working out
21 relations with the SSDs. This might be damaged if
22 police withdrew from relevant meetings."
23 We have heard evidence in this Inquiry that that
24 happened in Haringey or at least there was a fear that
25 that was going to happen, those were the views expressed
87
1 by DI Howard, the Inspector in charge of the Haringey
2 CPT and by his opposite number in Haringey Social
3 Services, Ms Graham. But this did not paint a good
4 picture for continuing relations between police and
5 Social Services Department. What was your reaction to
6 that when you saw this report?
7 MR KENDRICK: This was something that I would expect would
8 have been discussed because I requested, it was going to
9 be discussed between the senior supervisors and the
10 detective inspectors to take into account their
11 relationships at a local level and that is where
12 I actually left it.
13 MR GARNHAM: It is likely, is it not, to be a potential
14 problem right across London? If you are withdrawing
15 police perhaps for perfectly good operational reasons
16 from some meetings, it is not going to paint a picture
17 of the police wanting to be more involved in child
18 protection work in the locality, is it?
19 MR KENDRICK: I would have thought that this is something
20 that I asked for, that there would be local negotiations
21 and a proper understanding of the issues involved.
22 MR GARNHAM: And then what, see whether they should go or
23 not?
24 MR KENDRICK: They would come to hopefully an amicable
25 arrangement.
88
1 MR GARNHAM: Just as relations with social services are
2 important to the proper operations of a CPT, so are
3 relation with doctors?
4 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: In your view, in those first three years of
6 your being in post, how good were relations between the
7 Met, CPTs and force medical officers, force medical
8 examiners and consultant paediatricians?
9 MR KENDRICK: In general they were quite sound, but it was
10 during the course of the time I was in office that I --
11 I was conscious of the fact that wearing my other hat of
12 being responsible for the sexual offences and domestic
13 violence, that there were some FMEs, police FMEs, and to
14 a lesser extent some doctors, who there was more
15 difficulty in getting statements, in giving evidence, in
16 being available for medical examinations, that sometimes
17 perhaps the needs and the concerns and the welfare of
18 the child were not perhaps always the first
19 consideration, and that is understandable.
20 What I actually did was to require my colleagues to
21 actually prepare a list of all those FMEs and
22 paediatricians from their experience who were very
23 professional, very sensitive to the needs of children
24 and young people, who were supportive in regarding, and
25 sensitive regarding the examinations and making
89
1 statements and giving evidence to be collated and then
2 circulated for the information of all CPT officers.
3 MR GARNHAM: That was done?
4 MR KENDRICK: That was done, sir.
5 MR GARNHAM: Useful?
6 MR KENDRICK: Very useful, sir, yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: And used?
8 MR KENDRICK: No doubt about that at all, because again
9 stressed in the training with the sexual offences
10 investigative technique course, it is very much a team
11 effort, the role of the police officer, social worker,
12 but particularly the doctor in the first instance
13 regarding that very sensitive medical examination and
14 all the trauma and the difficulties involved with that,
15 and I saw that as a key issue which we need to -- and
16 outside child protection I was working with others
17 regarding new protocols, new contracts for forensic
18 medical examiners in the police regarding availability
19 of female vis-a-vis male, the accessibility, travelling
20 time, the cleanliness and adequacy of sexual offences
21 examination suites et cetera, that was all part of the
22 consideration.
23 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Can I take you to the third and
24 last subject on working practices I want to ask you
25 about, and for this purpose can you go back to page 11,
90
1 paragraph 3.3 dealing with referrals.
2 The report authors note that the bulk of referrals
3 made to the police come from SSD and to SSD from
4 schools; others can come from members of the public,
5 medical profession, police themselves, and this is what
6 I want to ask you about. Summer time is recognised as
7 a quieter time for CPT because a major source of
8 referrals, namely schools, are on holiday. It is when
9 most CPT officers generally took their holidays or took
10 advantage of the opportunity to catch up on their
11 backlog of work. What were your views when you read
12 that?
13 MR KENDRICK: I found it of -- an interesting comment. In
14 the back of my mind I was -- because of the way that
15 I worked I was thinking I hope this is not to the
16 detriment of the work that they do.
17 MR GARNHAM: How might it be? What was the concern?
18 MR KENDRICK: Well, I was not going to read anything into it
19 that was not there, but because during my visits I had
20 ascertained that the quieter period was sometimes during
21 the summer holidays, as endorsed, so in part it was
22 confirming some of my own observations during my visits.
23 MR GARNHAM: Did you think it likely that abuse of children
24 reduced during the summer holidays?
25 MR KENDRICK: No.
91
1 MR GARNHAM: One might think, using common sense rather than
2 any evidence, one might think that abuse might rise in
3 the summer holidays because the children are in the care
4 of the people who are the potential abusers and not at
5 school.
6 MR KENDRICK: Opportunities for.
7 MR GARNHAM: Yes. The fact that referrals are not being
8 made to the police does not demonstrate, does it, that
9 the abuse is not going on?
10 MR KENDRICK: No it does not.
11 MR GARNHAM: The feeling one gets reading that paragraph is
12 that the police are an entirely reactive unit who regard
13 the workload as dictated solely by the number of
14 referrals that come through the door regardless of what
15 is happening to the children in their homes. Any truth
16 in that?
17 MR KENDRICK: Maybe with some but I would say that with the
18 advent of the Sex Offenders Act, and it was highlighted
19 to us, was the question of sex offenders registered in
20 the community et cetera, that this was an ongoing
21 concern for us all at all times.
22 MR GARNHAM: I am sure it is a concern but I am interested
23 in what you do about it. I wondered whether, reading
24 that paragraph, you as an officer with the experience
25 you had might be thinking, "This is a problem. Children
92
1 will still be getting abused during the summer but the
2 teachers are not there to spot it, which means that that
3 is going unspotted. The police need to be getting more
4 involved, not less involved".
5 MR KENDRICK: Sir, it would be fair to say that that
6 emotion, reaction did not come to me at this time from
7 that.
8 MR GARNHAM: Looking at it now, is there anything wrong with
9 what I am suggesting to you?
10 MR KENDRICK: Nothing.
11 MR GARNHAM: Am I flawed in my approach?
12 MR KENDRICK: No, you are not flawed, sir, indeed and the
13 point that I would say was that -- I understand the
14 point you are making.
15 MR GARNHAM: It is indicative, is it not, of a mind set in
16 CPTs that their workload is dictated solely by what
17 comes through the front door? They are busy when
18 schools are in session because lots of referrals are
19 made. They are not busy when schools are out of session
20 because nobody is telling them about the abuse.
21 MR KENDRICK: The volume of work will depend to the main, to
22 the vast majority on referrals from others, but there is
23 a lot of -- there are a number of referrals of course
24 ongoing.
25 MR GARNHAM: Of course, and there will be referrals from
93
1 other people, neighbours, doctors and so on.
2 MR KENDRICK: Not only that, from police themselves, with
3 the form 78.
4 MR GARNHAM: I understand.
5 MR KENDRICK: There was a large amount of activity being
6 generated by completion of the form 78 of young people
7 coming to the notice of police in the course of normal
8 operational policing duties.
9 MR GARNHAM: But it was not your reaction when you read that
10 paragraph, "My goodness, we have got a problem here"?
11 MR KENDRICK: It was not my instant reaction.
12 MR GARNHAM: But you can see now how one might read it in
13 that way?
14 MR KENDRICK: I can see the implications.
15 MR GARNHAM: Next IT, please. We have touched on this
16 a little but I want to explore it with you. Is it right
17 that CPTs were amongst the last to receive Otis?
18 MR KENDRICK: I am not in a position of strength to state
19 categorically -- to answer that categorically. Can
20 I say that it was my understanding and is my
21 understanding that they were on the second tranche of
22 receiving Otis. Operational stations 24 hours a day,
23 operational policing first. Area headquarters units
24 second. Last to be received, headquarters, central, New
25 Scotland Yard and other centralised units.
94
1 MR GARNHAM: So where in those three phases is the CPT?
2 MR KENDRICK: In the middle at area level. We were able on
3 my area, number 3 Area, to actually issue Otis to our
4 CPTs in actually 1998.
5 MR GARNHAM: Yes, that was not a pattern that was replicated
6 across London, was it?
7 MR KENDRICK: I am not aware in detail of that but I take
8 what you say.
9 MR GARNHAM: I am surprised you are not aware of it. Was
10 this not an issue that was being raised at the senior
11 supervisors' meetings?
12 MR KENDRICK: The question of Otis was centrally controlled,
13 which was declared by a process where you cannot change
14 unless there are exceptional reasons. It was a rollout
15 from New Scotland Yard. It had all sorts of technical
16 implications and it was only by chance that we on 3 Area
17 were able to do it I believe by the end of 1998 for all
18 our crime OCUs.
19 MR GARNHAM: Looking at CPTs across London, one of the
20 consequences of the work they do or alternatively one of
21 the problems of their history is that they are often set
22 up in buildings at a distance from the local police
23 station, yes?
24 MR KENDRICK: That is right, yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: That remoteness from the ordinary area of
95
1 activities is seen by some as a problem because it makes
2 them feel at least semi-detached.
3 MR KENDRICK: Some of them could be perceived as remote but
4 it was commented by the Inspectorate report that some of
5 them saw it as a positive advantage.
6 MR GARNHAM: Absolutely, I take your point entirely, but is
7 not the consequence of that that there ought to be an
8 emphasis on providing those CPTs in their more remote
9 locations with Otis earlier than the main police
10 stations?
11 MR KENDRICK: Sir, I regret to say it was my understanding
12 that there was not that flexibility in the system to
13 allow that.
14 MR GARNHAM: Did you ask for it? Did you say, "My CPTs out
15 there in 27 different locations ought to be at the top
16 of the pile for this because they are remote"?
17 MR KENDRICK: No, I did not, because I saw operational
18 policing 24 hours a day, seven days a week as being the
19 number 1 priority.
20 MR GARNHAM: Are CPTs not operational 24 hours a day, seven
21 days a week?
22 MR KENDRICK: Yes, they are, but not in operational terms.
23 MR GARNHAM: Tell me the difference.
24 MR KENDRICK: CPTs are not open 24 hours a day, seven days
25 a week.
96
1 MR GARNHAM: But their work goes on all the time?
2 MR KENDRICK: Their work goes on all the time.
3 MR GARNHAM: There will be officers on-call who will need to
4 come in in the middle of the night because of
5 a particular case?
6 MR KENDRICK: That only occurred in my view very, very
7 occasionally and if we talk about the implications
8 I actually believe the Otis system, by the end of
9 1998/1999, if we are talking about criminal
10 intelligence, one phone call and people could have
11 obtained that.
12 MR GARNHAM: That is the CRIMINT system?
13 MR KENDRICK: Indeed.
14 MR GARNHAM: But even that, the CPT teams were at the bottom
15 of the pile, were they not?
16 MR KENDRICK: They were not bottom of the pile at all.
17 I actually believe in order of priorities and that
18 senior officers have to make these painful decisions
19 from time to time, and from time to time we may not
20 always get it right.
21 MR GARNHAM: The inspection report suggests that the IT
22 deficiencies had a significant effect on the ability of
23 CPTs to communicate with other Metropolitan Police
24 units. Go to 2.3, please. DVUs and YACs. Domestic
25 Violence Unit?
97
1 MR KENDRICK: And Youth and Community Section, sir.
2 MR GARNHAM: There was reportedly, say the authors, little
3 contact between CPTs and DVUs, even less between CPTs
4 and YACs.
5 Then if you go to paragraph 2.25, the end of that
6 section:
7 "... recognise that Otis should be available to all
8 units in the service in due course which will obviously
9 make the sharing of intelligence much easier but this
10 still is some way off."
11 So Otis would have helped improve communication
12 between those units which ought to have been talking to
13 each other.
14 MR KENDRICK: It could have but there was still the
15 telephone and there was still other ways of
16 communicating which many of us have done for many years.
17 MR GARNHAM: Paragraph 2.27, bottom of that page, SO3(3):
18 "The service provided by SO3(3) (formerly SO18) was
19 considered excellent, once contact had been made, but
20 a common complaint from CPTs was that telephone lines to
21 the branch were frequently engaged, which caused them
22 major inconvenience. During a 1997 MPS Inspectorate
23 staff inspection of SO18 branch it was noted that 'there
24 have been recent problems associated with the telephone
25 system. Although there are sufficient lines, there is
98
1 no clear queuing mechanism, so it is not always possible
2 to give the appropriate priority to waiting callers.
3 Customers have complained of excessive waiting time for
4 calls to be answered.
5 "Unfortunately this still seems to be a problem.
6 Apparently plans are in hand for CRIMINT to be installed
7 in SO3(3) which would give customers direct access to
8 the information they require."
9 Customers in this context would include CPT
10 officers?
11 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: "This does not help in the short term because
13 most CPTs do not currently have access to CRIMINT
14 themselves."
15 Another sense in which CPTs are short of the IT they
16 need.
17 MR KENDRICK: Could I say that I have a memory that in 1998
18 that I actually -- I personally was dealing with SO18 on
19 this, a series of meetings regarding the services that
20 they were providing, regarding their accessibility, and
21 in fact I am pretty confident that they actually became
22 CRIMINT enabled and with one phone call.
23 MR GARNHAM: When did they become CRIMINT enabled?
24 MR KENDRICK: My memory --
25 MR GARNHAM: After this report?
99
1 MR KENDRICK: Very soon afterwards because I recall during
2 the latter year of my service being actively involved in
3 a project with SO regarding CRIMINT enabling to speed up
4 the service regarding these checks and this information.
5 MR GARNHAM: What I am wondering is whether this is
6 indicative of something that is commented upon elsewhere
7 in the report, that CPTs were seen as the poor relations
8 of the Met.
9 MR KENDRICK: I have already mentioned about priorities and
10 in my understanding operational crime units were the
11 second priority, the second stage, and this argument
12 could be applied to many other proactive and reactive
13 crime units regarding Otis.
14 MR GARNHAM: Look at 4.45 please. Page 33, internal page
15 33:
16 "Most CFs referred to themselves as the poor
17 relations of the Crime OCU and felt unsupported by their
18 senior management at area. Many reported difficulties
19 in obtaining even the most basic equipment and believed
20 that they were 'out of sight, out of mind'."
21 What I am suggesting to you is that these delays or
22 prioritisations in the rollout of IT is an example of
23 that.
24 MR KENDRICK: Sir, they were ongoing frustrations by many,
25 many units and people, and I wish that I could have been
100
1 able to satisfy many of them. In time they were, and it
2 was a question of priorities, and sometimes there would
3 be people who would be frustrated by that.
4 MR GARNHAM: In the absence of Otis, before Otis was
5 installed at CPTs, did you feel that they had adequate
6 IT support?
7 MR KENDRICK: I actually believe that they had -- first of
8 all they had their own individual administrative staff.
9 Many units did not have their own dedicated civilian
10 staff and I actually believe that that was important.
11 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
12 MR KENDRICK: Virtually all of them had stand-alone systems.
13 MR GARNHAM: So they could record their own internal
14 information?
15 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely right.
16 MR GARNHAM: What they could not do until they had Otis was
17 to cross refer.
18 MR KENDRICK: Was network, and that was a concern for us
19 all, with many, many of our units at area level.
20 MR GARNHAM: That being so, that being a concern, do you
21 take the view that there were adequate IT facilities
22 available to CPTs in the period up to the end of 1998?
23 MR KENDRICK: I would have always liked for there to have
24 been more.
25 MR GARNHAM: That is not the question.
|
