|
Archived Transcript for 28 January 2002: Pages
101 to 150
101
1 MR KENDRICK: I know. Yes, I was.
2 MR GARNHAM: So the absence of a networking system to you
3 was not significant?
4 MR KENDRICK: In modern day policing it is always an issue,
5 and yes, we would have liked that to have been provided
6 earlier, but it just was not possible.
7 MR GARNHAM: It was not possible because of the
8 prioritisations that had been decided upon by the Met's
9 most senior officers.
10 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely right.
11 MR GARNHAM: Did you argue for the CPT to get a better deal
12 on that?
13 MR KENDRICK: No, in the context I have already explained,
14 about the three tier tranche of issues, I actually
15 believe that they were in the middle and that was in all
16 the circumstances acceptable.
17 MR GARNHAM: The trouble is all this is cumulative; the fact
18 that the CPTs do not get in the first tranche of the
19 Otis rollout, the fact that their premises tend to be
20 more remote, the fact that there are complaints about
21 obtaining even the most basic equipment; these things
22 add up, do they not, and they affect the way people view
23 their job?
24 MR KENDRICK: I can understand that, yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: And they affect the attractiveness of the post?
102
1 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: And you are trying to attract more detective
3 officers. It is hardly the way to go about it, is it?
4 MR KENDRICK: I believe that we explained, I explained, my
5 colleagues explained why this was the situation. Many
6 CPTs were actually located near police stations, so they
7 did have access to Otis via another site although that
8 was not ideal. They all had access to CRIS, a major
9 tool in the investigation of crime, not just the
10 recording but in the investigation of crime, and that
11 was an important issue and we made sure that they did
12 and in all the circumstances I felt that they were being
13 provided.
14 MR GARNHAM: Let us look at staffing and resources. Prior
15 to this report were you satisfied that the Met was
16 providing adequate resources for good quality people to
17 do a good job?
18 MR KENDRICK: I was, yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: What rank in your view ought to head a CPT?
20 MR KENDRICK: You are asking now for a personal opinion?
21 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
22 MR KENDRICK: Detective Inspector.
23 MR GARNHAM: At the time of the Inspector's report we see,
24 and it is from 4.9 onwards in the report, there was no
25 DI at Feltham, no DI at Harrow on the Hill, no DI at
103
1 Lambeth, acting DIs at Hammersmith, Borehamwood,
2 Southall and Croydon, and at two of those the acting DI
3 was heading up two teams. So in other words nine CPTs
4 out of a total of 28, that is about one in three, either
5 had no inspector at all or only had a sergeant acting
6 up. Would you regard that as acceptable?
7 MR KENDRICK: I would have difficulty in accepting that as
8 acceptable, so the answer is no.
9 MR GARNHAM: I think I can work out the answer to that.
10 MR KENDRICK: No, sir.
11 MR GARNHAM: It is not acceptable because that is not the
12 necessary seniority to run these teams, but nor is it
13 acceptable because of the message it sends out, that the
14 Met are sufficiently unconcerned about CPTs that they
15 are prepared to have sergeants running them?
16 MR KENDRICK: Sir, we have to look at the issue in the
17 context of the operational situation happening in the
18 Metropolitan Police at this time.
19 MR GARNHAM: We have heard a good deal about that and we
20 understand the competition for detective officers.
21 MR KENDRICK: And the pressure and the enormous pain that
22 the Met police was going through.
23 MR GARNHAM: After Lawrence?
24 MR KENDRICK: Regarding major investigations.
25 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
104
1 MR KENDRICK: I am not here to justify or to excuse things
2 now which with the benefit of hindsight should not have
3 happened or could have been dealt with differently, and
4 I accept my own responsibility for that, I have done for
5 the last few months, but the operational context was
6 that we just did not have enough officers. The
7 pressures on the organisations, particularly in view of
8 Lawrence and major crime murder investigations, was
9 enormous, unprecedented in my 35/36 years service, and
10 when I read this I could see some of the deficiencies
11 and the pressures and the burden that CPT staff were
12 under. I took no satisfaction from that whatsoever,
13 sir.
14 MR GARNHAM: What did you do about it?
15 MR KENDRICK: I brought it to the -- well, this report when
16 published was brought by me to the COP forum, sir, and
17 although we had -- we did not have too much time, the
18 findings and the contexts were discussed.
19 MR GARNHAM: But what was done about it? Like all big
20 organisations the Met is good at discussing things.
21 MR KENDRICK: I said -- in fairness I said that I was
22 responding to all these recommendations and the issues,
23 that I had already started having my meeting at the end
24 of November with all the DIs and senior supervisors.
25 I was requiring a detailed response from all the areas
105
1 in writing and put forward discussion at my last meeting
2 on 5th January, and these would be brought to the
3 attention for action ongoing by Mr Griffiths, and that
4 was done, I personally briefed Mr Griffiths.
5 MR GARNHAM: The problem was compounded, was it not, by the
6 fact that increasingly uniform officers rather than
7 detectives were applying for the inspectors' jobs?
8 MR KENDRICK: When you say the problem was compounded, what
9 do you mean please?
10 MR GARNHAM: It means that not only are nine out of the 28
11 CPTs being run by sergeants, but when you are looking
12 for officers to lead those teams you are getting
13 applicants from those without detective training?
14 MR KENDRICK: Without detective training?
15 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
16 MR KENDRICK: A formalised detective training course, yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: Does that not make the problem worse,
18 especially if there are not sufficient numbers of
19 detectives in the teams?
20 MR KENDRICK: My view is always a balance. It adds to the
21 difficulties. Provided you have an experienced
22 competent detective sergeant and other CID, I believe
23 that can be accommodated but not for lengthy periods of
24 time. It would not be satisfactory for lengthy periods
25 of time.
106
1 MR GARNHAM: In your view were there sufficient detectives
2 at sergeant and constable level?
3 MR KENDRICK: In the main, I felt there was, but I have
4 actually listened and had reference to -- having been
5 drawn to my attention through this hearing --
6 appendix O.
7 MR GARNHAM: Well, I expect we have all looked at that more
8 carefully since Mr Griffiths gave his evidence and what
9 it shows is a substantial variation, does it not?
10 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely.
11 MR GARNHAM: We will come to that in a moment, but it is
12 right, is it not, that what the Inspectorate noted was
13 that the role of police sergeant and detective sergeant
14 was becoming blurred:
15 "4.18. At sergeant level some roles had become
16 blurred"?
17 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: The same thing was happening at constable
19 level, was it not, 4.23:
20 "Most CPTs did not differentiate between their PC
21 and DC in terms of the role or the case allocated to
22 them"?
23 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
24 MR GARNHAM: So we have a situation of a significant number
25 of CPTs being run by sergeants, less detective
107
1 inspectors applying for the top job and the roles of
2 detectives and constable, uniform constables being
3 blurred at constable level and ditto at sergeant level.
4 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: Net effect, watering down significantly of the
6 detective element in CPTs.
7 MR KENDRICK: Going back to the terms of reference in the
8 manual, about job descriptions, I actually believe that
9 a lot of the work is what I would regard -- and no
10 disrespect by it -- as normal routine investigative
11 work, which any trained officer, experienced, mature
12 operational police officer should be able to undertake.
13 MR GARNHAM: Yes, but I do not think you are disagreeing
14 with me, are you, that detective element is important in
15 CPTs?
16 MR KENDRICK: Certainly not disagreeing with you. It is the
17 balance and it is the extent to which --
18 MR GARNHAM: Let us look at that balance. Mr Griffiths told
19 us when he gave evidence, Day 49 page 139, that a one to
20 one relationship uniform against detectives was the
21 aspirational target but that one detective to every two
22 uniforms was what he regarded as sensible. Would you
23 agree with that?
24 MR KENDRICK: Generally, give or take, generally, one-third
25 CID background with CID experience and training,
108
1 two-thirds uniform with the necessary training.
2 MR GARNHAM: You have now looked at appendix O since his
3 evidence?
4 MR KENDRICK: I have.
5 MR GARNHAM: In number 1 Area six detectives to 14 uniform
6 officers?
7 MR KENDRICK: (Nods).
8 MR GARNHAM: That is including for these purposes the
9 inspector as a detective and there is an argument
10 perhaps that one should not do that.
11 2 Area, 13 detectives to 48 uniforms. 3 Area,
12 24 detectives, 46 uniforms. 4 Area, 23 place 30.
13 5 Area, 23 place 38. Quite a variation.
14 MR KENDRICK: Indeed.
15 MR GARNHAM: In 4 Area, for example, there are four uniform
16 officers for every three detectives, whereas in 2 Area
17 four uniform officers almost for every one detective,
18 and that is a significant difference, is it not?
19 MR KENDRICK: Sir, yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: Why is it that 4 Area have three times as many
21 detectives on average as 2 Area?
22 MR KENDRICK: I cannot answer that. The only thing that
23 I can answer is that I did not spot appendix O and the
24 implications particularly of number 2 Area, the North
25 West, and I did not examine that. It was not identified
109
1 as such although other issues were identified in the
2 body of the report as you have referred to about acting
3 DIs and others.
4 The actual ratio of CID officers to uniform officers
5 was not identified in the body of the report, was not
6 the subject of any particular specific comment in the
7 observations or conclusions or the recommendations, but
8 I accept my responsibility that I did not actually
9 identify in the appendix that deficiency.
10 MR GARNHAM: You will see why it is of concern to us?
11 MR KENDRICK: I understand.
12 MR GARNHAM: Victoria's case concerned 2 Area and we now
13 discover that in fact they were much less well resourced
14 with detectives than other areas.
15 MR KENDRICK: But likewise I have reflected, if I may, over
16 the last few months as to whether that could have made
17 any significant difference.
18 MR GARNHAM: Is not the involvement of those with detective
19 training or detective experience important in a well
20 constructed CPT?
21 MR KENDRICK: I actually believe that the balance of skills
22 and experience and training is important.
23 MR GARNHAM: You have said you agree with Mr Griffiths
24 saying one to two is sensible, one to one is what we
25 should be aspiring to.
110
1 MR KENDRICK: In an ideal world. My personal view would be,
2 sir, if the decision was mine would be one to two.
3 MR GARNHAM: But on either measure number 2 Area was falling
4 well short.
5 MR KENDRICK: I acknowledge that.
6 MR GARNHAM: Mr Kelleher says that he is aiming for
7 70 per cent detectives. Sensible?
8 MR KENDRICK: I would -- my personal view is that I would
9 question that regarding the availability of detective
10 skills, I have already made my point clear. I think it
11 would be something to aspire to, 50/50. 70 per cent,
12 that is very, very ambitious and I am wondering what
13 other key area of criminal investigation would actually
14 have to suffer as a result of that.
15 That is not suggesting -- and this is the biggest
16 difficulty in making decisions regarding resource, that
17 there is implied implication that certain things are not
18 important and, well, I feel very strongly about that but
19 it is a question of balance of the skills necessary, the
20 motivation, the aptitude, the enthusiasm, the leadership
21 that goes with all those things. Just because somebody
22 is a detective, unless all these other ingredients are
23 there, it is not going to be the sole answer.
24 MR GARNHAM: I am sure, but we have been focusing on the
25 performance of Brent and Haringey CP teams for reasons
111
1 that are obvious.
2 MR KENDRICK: Indeed.
3 MR GARNHAM: As it happens, I think it is right, is it not,
4 that Brent, the only detective in Brent was the DI that
5 they shared with Harrow?
6 MR KENDRICK: Sir, without going into the detail --
7 MR GARNHAM: I have taken that from this report, from
8 appendix O.
9 MR KENDRICK: Right.
10 MR GARNHAM: I think it is also right we were told by
11 DI Howard that he had no detective experience and he led
12 the Haringey team.
13 MR KENDRICK: But, sir, what concerns me, that these issues
14 were not specifically addressed with me.
15 MR GARNHAM: Precisely. Why were they not being addressed
16 with you? Why was the mechanism not in place to ensure
17 that you knew about these problems?
18 MR KENDRICK: But the other thing is of course were there
19 mechanisms on the area where the specific responsibility
20 lay for these to be identified and addressed?
21 MR GARNHAM: So you move the blame for this portfolio from
22 portfolio holder to the area?
23 MR KENDRICK: No, I do not pass the blame, sir, I accept
24 some of the responsibility, but there are other people
25 responsible as well operationally as I was on my area,
112
1 but I am certainly not passing the blame.
2 MR GARNHAM: There are two ways in which you can ensure you
3 have got the right balance of officers on a team. One
4 is by recruiting the right people, the other is by
5 training those you have.
6 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: So let us turn to training then of CPTs. You
8 tell us in paragraph 25 of your statement that you
9 remember attending the detective training school and
10 discussing selection and training of CP officers.
11 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: When was that?
13 MR KENDRICK: I cannot remember when it was. I went
14 a number of occasions.
15 MR GARNHAM: Before or after the report?
16 MR KENDRICK: Before.
17 MR GARNHAM: Before the report. Yes, it must have been
18 because it was as a result of that discussion I think
19 that you requested the review of core competencies?
20 MR KENDRICK: I requested that in February 1998, sir.
21 MR GARNHAM: So this visit must have been before that?
22 MR KENDRICK: Indeed. Sir, if I could give the context in
23 that. There had been embargo on promotion. There had
24 been a total revision of the foundation, basic training
25 course for CID officers and there was just a number of
113
1 small support staff at the detective training school
2 running ad hoc courses. The staff had been run down.
3 MR GARNHAM: Why was that?
4 MR KENDRICK: People were preparing for the new foundation
5 course.
6 MR GARNHAM: I am not sure why that explains that you did
7 not make use of the school that was there to train up
8 more officers in CP teams to be detective.
9 MR KENDRICK: If I may continue.
10 MR GARNHAM: Please, but answer that as you do if you would.
11 MR KENDRICK: Certainly. Up until 1997 and including 1997,
12 because back in 1996 I recall that there was a review
13 conducted of CP training which was satisfactory, 1997
14 CPT training was continuing as norm. At the end of 1997
15 I was informed that there was not going to be any
16 further CPT training in 1998. I asked that to be
17 addressed. When it could not be addressed or the staff
18 working for me were unable to address it, I took it up
19 personally on two fronts.
20 I asked first of all for a training needs analysis,
21 a core competencies because I was not totally reassured
22 that the training being provided actually was meeting
23 the current needs as they were developing for Child
24 Protection Team officers. That is the first piece of
25 work I asked which was a lengthy piece of work.
114
1 MR GARNHAM: What was its result?
2 MR KENDRICK: A very detailed core competency framework was
3 produced and a training needs analysis produced just
4 about the time I retired.
5 MR GARNHAM: Did that demonstrate that hitherto the training
6 had not been correctly focused?
7 MR KENDRICK: No, it identified in my understanding -- it
8 did not go in categorically chapter and verse, it was
9 not a critique of the previous course, it just moved it
10 on as a professional piece of work from all the
11 practitioners themselves, professionally done, what
12 their training needs were. This needed to be
13 incorporated in revised training.
14 MR GARNHAM: Did that happen? Were there revised CPT
15 courses held as a result?
16 MR KENDRICK: Sir, I had left the service but I actually
17 went to the --
18 MR GARNHAM: I thought you said this had begun in 1998.
19 MR KENDRICK: It had.
20 MR GARNHAM: By the end of 1998 were there revised CPT
21 courses being conducted at Hendon?
22 MR KENDRICK: There were courses being conducted because
23 I went -- there were not revised ones because the piece
24 of work had not been completed but I did ask for --
25 because there was no training planned I did ask for
115
1 a CPT courses on the lines that had been run in
2 1996/1997 to be run until we had got the training needs
3 analysis, until there had been a total review of Child
4 Protection Team training. I was not prepared to allow
5 for a year to go by without CPT training.
6 MR GARNHAM: Mr Griffiths told us, Day 49 page 191, that the
7 CPT course at Hendon during 1998 was very poorly
8 attended, very poor uptake of places, and one course had
9 to be cancelled altogether; do you recollect that?
10 MR KENDRICK: I recollect it now, yes.
11 MR GARNHAM: Why is it that given the need for training,
12 places on the training courses were not being taken up?
13 MR KENDRICK: I have been trying to -- there were two
14 courses arranged. It is my understanding that one was
15 held and one had to be cancelled through lack of
16 take-up.
17 MR GARNHAM: I do not understand why that should be so,
18 since there is this need for training. Is it that
19 officers are too busy with their day-to-day work to
20 attend training courses or they are not being instructed
21 to attend them or what?
22 MR KENDRICK: I cannot answer that because I have reflected
23 on this to see whether or not -- because it was at my
24 instigation that these two courses were actually
25 organised.
116
1 MR GARNHAM: You cannot help us with why they were poorly
2 attended?
3 MR KENDRICK: I cannot help you why the reasons why one had
4 to be cancelled. I recall at the back of my mind that
5 I personally expressed some disappointment and
6 frustration with that and I am sure I would have said
7 so, although looking back now I cannot find it in any
8 minutes or any satisfactory explanation as to why that
9 occurred, but one full course was held.
10 MR GARNHAM: According to the report, and it is
11 paragraph 5.28 if you want to look at it, the two-week
12 CPT course at Hendon was not run for at least seven
13 months. Why seven?
14 MR KENDRICK: As I say, there were no facilities, limited
15 facilities available at the detective training school,
16 because they were preparing for the new foundation
17 course and all their staff were engaged with the post
18 Lawrence senior investigating officer training.
19 MR GARNHAM: It is pretty hopeless, is it not, that the
20 Metropolitan Police are not running a CPT course for
21 more than half a year and that means new officers are
22 joining teams, and not getting trained presumably?
23 MR KENDRICK: The situation was that we could not arrange it
24 by virtue of all the five areas. People did not
25 actually join CP teams at the same time. So we tried to
117
1 organise the courses so that people within the first six
2 months or so of their posting received this training.
3 MR GARNHAM: One can see the good sense of that and it is
4 commented upon in the report, is it not? They note,
5 5.29, one common complaint about training was its
6 timeliness.
7 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely right.
8 MR GARNHAM: Often having to wait for more than six months
9 by which time the trainees felt they had already got the
10 grip of the job anyway.
11 MR KENDRICK: Well, I do not automatically subscribe to that
12 because I actually believe that training is valuable.
13 Some of its value is negated by the time but I actually
14 believe there are circumstances.
15 MR GARNHAM: Surely you should have been ensuring one way or
16 another that CPT courses were available to CP team
17 members so that they were not having to wait nine months
18 before they got on a course?
19 MR KENDRICK: Sir, as soon as I became aware, I was aware
20 that during 1996/1997 there were ongoing series of Child
21 Protection Team courses. These issues were never
22 brought to my attention. At the end of 1997 this issue
23 of proposed no foreseeable training in 1998 for CPTs was
24 brought to my attention. I dealt with it. I actually
25 went to the training school on two occasions. I spoke
118
1 to people. I actually got two courses arranged for the
2 latter part of that year. I actually got up in February
3 the core competency framework research and also the
4 training needs analysis.
5 MR GARNHAM: One can see what you were doing in response but
6 I am interested not only in that but also in what the
7 Met were doing, but you have helped us with that, thank
8 you.
9 I do not think I will finish this witness before
10 lunch. I probably have another 20 minutes with him.
11 Would this be a convenient moment to rise?
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Garnham. Mr Kendrick during the
13 lunch break you are not allowed to discuss your
14 evidence -- I think you are familiar with that -- with
15 everyone including your advocate. We will rise until
16 a quarter to 2.
17 (1.05 pm)
18 (The short adjournment)
19 (1.45 pm)
20 MR GARNHAM: I am about to turn to ask you about what the
21 report said in relation to the status of CPTs, but
22 I want to ask you to look at appendix G in volume 31,
23 please. You will recall that I asked you whether visits
24 were made to Edgware and Highgate police stations.
25 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
119
1 MR GARNHAM: I think we can see from appendix G, a page of
2 which is 31.076, we see in 2 Area that both Edgware and
3 Highgate, the police stations for Brent and Haringey
4 respectively, were visited.
5 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
6 MR GARNHAM: We have already looked at the passage in the
7 inspection report where it is noted that CPTs regarded
8 themselves as poor relations. That was 4.45.
9 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
10 MR GARNHAM: There are other occasions during the course of
11 this report where there is mentioned concern about lack
12 of facilities or equipment, is there not? For example
13 4.53:
14 "The staff of many CPTs had to spend a considerable
15 amount of time travelling - both to SSD offices and to
16 their video interviewing facilities (e.g. Feltham,
17 Highgate). The lack of appropriate, accessible
18 facilities at some locations (or perhaps the fact that
19 CPTs considered themselves 'lucky' to have facilities at
20 all) highlights how CPTs see themselves as the 'poor
21 relations' of the MPS."
22 You saw that when you saw this report, presumably,
23 and if you go to the next paragraph, "Equipment", 4.54:
24 "Generally, pagers, mobile telephones and radios
25 were in short supply and often provided only for DIs
120
1 and/or one 'on-call' officer. The lack of a dedicated
2 CPT vehicle also caused concern for many CPTs. Whilst
3 officers can claim private user mileage, they often have
4 to cover considerable distances. There are times when
5 an official car would be beneficial, such as when making
6 an arrest, and to avoid officers' own vehicles being
7 recognised and targeted by offenders."
8 Then comments about the CRIS machines and the stand
9 alone computers.
10 How did you react to those observations about lack
11 of facilities and resources for the CPTs? Not news,
12 I imagine?
13 MR KENDRICK: Sir, some of it was. Not totally knew, no.
14 The extent to which it came over was, I sense, rather
15 stark here.
16 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
17 MR KENDRICK: But I said earlier, from my impressions,
18 whilst there were ongoing concerns about some of these
19 issues, from my experience on 3 Area I generally found
20 them to be well motivated people doing a good job, and
21 these issues had not been brought to my attention
22 previously, and people had a number of opportunities of
23 doing this.
24 MR GARNHAM: Consistent complaint we have had from witnesses
25 called to give evidence to this Inquiry, consistent
121
1 complaint, right the way from constable to inspector, is
2 that the facilities and equipment available to CPTs was
3 inadequate. Either that message is not getting up to
4 the top, up to you, or the top is not taking any notice
5 of it. There does not seem to me to be a third, is
6 there?
7 MR KENDRICK: It is all relative, sir. If that is their
8 perception, of the seriousness and difficulties that
9 they have experienced, that is obviously of concern to
10 us. I can say to you that I was not aware of the level
11 of frustration and concern. It had not been brought to
12 my attention through the three/four years that I have
13 been in situ where people had ample opportunity,
14 particularly the detective inspectors, and that is what
15 really disappointed -- concerned and frustrated me; that
16 I had quite properly allowed forums for the detective
17 inspectors and one of those I recall in February of 1998
18 was a whole day, where in the afternoon we split into
19 groups and throughout the time, the last two to
20 three years I had given -- and the minutes show this --
21 the detective inspectors every opportunity to contribute
22 to the agenda setting.
23 MR GARNHAM: So if there is something real in this they
24 should have been complaining and reporting to you
25 earlier?
122
1 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely right. I fully accept, sir, that
2 you could suggest that perhaps it says something about
3 me, or the way I chaired my meetings at these things, or
4 contrary to that, that they actually did not tell me, or
5 the extent of the problem was such that it was not of
6 such significance, otherwise they would have told me.
7 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. Side by side with that feeling that
8 CPTs are the poor relations was this image that we have
9 talked about before that the CPTs had within the Met.
10 Can you go to paragraph 5.2 in this report, please:
11 "Such a perception [namely that described in 5.1,
12 that officers wanted to join for the wrong reasons:
13 avoid working shifts, 9 to 5 job, more to do with
14 childcare than crime investigation] indeed still seems
15 to remain in parts of the Organisation: references to
16 'fluffy image; 'cardigan squad; 'babysitters'; CPT
17 equals 'cakes, parties and teas' were all heard during
18 the inspection."
19 We see what it says in the next paragraph in
20 a moment but let me ask but that much so far. Were
21 those perceptions ones which you heard voiced?
22 MR KENDRICK: No, sir.
23 MR GARNHAM: This came as a complete surprise to you, did
24 it?
25 MR KENDRICK: No. It did not come to me -- the terminology,
123
1 the starkness, the prejudice, the insensitivity hurt.
2 However, because of my involvement from the very early
3 days, I was under the impression, maybe naively, that
4 much of that had actually gone. I fully accept that
5 there was still a prejudice about, there were still
6 ill-informed opinions, because of the extent of my
7 working in a culture of 35/36 years. It would have been
8 naive of me to think that there were not some
9 individuals -- and we all work in the main sometimes in
10 vacuums -- because of their lack of knowledge,
11 sensitivity or wishing to be involved, may have certain
12 prejudice and views from earlier times of limited
13 experiences that they may or may not have.
14 MR GARNHAM: You would agree with me, would you, that these
15 sort of remarks are not just insensitive, they are crass
16 and wrong?
17 MR KENDRICK: They are crass, wrong, unprofessional,
18 demeaning and represent everything that I tried to
19 address and to stand for during my time in Child
20 Protection.
21 MR GARNHAM: There is a slight contradiction in the way the
22 report is phrased in that 5.2 says such a perception
23 indeed still seems to remain in parts, whereas 5.3 says
24 that has now changed.
25 We have had two conflicting views on that so far.
124
1 Ms Akers thought that that perception was continuing,
2 whereas Mr Griffiths said that he thought that had
3 ceased, that that was old hat. Do you have a view?
4 MR KENDRICK: I actually believe -- I firmly believe that
5 much of that is behind us but it would be naive of me to
6 say that it is totally old hat, because people are not
7 like that, and an organisation takes time to change and
8 regrettably we need to make sure it is old hat.
9 MR GARNHAM: It is not just matters of perception, is it?
10 This had a real material effect because it affected
11 recruitment to CPTs.
12 MR KENDRICK: The negative impact of that type of behaviour
13 is fundamental and considerable and totally
14 unacceptable.
15 MR GARNHAM: And affected recruitment?
16 MR KENDRICK: And I believe could have but I actually
17 believe that it was not as stark -- my perception is it
18 was not as stark as that, from my perception, but that
19 caused me some concern and cannot be ignored. It is
20 a major issue there.
21 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever give thought, if faced with a lack
22 of detectives on CPTs, simply to posting somebody, a CID
23 officer, on to a CPT?
24 MR KENDRICK: I would see that, sir, as a policy of last
25 resort.
125
1 MR GARNHAM: But it is one you can use?
2 MR KENDRICK: No doubt about that at all and I have done it,
3 sir.
4 MR GARNHAM: The Met had to do something similar, did they
5 not, at Heathrow at one stage to get that properly
6 staffed?
7 MR KENDRICK: That is going back a long time, sir. All
8 I would say now is we have to be sensitive and careful
9 regarding fairness and equal opportunities and
10 industrial tribunals, but bottom line the right to
11 manage, but I would say it would be a policy of last
12 resort.
13 MR GARNHAM: Yes, thank you. After you had received this
14 report you presumably sent it to all the Area DCIs?
15 MR KENDRICK: That was done automatically, sir, in the
16 distribution list. I had every confidence that from the
17 distribution list on the report that they would have got
18 it within a matter of days.
19 MR GARNHAM: Could you have volume 30 in front of you,
20 please. Page 156.75. That I think is the covering
21 letter that you sent out to DCI Gorrey on 3 Area Crime
22 OCU.
23 MR KENDRICK: Indeed.
24 MR GARNHAM: And I imagine something similar was sent to all
25 the other DCIs, was it?
126
1 MR KENDRICK: It was. Yes indeed.
2 MR GARNHAM: You asked for initial responses by
3 25th November.
4 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
5 MR GARNHAM: Ready to discuss at a seminar on the 27th?
6 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely. Arranging 27th November for the
7 biannual detective inspectors' meeting, we tried to take
8 into account it was subsequent to the publication of
9 this report so it could be embraced.
10 MR GARNHAM: We have a copy of an extensive response to this
11 by DCI Gorrey.
12 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
13 MR GARNHAM: Is it Mike Gorrey? I think there is more than
14 one Gorrey in our -- you may not be able to remember his
15 first name. Oh, it is Joe, I am sorry.
16 MR KENDRICK: Joe. Thank you for helping me.
17 MR GARNHAM: We have an extensive response from him in our
18 papers. Sir for your note it is in the same volume,
19 156.701. I do not want to take you to that in any
20 detail because it is lengthy and detailed. Did you have
21 responses in similar terms from all the other areas, or
22 was it just Mr Gorrey who replied?
23 MR KENDRICK: I cannot recall seeing -- because of the very
24 short time scales and the intervening Christmas and
25 New Year period -- seeing detailed responses from the
127
1 other areas prior to our next meeting on 5th January,
2 sir.
3 MR GARNHAM: Because what you wanted was initial views by
4 that November date, then you wanted considered views by
5 what was going to be your last senior supervisors'
6 meeting, I think.
7 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely right.
8 MR GARNHAM: Again in volume 33A, please. (Handed). Page 1,
9 we have the minutes of that senior supervisors' meeting
10 of 5th January. If you go over to page 2 we see the way
11 in which each of the recommendations in this report were
12 dealt with.
13 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
14 MR GARNHAM: Can I just make sure we are looking at the same
15 thing, please. I would like you to go back, please, to
16 the report which is now being put in front of you. The
17 recommendations appear periodically through the text of
18 the report, yes?
19 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
20 MR GARNHAM: Then they are brought together in an appendix
21 at AD, which is at page 119 in that bundle. Volume 31,
22 page 119.
23 MR KENDRICK: Sorry to keep you. Yes, thank you.
24 MR GARNHAM: We see there summary of recommendations and
25 that runs from number 1 to number 14. In fact, I think
128
1 there were three more, which are missing from the bundle
2 we have been supplied with, but in fact the Met have let
3 us have a copy of that this morning and we will see it
4 is added to the bundle for others. The meeting that
5 I was just asking you to look at, the minutes of which
6 I was asking you to look at of 5th January, went through
7 these recommendations one by one, I think.
8 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
9 MR GARNHAM: We can see the discussion there for ourselves.
10 In particular, at paragraph 5.9, we can see the way in
11 which the other recommendations not specifically covered
12 were dealt with:
13 "With regard to the other recommendations not raised
14 for discussion at this meeting, all members present
15 assured Commander Kendrick that they will be taking
16 these forward for implementation at a local level. All
17 were agreed unanimously and many were implemented now
18 following consultation."
19 MR KENDRICK: "... implemented now following consultation."
20 Yes, sir.
21 MR GARNHAM: So we can read for ourselves how each of these
22 recommendations was dealt with, bearing in mind that
23 those that are not discussed specifically were covered
24 by that paragraph.
25 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
129
1 MR GARNHAM: If I asked you what happened to the
2 implementation of those recommendations, you tell me
3 that is after you left?
4 MR KENDRICK: I would not be able to give you any specific
5 detail sir, no.
6 MR GARNHAM: Some of the recommendations were not accepted
7 in the course of this meeting. If we run through them,
8 recommendation 2, that was agreed; recommendation 3,
9 various discussion, you emphasised the need for
10 corporate approach in agreeing documentation and it was
11 agreed that one was going to be drafted.
12 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
13 MR GARNHAM: Recommendation 6, general consent; 7 -- well,
14 we can read them for ourselves. Looking at them in the
15 round, though, Mr Kendrick, and referring back to what
16 you told us were your concerns when this started, the
17 recommendations relating to operational procedures to
18 working practices of which there were quite a number,
19 numbers 2 to 11, are all concerned I think without
20 exception with matters of bureaucracy. I am not
21 suggesting those matters are not important but they are
22 concerned with form-filling and common approach to that
23 sort of subject.
24 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: The only one that deals with anything more
130
1 substantive is recommendation 4, which you see at
2 page 119 in volume 31, where it is recommended that the
3 Walworth practice be considered by others.
4 MR KENDRICK: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: In fact, again with one exception, all of the
6 Walworth practices are the bureaucratic nature. Were
7 you content that the way in which the operational
8 concerns you had were addressed in this report by
9 looking at form filling and matters of that sort?
10 MR KENDRICK: Not totally sir, no. That is why I was very
11 concerned that I handed over to Mr Griffiths all the
12 recommendations with the current status as to how people
13 were responding to them.
14 MR GARNHAM: My concern is more general that that and that
15 is this: that the recommendations that came out of this
16 report suggest alterations to procedures, but they do
17 not get any more involved with the everyday practice at
18 CPTs than that. Did you see that as a weakness in this
19 report?
20 MR KENDRICK: Sir, my impression from the report was that in
21 general terms the state of CPTs were in a quite
22 reasonable healthy situation, apart from those various
23 areas that we have referred to over the last three
24 hours.
25 MR GARNHAM: I see. The second area you had been concerned
131
1 about was selection. There is only one recommendation
2 which is relevant to that, which is number 12:
3 "The inspection team recommends that other Areas
4 explore the possibility of introducing similar
5 procedures as those on 4 Area for the selection (and
6 training) of CPT personnel."
7 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
8 MR GARNHAM: That is the only one that deals with that
9 subject.
10 MR KENDRICK: But I see that as very very good practice, and
11 if I recall, that was being taken up by a specific
12 working group.
13 MR GARNHAM: Yes. It dealt, however, with how best you
14 select from those who apply. It did not deal with how
15 you encourage the best to apply.
16 MR KENDRICK: Sir, I accept that entirely, however the issue
17 of marketing was an issue that had been raised and
18 discussed at the DIs' meeting on the 27th of November.
19 I am not suggesting that we went into any depth but the
20 whole question of marketing, selling, improving the
21 representation and image perceptions of the Child
22 Protection Team are -- some good practice was
23 identified: mentoring, having open days, and I made the
24 point at the meeting of the 27th November, it was
25 a responsibility of all those senior officers present,
132
1 particularly the senior detectives and the detective
2 inspectors, to actually sell their service to actually
3 promote the good work that they were doing. But there
4 were also some very good examples of good practice that
5 I wanted to be taken up, as a result of this inspection.
6 MR GARNHAM: Were you not disappointed that the inspection
7 made no recommendations about how to attract better,
8 more officers to CPTs?
9 MR KENDRICK: It would have been helpful if they -- but in
10 fairness, they actually had given some indications which
11 could be perceived as trying to assist us with that,
12 such as mentoring, such as attachments, such as the new
13 selection procedure on 4 Area, and a number of positive
14 things that would assist in marketing and enhancing the
15 role and reputation of CPT officers.
16 MR GARNHAM: Next, training. Four recommendations directed
17 to that, numbers 13 to 16. All of them deal with local
18 training, area training. They do not deal with the need
19 for detective investigative skills training, or Met-wide
20 training.
21 MR KENDRICK: But in fairness, sir, of course you will be
22 aware that on the 27th November, at our meeting, those
23 issues of core competencies, because very many CPT
24 officers had been interviewed and had done working
25 groups at length to identify the core competencies
133
1 required to order training needs analysis, that was work
2 that was well progressed.
3 MR GARNHAM: I see. Welfare and supervision was your last
4 category. Two recommendations going to that, numbers 1
5 and 17. Number 17 does not appear in the version we
6 have, although it may have been added to other people's
7 bundles. I have just got it:
8 "Recommended that all relevant meetings are properly
9 documented and that stress welfare issues should be
10 included as standing agenda items."
11 That deals with the matter we have discussed this
12 morning. And the only thing relevant to supervision was
13 recommendation 1:
14 "All CPTs encourage their sergeants to become
15 actively involved in the allocation of work to their
16 investigators."
17 Nothing about quality of supervision.
18 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir, that is correct.
19 MR GARNHAM: The suggestion I need to put to you,
20 Mr Kendrick, is that at the end of this process the
21 report you got was not making suggestions for
22 substantive change to the way the CPT were run, it was
23 making alterations at the edges. Do you think that is
24 fair?
25 MR KENDRICK: No, sir. I think that it was actually
134
1 highlighting a number of key issues about the
2 effectiveness of the partnership, multi-agency working,
3 which to me was a very positive point. It was
4 highlighting -- quite clear, unequivocal -- the view
5 that the vast majority of people felt that they were not
6 receiving the amount of equipment that they were
7 entitled to.
8 That is why in my training needs analysis in the
9 inspection and the processes that were involved with
10 those, with extensive interviewing by teams of CPT
11 officers, that I tried to get over that there was
12 a senior officer, the Metropolitan Police was concerned
13 about what they did and how they did it, about their
14 training, about the work that they did, that it was
15 valued.
16 And going back to the meeting on the 27th November,
17 I actually made those points, because, again, in
18 addition to what had happened, there was some
19 uncertainty as to where child protection teams would sit
20 in the future, with the development of community safety
21 units, the changing to all policing becoming
22 borough-based, and the minutes of that meeting show how
23 important and how much I personally valued what they did
24 and how they did it.
25 MR GARNHAM: Mr Kendrick, you left the Met before
135
1 Victoria Climbie arrived in Britain.
2 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
3 MR GARNHAM: Is it fair to say that given your portfolio
4 responsibilities you were responsible ultimately for the
5 state the CPTs were in at the beginning of 1999?
6 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
7 MR GARNHAM: It might be said -- it will be a matter for the
8 Chairman and his colleagues -- it might be said that
9 Victoria's case has revealed some significant
10 deficiencies in at least two of the CPT teams.
11 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
12 MR GARNHAM: Was it not your responsibility to ensure that
13 the people of those parts of London received a competent
14 child protection service from the Met?
15 MR KENDRICK: Sir, it was and I accept that responsibility.
16 I accept my responsibility regarding the portfolio
17 responsibility and it is the subject of great personal
18 regret to me that the inspection process -- that I did
19 not require the inspection or ensure, through the terms
20 of reference or my actual action, was not able -- did
21 not actually identify the supervisory issues of any
22 failure in duty by drilling down. Since this Inquiry
23 that has been something that I have given a lot of time
24 and reflection to.
25 MR GARNHAM: What have you concluded?
136
1 MR KENDRICK: I regret that very much and I sincerely hope
2 and wish that it had, with a view that it could have
3 made a difference.
4 MR GARNHAM: Yes, thank you very much.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Garnham. Mr Thwaites, please.
6 MR THWAITES: Thank you, sir. Mr Kendrick, what would you
7 say to the suggestion if it were to be couched in these
8 terms, that the CPTs were set up and then left to rot
9 for ten years?
10 MR KENDRICK: I would refute that totally, sir. That, in my
11 view, was not the case. I personally took an active
12 interest and with my responsibilities I endeavoured to
13 try to discharge those to the very best of my ability.
14 We have heard this morning what actual steps I took to
15 make sure I was -- the Metropolitan Police was not
16 complacent, that we did have a handle to the best of our
17 ability as to where CPTs were and what needed to be
18 done, and I and others tried to address those.
19 MR THWAITES: It may further be suggested that the CPTs were
20 allowed to deteriorate so that they were incapable of
21 functioning effectively.
22 MR KENDRICK: No, sir I do not accept that. They were
23 dedicated units, set up with selected staff that were
24 trained both formally and locally, and there is evidence
25 that that was very beneficial, evidence that there were
137
1 very good, in the main, working relationships with the
2 partners, built up over many years.
3 Whilst I will accept that I would have liked to have
4 done more in resourcing terms, I believe that they had
5 sufficient to undertake their task because of, in the
6 main, the evidence that I had and my personal
7 impressions of the professionalism and dedication of
8 those members.
9 MR THWAITES: And does it follow, Mr Kendrick, that neither
10 of those descriptions of CPTs corresponds with your
11 experience or knowledge of CPTs up to the time of your
12 retirement in early 1999?
13 MR KENDRICK: That is correct, sir. Yes.
14 MR THWAITES: Now, let me ask you your view, please, of the
15 connection between basic failures in duty by individual
16 officers and lack of resources. Looking at cause and
17 effect in relation to the tragic death of Victoria, can
18 you identify any lack of equipment, IT, transport,
19 accommodation, training or status that could account
20 for, explain or begin to excuse failures of duty?
21 MR KENDRICK: Sir, I followed this case very closely and
22 I have tried to remain objective and balanced in my
23 response to that and I cannot see any explanation,
24 justification, mitigation or excuse regarding why basic
25 duty was not exercised.
138
1 MR THWAITES: Can we understand, please, a little further
2 the use of the term "internal inspections by the Met"?
3 You have described them as a management tool. On how
4 many occasions have you triggered internal inspections
5 of this kind during your course of service?
6 MR KENDRICK: I have personal knowledge of three/four
7 directly sponsored by me, sir, and involved with
8 a number of others that I have been party to, with
9 others.
10 MR THWAITES: Are they or were they sparingly used as
11 management tools, or are they available when anyone
12 thinks they would like to have a look-see of how
13 a particular area of policing is working?
14 MR KENDRICK: No, we have to account for and justify the use
15 of this resource in a changing environment -- and
16 I mentioned the time of unprecedented change, and I have
17 explained about the role of HMIC and the Metropolitan
18 Police inspection. I used them sparingly when I felt
19 there was a need and I had to justify it to my senior
20 colleagues so that that resource was being used most
21 effectively and most appropriately.
22 MR THWAITES: Were there any set criteria that had to be
23 satisfied to justify an inspection, and if so, what were
24 they?
25 MR KENDRICK: I was not aware of any set criteria. It was
139
1 just in my case the three specific cases that
2 I recall -- child protection, domestic violence and
3 sexual offences -- it was the strength of my argument to
4 my case, my concern, over a period of time some of the
5 factors that I went through when they were previously
6 inspected, changes, genuine concerns that I may have or
7 may have been brought to my attention so that I could
8 have an independent, accurate view of the situation
9 regarding those disciplines on which I and my colleagues
10 could act.
11 MR THWAITES: Is the Inquiry to understand that such
12 inspections were only used when alarm bells were ringing
13 that you had real cause for concern, or could they be
14 used in other circumstances without such anxiety?
15 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely. In circumstances, sir, individual
16 circumstances, depending on the discipline, depending on
17 the lead person or persons responsible for that subject
18 matter, that was a part of the tool kit that people
19 could apply to be used subject to being sanctioned at
20 the most senior level.
21 MR THWAITES: I do not think you quite addressed what I put
22 to you and perhaps I put it badly. Was it in response
23 to an emergency identified, that the fire is started,
24 that you were trying to put it out, that you would have
25 such inspections?
140
1 MR KENDRICK: No sir.
2 MR THWAITES: Or could you justifiably invoke the system if
3 you just wanted to know deep down what was going on?
4 MR KENDRICK: The latter, sir. If you wanted to know deep
5 down, provided you made your case it was not necessary
6 that there were serious concerns or there was an
7 emergency. This was available to be used at any time.
8 MR THWAITES: In this case were the state of CPTs a cause of
9 great concern to you in recognition of problems that you
10 had previously identified, or not?
11 MR KENDRICK: They were not of grave concern to me but as
12 I explained earlier today, I had an ongoing concern
13 about all my responsibilities and I wanted to make sure
14 that everything was as it should be.
15 MR THWAITES: Yes. Did you have an expectation that the
16 CPTs would be given a reasonably clean bill of health
17 when you started on this process of the inspection?
18 MR KENDRICK: I was totally open minded, sir, as to what the
19 results would be, with a total commitment that whatever
20 the results would be they would be addressed.
21 MR THWAITES: When you got the result in the form of the
22 report that we have been through in some detail, it
23 describes CPTs in quite flattering terms. I think you
24 use the term yourself at one stage in your evidence,
25 describe them in the conclusion as "centres of
141
1 excellence". That is an extremely flattering reference,
2 is it not?
3 MR KENDRICK: It is sir, yes.
4 MR THWAITES: There were also some minuses, it was not all
5 positive, but the areas for improvement were reflected,
6 so far as the Inspectorate were concerned, in the
7 recommendations?
8 MR KENDRICK: Recommendations sir, yes, and I also greatly
9 valued the identification of good practice.
10 MR THWAITES: The distribution list that appears after the
11 conclusion that was missing from some of the copies of
12 the report, including my own; the distribution list
13 makes it clear that all CPT detective inspectors were to
14 have their own copy of the report. That is the level
15 down to which it went.
16 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
17 MR THWAITES: No doubt it was anticipated that they would
18 make reports available to the sergeants and the
19 constables and the civilians, all people working on
20 CPTs.
21 MR KENDRICK: I would certainly hope that sir because many
22 of them had been interviewed at length and all of them
23 had the opportunity of completing the pro-forma, and
24 during my discussions I made it clear on many occasions
25 that I wanted there to be two-way communication.
142
1 MR THWAITES: So you hoped and believed everyone would have
2 access to it who had an interest?
3 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely, sir.
4 MR THWAITES: You told Mr Garnham this morning you arranged
5 a debrief to detective inspectors on the report,
6 yourself, at your specially constituted detective
7 inspectors' bi-annual meeting.
8 MR KENDRICK: On the 27th November, yes.
9 MR THWAITES: That being a level of contact you had
10 established in 1997 between you as Commander and
11 detective inspectors?
12 MR KENDRICK: That is right sir, and, obviously, I wanted to
13 involve them with the two inspectors who did the
14 inspection. I had the two officers from the Personnel
15 and Training Department who had actually completed the
16 core competency work towards the training needs
17 analysis. I had the senior trainer and two or three of
18 his staff from the detective training school all
19 together at this meeting on the 27th November to discuss
20 this report and the core competencies and to reflect on
21 how important the way forward was.
22 MR THWAITES: The author of the report, Stella Evans, was
23 part of the presentation by outside guests, was she?
24 MR KENDRICK: She was and she was involved earlier at my
25 meetings at other levels.
143
1 MR THWAITES: At this meeting did you have some of the
2 acting detective inspectors from the CPTs, some of the
3 sergeants who were in the position of doing the job of
4 detective inspectors?
5 MR KENDRICK: Sir, it is of some regret that regarding the
6 minutes it does not actually give an attendance list.
7 MR THWAITES: No it does not.
8 MR KENDRICK: But I actually encouraged for the detective
9 inspector and/or his or her nominee in their absence to
10 attend, and I remember at a number of the meetings there
11 were senior detective sergeants present.
12 MR THWAITES: Yes, thank you. Now, did any of those
13 detective inspectors or sergeants acting in that role in
14 child protection ever suggest to you at that meeting or
15 otherwise that he or any of his team disagreed with the
16 findings of the report?
17 MR KENDRICK: No, sir.
18 MR THWAITES: Or thought that it did not reflect the true
19 position as it existed at that time?
20 MR KENDRICK: No, sir.
21 MR THWAITES: Or that it had failed to identify chronic
22 problems that they were suffering on a day-to-day basis?
23 MR KENDRICK: No sir.
24 MR THWAITES: Either because of lack of detectives, lack of
25 vehicles, lack of Otis or any other cause?
144
1 MR KENDRICK: No, sir.
2 MR THWAITES: In the context of what you know about the
3 evidence given by some of the junior ranks before this
4 Inquiry, does that come as anything of a surprise to
5 you, that when you had convened a meeting to enable them
6 to discuss a report, that in its terms many of them must
7 have thought completely ludicrous, describing the CPTs
8 as centres of excellence, not one of them ventured
9 a word of criticism or dissent?
10 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely, sir.
11 MR THWAITES: Can you help the Inquiry whether there is
12 anything in your make up or demeanour or attitude
13 towards junior officers that might have inhibited them
14 or prevented them from expressing themselves fully and
15 frankly?
16 MR KENDRICK: I say no, sir, but I would say that, would
17 I not, but I actually believe that I would be very, very
18 surprised and extremely disappointed if they did not
19 realise how seriously I took this responsibility, how
20 important this work was, that I had over the last three
21 or four years given a lot of time and effort, quite
22 rightly so, and had involved them as detective
23 inspectors both at the meetings and in setting the
24 agenda.
25 MR THWAITES: If anyone felt coy at that meeting, did you
145
1 before you parted with them -- may I just give the page
2 reference without calling it up sir. At volume 33A
3 page 300, it is the penultimate paragraph on the page.
4 Before you parted with them did you instruct senior CPT
5 supervisors on each area to collate the views of their
6 CPT detective inspectors and produce a response to the
7 recommendations contained in the MPS Inspectorate report
8 on CPTs and to report their observations on the future
9 organisational position of CPTs under the proposed
10 borough based policing model, these two reports to be
11 forwarded to DS Tully before 18th December of 1998?
12 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir, I did.
13 MR THWAITES: So that when you came together for your senior
14 supervisors' meeting on 5th January, was it your wish
15 that you had the written views of senior supervisors,
16 setting out the views of everyone on the CPTs for which
17 they were responsible?
18 MR KENDRICK: That was my intention sir, yes.
19 MR THWAITES: Did you get a number of them before that
20 meeting?
21 MR KENDRICK: Sir, I know that I got all of my area
22 responses. I cannot be sure I know there was
23 a difficulty with the other area responsibilities
24 because before Christmas I made a phone call to CO41 to
25 chase them up because I had not had them and I had got
146
1 a feeling that they had not arrived by the 5th January,
2 but I know that we -- everybody was ready to go for full
3 discussions at that meeting.
4 MR THWAITES: Of course the reality is Mr Kendrick that you
5 had taken things as far as this report, you were leaving
6 it in the other hands of people you thought to be
7 capable to carry on the action that you had initiated,
8 having only had a short time between the publication of
9 the report and your retirement.
10 MR KENDRICK: Yes, sir.
11 MR THWAITES: May I finally deal with one other matter,
12 please, to do with detective training and its value in
13 the context of CPTs. What aspect of the CID foundation
14 training course is of value to CPT officers? All of it
15 or only some of it?
16 MR KENDRICK: Some of it, sir, regarding the investigation
17 of assaults, the issue of sexual offences investigation,
18 the gathering of evidence, forensic evidence, the care,
19 control, safety of exhibits. Much of that was
20 incorporated in the SOIT course, Sexual Offences
21 Investigative Technique course, a seven day course.
22 That, combined with the Memorandum of Good Practice,
23 training that occurred on area at the CPT, combined with
24 what I referred to earlier, investigative interviewing
25 training and the local training with Social Services
147
1 Department, combined with on the job training,
2 mentoring, support and positive active supervision and
3 encouragement by their first line supervisors, I believe
4 that that was a very good framework in which to commence
5 CPT duties.
6 Bearing in mind that I was conscious that no one
7 training needs analysis or core competency piece of work
8 had actually been done, that is why I instigated that
9 work, so that with the completion of that work, a really
10 up-to-date, totally relevant and valid training course
11 to be introduced for CPT staff, as again acknowledging
12 their professionalism and their status.
13 MR THWAITES: Thank you Mr Kendrick, thank you sir.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Thwaites. Mr Kendrick, could
15 you help me, please, in answer to Mr Thwaites' last
16 point about the elements of a detective training course
17 that would be relevant to CPT training, people in CPT
18 work? I am a lay person so you have to help me. What
19 percentage would you say of detective training were the
20 elements that you covered? It sounded to me fairly
21 large.
22 MR KENDRICK: Well, sir, I would have thought -- again I am
23 going from memory and it is not very accurate, sir.
24 I put a warning on it. I would have thought probably
25 about a third to 40 per cent, thereabouts, of the course
148
1 would be applicable to CPT officers. But that is
2 a very, very off the top of my head guide and I would
3 much more prefer to rely on the core competencies, the
4 training needs analysis.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you just give me a flavour of the
6 elements of the course that would not be appropriate?
7 MR KENDRICK: Much of the legislation on other crime
8 subjects that Child Protection Team officers would be
9 most unlikely to be called upon to know or to actually
10 manage in the course of their duties, aspects of
11 surveillance work, although there was an intention that
12 in due course hopefully CPTs could become more
13 proactive, but at that time I saw that as being not
14 a major priority but with an open mind. There were
15 other aspects of the training course, but mainly it was
16 policy, practice, procedures, legislation on many
17 aspects of crime that a CPT officer in the specialism
18 that they were working in would not be relevant to their
19 work.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: I ask that because I wonder what are the
21 differences in skills that were necessary to investigate
22 the murder of Victoria from the skills that were
23 necessary to investigate the assaults on Victoria?
24 MR KENDRICK: Yes, I can understand. The assaults on
25 Victoria, sir, I would say that the basic investigation
149
1 was not done, in my perception, and they were --
2 I believe that they should have been within the range of
3 any qualified, experienced police officer. Those with
4 child protection training, those with child protection
5 experience should have been in the position to take all
6 the basic initial steps.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: But an assault on a child is surely as
8 important or even of greater importance than an assault
9 on an adult.
10 MR KENDRICK: Absolutely sir.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: The impression you have given, but please
12 help me if I have this wrong, is the skills necessary to
13 investigate an assault on an adult are greater than the
14 skills necessary to investigate an assault on a child.
15 MR KENDRICK: No. All murder inquiries are such now that
16 irrespective of whether it is child or adult, I believe
17 that with an adult, because of -- sorry, with a child,
18 because of the multi-agency working there are different
19 emphases; that is where Memorandum of Good Practice,
20 investigative interviewing and particularly the local
21 training with social services and on the job training in
22 understanding the ways of working with the local
23 hospital and doctors is so important. That is why the
24 SOIT training was so important.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: So in some respects staff on child protection
150
1 teams should be even more highly trained than on other
2 teams?
3 MR KENDRICK: In certain aspects, and we endeavoured to do
4 that, particularly with SOIT officers taking statements
5 from rape victims. Yes, I would not expect an
6 experienced police officer to actually -- it would not
7 be advisable for them to take a detailed statement from
8 a rape victim. That is why we had this specific course
9 to actually undertake the statement-taking from these
10 victims, whether they are children or rape victims or
11 whatever, in such a way.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, you have followed the evidence to the
13 Inquiry I imagine in detail, particularly from staff
14 from the Metropolitan Police. What has surprised you
15 most about the evidence that has been brought to the
16 Inquiry from the Metropolitan police officers?
17 MR KENDRICK: A great sadness, and the fact that failure in
18 duty in what I was trained and brought up to be as the
19 fundamentals of investigation, sir.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: And what has surprised you most about the
21 reasons that they have put forward about why that did
22 not happen?
23 MR KENDRICK: That is a very difficult question, sir, and it
24 surprised me most. Well, I am actually -- I am
25 flabbergasted, and I reflect when I read, and I am
|
