Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)

¶11.1 Sir Huge Orde, President of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), in describing the

body's functions, said: "ACPO brings together the expertise and experience of chief police officers from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It provides a professional forum to share ideas and best practice, coordinate resources and help deliver effective policing which keeps the public safe."1228

¶11.2 ACPO is an independent, professionally-led strategic body.1229 Sir Hugh explained that in the

public interest, and in equal and active partnership with Government and the Association of Police Authorities (APA) (although in relation to the APA, the position will change with the election of Police and Crime Commissioners in November 2012), ACPO leads and coordinates the direction and development of the Police Service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Police and Justice Act 2006 confirms ACPO as a statutory consultee, and, as Sir Hugh explained:

¶"… We are a company limited by guarantee. We had to have some legal position so G we can employ people and rent buildings, for example, but the office of president is

also enshrined in primary legislation in the Police Act 2002 but apart from that we have no statutory basis."1230

¶11.3 Sir Hugh described the functions of ACPO as including the facilitation of decision making

by Chief Constables at a national level. It also provides national policing coordination, national policing communication, the national development of professional policing practice and oversight, through chief officers, to some national policing units. Sir Hugh explained that in the absence of a federal model of policing ACPO "provides a voluntary structure to secure national agreements which underpin the ability of all forces to deliver consistent and interoperable policing to keep citizens safe and secure."1231 It is worthy of mention that ACPO's

967

¶Chapter 3 | The Press and the Police: The Harm and the Response

current role and responsibilities are subject to change as the Government plans to introduce a new professional body for policing. Sir Hugh reported that it was not yet clear how ACPO's functions will be delivered in this new landscape but until that point it will continue in their current guise.1232

¶11.4 ACPO is currently composed of 340 chief officers holding a rank at or above Assistant Chief

Constable (or the MPS equivalent: Commander). It also includes senior police staff colleagues of equivalent status, for example heads of human resources and finance, and in some forces the heads of communication and legal services.1233

¶11.5 The ACPO membership elects a full-time President, who holds the office of constable and

the rank of Chief Constable under the Police Reform Act 2002.1234 Sir Hugh was elected President of ACPO in 2009: the term of office is four years and the incumbent cannot stand for re-election.1235 As President, Sir Hugh chairs a Council of Chief Constables and acts as the spokesperson for the profession of policing on national issues.1236 Sir Hugh described how his responsibilities differed from that of the MPS Commissioner, for example:

"… I have no operational responsibility or indeed authority at all. My job is to really bring together and through negotiation … get consistent national policies through what we call the Chief Constables' Council, which meets four times a year … My only technical operational responsibility, for example, if the fuel strike comes off, I will be responsible for making sure government is fully informed through Cobra and the Cabinet Office briefing room and my office will be responsible for co-ordinating any necessary movements of police officers around the country, as happened in the serious disturbances in August and as will happen in the pre-planned events around the Olympics. We co-ordinate the movement but the movement is given permission or authority by individual chief constables."1237

¶11.6 As Sir Hugh made clear, each police force operates independently of one another and manages

communications with the media in respect of its own local policing. The role of ACPO is to provide a national voice for the Police Service to "explain, inform and defend the operational G work of the police service to cut crime and protect life."1238 Sir Hugh described this role in more detail:

"It's very much providing a facility that enables the national media to go … to a single point of contact on matters that are of national interest, so in that sense we try and support the local forces where necessary. ACPO itself I describe very much as almost a band of volunteers. The business area work which is undertaken by chief constables … is to try and provide continuity, consistency and at the top end of our business, a consistent approach to the serious threats this country faces, be it terrorism, international crime, public order, those sorts of issues, where you have to have a

968

¶PART G | The Press and the Police: the Relationship consistent approach."1239

¶11.7 There are 14 of the business areas referred to above within ACPO, covering 336 separate

policing functions or types of crime (known as 'portfolios' within ACPO) that are nationally led and coordinated by a Chief Officer. Sir Hugh explained that the Chief Officer led 'portfolios' cover "every sphere of police activity from police use of firearms to metal theft and are supported inside and outside the police service by an ACPO communications team which responds to national media enquiries concerning policing and crime reduction."1240 Sir Hugh went on to explain that the ACPO portfolio lead, through his or her national role, can draw on policing colleagues of all ranks and that with their support they can "offer an informed view on behalf of the police service as a whole, rather than a single force."1241

¶11.8 ACPO has its own press office which works in support of the body's national communications

role. Sir Hugh said that the press office works in close cooperation with "police force press offices but takes the lead in supporting the police service's strategic response to national policing issues."1242 In expanding on this point, he said:

"It's very important that I'm very keen that the president of ACPO, whoever holds this position, doesn't speak on all policing matters, we simply don't have the capacity to have a detailed knowledge. But what we do have for example are 14 business areas, for example crime is run currently by the chief constable of Merseyside, uniform operations matters is run by the chief constable of Norfolk. So if there was a matter pertaining to their specialism I would defer or my press officer would certainly make sure that someone from that business area was available to the national media to speak with authority on behalf of the association but with the depth of knowledge that's required to give a proper and informed answer."1243

¶11.9 ACPO also continues to play a coordinating role across areas of policing where the national

interest requires that "police forces act together and agree joint strategies."1244 Sir Hugh explained that this allows for Chief Constables to come together and develop a "single

¶G approach nationally, being cheaper and more efficient than developing 44 strategies across

each police force in England, Wales and Northern Ireland."1245 However, he pointed out that any national approaches remain subject to the "local interpretation and implementation of operationally independent Chief Constables."1246 Furthermore, each individual Chief Constable remains entirely responsible for delivering at the local level; Sir Hugh argued therefore that it makes sense "that a single voice for the service is available at the national level to explain the strategic implications of such policies."1247

¶11.10 It is also important to make clear at this stage that although national policing practice

produced through ACPO is endorsed through the Chief Constables Council, its status remains one of guidance. As Sir Hugh made clear, ACPO has no role in securing compliance and any

969

¶Chapter 3 | The Press and the Police: The Harm and the Response

guidance produced does not "supersede decisions of Chief Constables who are operationally responsible for the direction and control of policing within their own force area."1248

¶11.11 Given its national coordination role, ACPO was tasked with providing the Police Service

response to the recommendations contained within HMIC's report: 'Without fear or favour – a review of police relationships' ("the HMIC report"), which was published in December 2011.1249 One of the key themes running through HMIC's recommendations was the need for national standards to ensure consistency of practice across individual force areas. The Home Secretary expanded on this point and said:

"… What obviously became clear, particularly from the work that I commissioned from HMIC, was the variation in guidance that was being issued and being operated, and variation in systems that were being operated from police force to police force. The importance of a police force being able – and a chief constable being able within his police force – to have that independence of deciding how that force operates is part of the structure of policing that we have in the UK. Obviously, having now looked at the situation, the chief officers following HMIC's report have felt that it is appropriate to put some more national guidance in place, but that obviously will still be operated by each of the police forces."1250

¶11.12 Sir Hugh concurred with this assessment. He said:1251

"… There's always a tension between, you know, the clear steer of the current government towards a local bespoke style of policing and localism and driving down responsibility and there's always that tension between local agendas, local policies, local procedures, and the national central agenda. So it's always a robust debate. I think certainly within the Police Service there's common agreement, it makes absolute sense that you can have one consistent approach, for example in relation to gifts and hospitality. The public will not understand why the standards are different across the country …"1252 In relation to ACPO taking the lead on the Police Service's response to the HMIC report, he made the point that: "… ACPO can mobilise quite quickly in G response to HMI, for example, when it's seen as critical to delivering a new policy, a new consistent policy which is important in terms of public confidence …"

¶11.13 Sir Hugh reported that the main element of the ACPO response relating to Police Service

integrity and corruption was being led through the national lead for Professional Standards, Chief Constable Mike Cunningham. The ACPO response to those HMIC recommendations which specifically dealt with media relationships has been addressed under the leadership of Chief Constable Andy Trotter.1253 I will deal with each in turn.

970

¶PART G | The Press and the Police: the Relationship

ACPO's response to the HMIC Report: 'Without Fear or Favour – A Review of Police Relationships'

¶11.14 Mike Cunningham was appointed as the Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police in 2009 and

he took the lead of the ACPO Professional Standards Portfolio in June 2011 – this portfolio sits within the Workforce Development Business Area of ACPO.1254 Mr Cunningham explained that the Professional Standards Portfolio "is dedicated to raising and maintaining professional standards in the police service."1255 Given its centrality to the issues at hand, Mr Cunningham set out in broad terms his remit as portfolio lead:

"(i) strategic responsibility to identify and address emerging threats and respond to national issues which impact on the police service's professional standards (ii) leading for ACPO on the development of preventative strategies to combat risk and emerging threats to operational policing and the reputation of the police service (iii) receiving and commissioning the work of the three Professional Standards Portfolio sub-groups, (Complaints and Misconduct, Counter Corruption, and Vetting). To address strategic issues and challenges in response to the ACPO & Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) National Strategic Threat Assessment to UK Law Enforcement from Corruption (iv) identifying commonality with other ACPO business areas, (such as the Ethics portfolio), where reducing instances of and improved handling of public complaints can achieve improved public satisfaction and confidence through the quality of service provision, and overseeing the integration of professional standards issues into the strategies, policies and procedures of other business areas as appropriate (v) identifying opportunities to more closely integrate unsatisfactory performance of officers and staff into professional standards, with a clear emphasis on ethical policing behaviour as opposed to mere compliance with regulations, and to improve public confidence in the police service through organisational learning

¶G (vi) monitoring ethical standards as they relate to aspects of policing such as the use of

discretion, case management and the administration of justice, the use of force and other policing powers, custody and detention matters, gifts and gratuities, secondary employment and business interests, information confidentiality, personal standards of conduct and cooperation with partner agencies."1256

¶11.15 In discharging these responsibilities, Mr Cunningham chairs a quarterly meeting of the

ACPO Professional Standards Portfolio which comprises the chief officer leads of the ACPO Complaints and Misconduct Working Group, ACPO Counter Corruption Advisory Group (ACCAG) and the ACPO Vetting Group together with staff association leads. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is represented by the Chief Executive – Special advisers from within the service are invited as appropriate.1257

¶11.16 Mr Cunningham explained that the ACCAG Guidance for the Investigation of Corruption (first

published in 2003, formally revised in 2006 and currently under review) identifies a number of common factors as potential corrupters. These include "former police officers, particularly those in the security or private investigation sectors, family members and friends with criminal

971

¶Chapter 3 | The Press and the Police: The Harm and the Response

associations, informants and other criminal contacts established through policing activity."1258 Mr Cunningham confirmed that the media was also identified as a source of corruption when "confidential, sensitive or secret information is sought by journalists, in return for financial inducements or payment through gifts and hospitality."1259 Mr Cunningham went on to explain that what are described as 'payments through gifts and hospitality' was not in itself identified as a significant risk.1260 He expanded on this point and said:

"… The assessment has identified that the police officers have broadly two commodities with which they would trade, if I could put it that way. One is influence and the other is information. It seems from a chief officer from ACPO perspective that we need to put safeguards in place in order to handle safely the information that we hold and the relationships that officers have and develop, which could become corrupt. And so in terms of assessing the risk, the unauthorised handling of information is a significant risk for the service. And that's been identified in the SOCA strategic assessment of corruption. In order to deal with the handling of information and protecting information, a number of safeguards have been put in place … but contingent upon all of those are relationships which officers subsequently develop. Family and friends was identified as the highest risk in terms of the unlawful disclosure of information. Former colleagues, particularly those in the private security industry, was also a risk. At the point in which the strategic assessment was done in the summer of 2010, journalists were identified as a risk, but not as high as those other groups."1261

¶11.17 In relation to the identified risk of family and friends and the unlawful disclosure of information,

Mr Cunningham confirmed that this would on occasions be inadvertent disclosure, but "… On other occasions it would be criminal. So there are examples of … an officer checking out the daughter's new boyfriend through to officers who have criminals who are part of their family and actively seeking intelligence and information from police systems and passing that on."1262

¶11.18 Specifically in relation to gifts and gratuities, Mr Cunningham explained that the policies in G

place were intended to provide instruction and guiding principles to enable staff to make "correct decisions and to act in compliance with widely recognised Standards of Professional Behaviour as described in the Schedule to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 and related Home Office guidance (026/2008) on police unsatisfactory performance and misconduct procedures, and Standards of Professional Behaviour for Police Staff, as agreed by the Police Staff Council (PSC)."1263 The relevant standards for police officers and police staff are described under the heading relating to Honesty and Integrity. Given their relevance I will reproduce the section in full:

"Police officers never accept any gift or gratuity that could compromise their impartiality. During the course of their duties police officers may be offered hospitality (e.g. refreshments) and this may be acceptable as part of their role. However, police officers always consider carefully the motivation of the person offering a gift or gratuity of any type and the risk of becoming improperly beholden to a person or organisation.

972

¶PART G | The Press and the Police: the Relationship

It is not anticipated that inexpensive gifts would compromise the integrity of a police officer, such as those from conferences (e.g. promotional products) or discounts aimed at the entire police force (e.g. advertised discounts through police publications). However, all gifts and gratuities must be declared in accordance with local force policy where authorisation may be required from a manager, Chief Officer or Police Authority to accept a gift or hospitality. If a police officer is in any doubt then they should seek advice from their manager."1264

¶11.19 This guidance has been adopted by all police forces, including the MPS.1265 Mr Cunningham

also confirmed that all forces have mechanisms by which advice and guidance on interpretation can be provided.1266 He said that "there are formal regional structures for Heads of Professional Standards Departments which underpin and support each of the three ACPO Professional Standards Portfolio working groups. In addition, the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales (PSAEW) have misconduct leads and Panel of Friends with an ability to seek guidance from and to influence the formulation of policy and procedure to drive forward improvements in professional standards."1267 Any breach of the standards set out above would be deemed a disciplinary offence, which "… would be measured against the standard, in the police conduct regulations, and the guidance … would assist the person who's making a judgment in relation to that breach in order to form a view as to the severity of that breach."1268

¶11.20 In leading on the response by ACPO to the HMIC report 'Without Fear or Favour – A Review

of Police Relationships', Mr Cunningham confirmed that three principal sets of guidance were being developed to address the report's recommendations; the first relates to the acceptance of gifts and hospitality; the second relates to officers taking secondary employment or having business interests; and the third relates to the police's relationship with the press and the media, on which Chief Constable Andy Trotter is leading.1269 Mr Cunningham candidly admitted that the delivery of national guidance would be a "challenge for the service."1270 He expanded on this point and said:

¶G

"… We clearly, I think, acknowledge and agree with HMIC that national guidance is required in these areas … What will be a challenge will be to phrase that guidance in such a way as it can be applied to very different circumstances in different places. It needs to be sufficiently high level to be applicable to those different circumstances, yet sufficiently detailed to be meaningful. That's the balance we're trying to strike."1271

¶11.21 ACPO also clearly recognised that the issues raised by HMIC's report were important ones for the Police Service as a whole. Mr Cunningham said:

"… ACPO is approaching these issues with real energy and the reason for that is we do recognise that the issues under examination at the moment have potential and have been immensely damaging to public confidence. Immensely damaging to the relationship upon which we build effective policing. Because of that corrosive nature of the issues that we're dealing with, we need to approach this very quickly. We are

973

¶Chapter 3 | The Press and the Police: The Harm and the Response

heartened but absolutely not complacent by the fact that HMIC, IPCC and other people who have scrutinised the police agree that corruption and malpractice is not endemic or systemic. However, the actions of individuals, particularly senior individuals, has been and can be highly damaging. That's why we need to act with the urgency with which we're addressing this."1272

¶11.22 On 11 May 2012, Mr Cunningham wrote to the Home Secretary to provide her with an update

on ACPO's response to the HMIC report. He reported that following a meeting on 20 April 2012, Chief Constable's Council had "strongly endorsed a comprehensive paper addressing HMIC's main recommendations."1273 A copy of the paper was annexed for her information. Furthermore, Mr Cunningham said that following a meeting with the former Chief Inspector of the Constabulary, Sir Denis O'Connor, and Her Majesty's Inspector of the Constabulary Roger Baker on 3 May 2012 to discuss the ongoing work, he was "pleased to report an encouraging endorsement of the paper, its content, the guidance we have adopted and are continuing to develop, and the direction of travel."1274

¶11.23 I have already dealt in more detail with the HMIC report and its recommendations elsewhere

(see section 9 above). In summary form, the first two principal recommendations related to the institution of robust systems to identify, monitor and manage the risks identified in the report on the basis of national standards and expectations, and the need for the expression of clear, consistent and service wide boundaries and thresholds of acceptability.1275 The ACPO response paper records that "significant consultative work has taken place (and is set to continue) with key stakeholders, including HMIC, the Home Office, Staff Associations, the IPCC, and the APA. Over the course of the past months, heads of professional standards departments and chief officers with delegated responsibility as Appropriate Authority have been increasingly focused on more robust governance of the risks from the matters reported upon in without Fear or Favour."1276

¶11.24 The ACPO response paper further records that "three specific guidance documents have

been drawn up to assist and inform decision making within and between forces … which will G engender a consistency of approach in defining and establishing boundaries of acceptable practice over matters of personal and professional integrity."1277 The first piece of guidance referred to relates to the management of business interests and additional occupations for police officers and police staff. The ACPO response paper notes that a "more robust decision making framework has been prepared" to promote a consistency of approach to the approval and regulation of business interests and additional occupations.1278 Importantly, the framework makes clear that "adverse reputational impact" is the key and over-riding consideration for decision makers, rather than "personnel or health and safety factors" as was previously the case.1279

¶11.25 Further changes to the guidance previously in place include "a more definitive confirmation

that the decision maker on the approval of business interests should be the appropriate authority or head of professional standards."1280 The updated guidance in this area also

974

¶PART G | The Press and the Police: the Relationship

provides "a more specific set of criteria to assist decision making which should be taken into account when determining the appropriateness of a prospective business interest or secondary occupation for compatibility with the role or duty of the officer or member of staff, namely impartiality (predicted, expected or evidenced); impact on the force (potential and perceptions); the applicant's current performance, proportionality (in relation to seniority and role); equality and diversity; and health, safety and well-being."1281 Finally, it is said that the revised guidance simplifies the previously overly bureaucratic procedures relating to the right of appeal against non-approval of a business interest.1282 The ACPO response paper makes clear that the guidance in this area is "currently subject to further and final consultation in the Police Advisory Board working party."1283

¶11.26 In relation to the issue of gifts, gratuities and hospitality, the ACPO response paper reports

that "for the first time, ACPO guidance has been drafted to provide a more consistent service- wide approach" to this issue.1284 Fundamentally, the guidance is based on a shift to a "blanket non-acceptability save for certain circumstances of a common sense approach to the provision of light refreshments, and trivial and inexpensive gifts of bona fide and genuine gratitude from victims or communities."1285 The guidance also makes clear the expectation that a single force register of gifts and hospitality will exist under the direct "governance and scrutiny" of the head of professional standards.1286

¶11.27 The key guiding principles governing the acceptance of gifts, gratuities and hospitality are

mandated within the revised guidance. The guidance, for example, reminds police officers and police staff that they should "demonstrate the highest standards of professional behaviour, honesty and integrity. In particular they should not compromise or abuse their position by soliciting the offer of gifts, gratuities, favours or hospitality in any way connected to, or arising from, their role within the police service, whether on or off duty."1287 Furthermore, the guidance states that "police officers and police staff should not accept the offer of any gift, gratuity, favour or hospitality unless it complies with the circumstances and considerations as set out [within the guidance] … as to do so might compromise their impartiality or give rise to

¶G a perception of such compromise."1288 Importantly in my view, the guidance also makes clear

that the offer of a gift, gratuity or hospitality should be declared "irrespective of whether or not it is accepted or rejected by the recipient."1289 This level of transparency is of particular relevance in instances where there is a concern over the motivation behind the original offer.

¶11.28 More definitive detail and practical examples on the boundaries of acceptability and non-

acceptability are also included. For example, the guidance makes clear the distinctions that exist "in a spectrum whereby one extreme can properly be considered to be a breach of the criminal law (The Bribery Act 2010) through to the low-level of hospitality which could in no way be considered as a breach of integrity on any party involved."1290 Again, consultation in relation to this guidance has continued with "the concept of a public conscience test to such

975

¶Chapter 3 | The Press and the Police: The Harm and the Response

matters" said to be a further aspect informing the debate.1291 I deal with the third piece of guidance in relation to media relationships in more detail below.

¶11.29 HMIC's third principal recommendation sought to ensure that sufficient regard was paid to

the issues of integrity and anti-corruption in police training courses. In particular, and given the importance of leadership in securing high standards of integrity, it recommended that the Strategic Command Course and the High Potential Development Scheme should encompass these issues.1292 The ACPO response paper reported that "Chief Officers have taken steps to address this recommendation and have secured and delivered enhanced input on integrity and counter corruption to participants of the Strategic Command Course which concluded in March 2012 and also into the High Potential Development Scheme. This work will continue and will be refined in future courses and in other aspects of leadership development and training."1293 Furthermore, it is reported that ACCAG will "commence the collation of data from across the service which will provide a refreshed analysis of strategic threats to law enforcement from corruption."1294 It is said that this work will assist chief officers in further improving governance around "risks to integrity" and will help to prevent and deter those engaged in corrupt practices. This work stream will also further inform the training and briefing of police officers and police staff at all levels.1295

¶11.30 Parenthetically on the issue of police training, I would endorse the Home Secretary's view

that "confidence and competence in communicating through various media channels are important at all levels – chief constable, borough commander and neighbourhood officer, for example. But so too is a clear understanding of how relationships with those who work in the media should be conducted in a professional, open and transparent way."1296 On this issue, the Home Secretary reported that "the new police professional body will consider where there are gaps in existing training and how this should be built into police officer and staff learning and development."1297 This certainly strikes me as an area of priority for the new body once instituted.

¶11.31 HMIC's fourth substantive recommendation related to the promotion of improved corporate G

governance as a core part of everyday police business.1298 The ACPO response paper reports that "chief officer teams and heads of professional standards have conducted force reviews of their governance and oversight arrangements to ensure that those arrangements are fulfilling their function in helping promote the values of their force in the delivery of its objectives."1299 Following this exercise it was said to be evident that "chief officer teams need to be clear on their responsibility for ensuring Professional Standards Departments routinely scrutinise and provide governance over business interests, additional occupations, gifts and hospitality registers and oversight of procurement and contracts, and to ensure that this governance integrates with and promotes the values of the individual force and the wider service."1300

976

¶PART G | The Press and the Police: the Relationship

¶11.32 ACPO also suggest that there is scope for individual forces and the Police Service more generally

to "obtain increased synergy from the values espoused within the Statement of Common Purpose and the firmly embedded Standards of Professional Behaviour."1301 The Statement of Common purpose was revised in July 2011 and includes, for example, the aspirational principle that the police "will act with integrity, compassion, courtesy and patience, showing neither fear nor favour in what we do."1302 Chief Officers are also encouraged to ensure that the "aspects of integrity examined and reported upon in Without Fear or Favour are subject to more regular scrutiny and oversight as matters affecting force reputation."1303 In concluding, ACPO suggest that the "collective police service can best demonstrate its legitimacy, ethics and values by being seen to be leading by example by instilling regular and consistent governance and oversight of integrity and wider professional standards as part of the wider governance and as part of everyday business of the force."1304 I would obviously agree with this assessment and it is a subject to which I will return in my concluding remarks.

¶11.33 One matter raised through HMIC's report in relation to which there is not yet a collectively

agreed ACPO view is that of the "perception of the prospect of personal gain where senior leaders (including those within ACPO and at other levels of seniority) retire and either immediately or shortly thereafter take up posts with commercial companies keen to take advantage of a working lifetime of experience in policing, community safety, specialist investigations or ethical organisational leadership."1305 ACPO suggest that further debate and analysis is needed to manage the question of public perception when "morally, ethically, and legally there are no barriers to prevent a retired officer from contributing to the wider policing framework as they see fit once free of obligations to public service."1306 I deal substantively with this particular issue elsewhere.

¶Interim ACPO guidance for relationships with the media

¶11.34 This guidance is of particular relevance to the Inquiry given the detailed evidence that has been taken from a number of Chief Officers, other witnesses from within the Police Service, G policing stakeholders and journalists relating to concerns over the police's relationship with

the media. The guidance itself was published in April 2012 following its approval by Chief Constables' Council. Its described purpose is to "provide a framework for police officers and staff with an interim approach on the relationship of the police service with the media, in all its forms."1307 Its interim status reflects the fact that it was anticipated that further changes to the document would be required as a result of this Inquiry.

¶11.35 The person principally responsible for the production of this document was Chief Constable

Andy Trotter, Chair of the ACPO Communications Advisory Group (CAG).1308 In describing the role of CAG, Mr Trotter said: "That is to bring together the heads of communications from the various police forces, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, plus others who come along as observers from time to time, to discuss recent best practice, discuss recent incidents, debrief

977

¶Chapter 3 | The Press and the Police: The Harm and the Response

matters, also to formulate policy, which we then circulate to forces around the country."1309 As Chair of CAG, Mr Trotter acts as the ACPO professional lead for media relations.1310 He explained that "as such I represent the views of the police service to media organisations and representative bodies such as the Society of Editors, Newspaper Society and National Union of Journalists. Accordingly from time to time I meet with editors and journalists to discuss any areas of current concern. I also liaise on media issues with other organisations who work with police forces such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)."1311

¶11.36 The guidance itself is said to reinforce "a stance of maintaining open and transparent dealings

with the media at all levels of the service for the benefit of the wider public interest", provide "clarity for officers and staff on ensuring they speak on those aspects of policing for which they are specifically responsible", and provide "additional clarity on the speaking terms (what constitutes on and off record and what is for publication) to prevent misunderstanding."1312 A clear expectation is also created that any police officer or member of police staff meeting in private with a journalist "must make a note of the meeting or disclosure which should be recorded in either a diary or pocket book."1313 In addition, the guidance states that "where an officer or member of staff speaks to the media about a significant operational or organisational matter, a record of the conversation should be made (unless in a public forum, such as a public meeting or through the internet or a social media feed)."1314

¶11.37 A number of key principles underpin the guidance. Given their relevance I will reproduce them in full:1315

"Legitimacy is an essential aspect of the British policing model, based on consent. The press and other forms of media play an important part in assuring police legitimacy and protecting the public interest. Police interaction with the media should be guided by a legitimate policing purpose, which is one related to the core values and standards of policing, set out in the Statement of Mission and Values. G The relationship between police and media should be undertaken in a manner which lives up to the highest standards of impartiality and integrity. The police service has a duty to safeguard the confidentiality and integrity of information, which must be balanced against the duty to be open and transparent wherever possible."

¶11.38 It is clear that a degree of confusion has existed in relation to the terminology used by

journalists to establish the basis for a conversation with police officers and police staff (see section 2 above). The guidance attempts to address this issue by providing a set of general definitions:1316

978

¶PART G | The Press and the Police: the Relationship

"(a) On the record – means that a journalist can report, quote and name their source. Where possible, all conversations should be on this basis and it should always be assumed that a conversation is on the record unless expressly agreed otherwise in advance. (b) Background/guidance – means that information provided can be reported without it being attributed to a source, whether named or not. This is sometimes used to provide further context around an on the record statement. (c) Off the record – means that use of information provided is restricted altogether. Occasionally there may be a legitimate reason for an off the record conversation or briefing to take place, such as where news reporting may have an impact on a current investigation or as a means of preventing inaccuracies or misunderstanding."

¶11.39 Given that the terminology is sometimes misunderstood or used interchangeably, the

guidance emphasises the importance of clarifying "how they will apply before exchanging information."1317 It also suggests that it is "good practice" where possible to have a press officer present in circumstances where a police officer is "meeting or speaking with a journalist privately."1318 This is obviously sensible advice. I deal with the distinct issue of 'off the record' conversations elsewhere within this Report (see section 2 above).

¶11.40 In relation to the issue of integrity, the guidance reminds police officers and police staff

that it is "essential to the standards of integrity demanded of the police service that police officers and staff should recognise and avoid or respond appropriately to potential conflicts of interest. These can be understood as situations where there may be competing obligations or interests to those which relate to the legitimate policing purpose for engaging with the media."1319 Specifically in relation to the issue of potential conflicts, police officers and police staff are again reminded that any family or personal relationships with members of the media should be disclosed and recorded.1320 Perhaps most importantly, the guidance makes clear that police officers and police staff "have a clear duty to report to a line manager any corrupt practice or perception of corruption (e.g. offer of reward for information, any unacceptable

¶G level of hospitality, or seeking to engender an inappropriate relationship).1321

¶11.41 In concluding, the guidance is clear that is does not provide the answers to every conceivable

situation but rather it provides an approach and ethos to assist those within the Police Service to establish a productive and transparent relationship with the media.

¶11.42 The Home Secretary welcomed the ACPO's proposals and the continuing work taking place

to address the recommendations contained within HMIC's report.1322 She said that this continuing work will "need to focus on how the police, including senior leaders and those working in Professional Standards in particular, can play a proactive role in promoting and championing the new sets of guidance and monitoring compliance in order to bring about the real changes in attitudes and behaviours on integrity issues we are seeking."1323 This is obviously a significant point. Transactional change in the form of new guidance and procedures, whilst important, can be rendered relatively meaningless if it is not also aligned with cultural change (in the form, for example, of a more transparent and challenging environment – particularly at ACPO level).

979

¶Chapter 3 | The Press and the Police: The Harm and the Response

¶11.43 This leads me to an area of specific concern. I am confident that Police Professional Standards

Departments, working within the framework of the newly developed guidance, will robustly ensure that those operating below Chief Officer level entirely comply with the policies and procedures in these areas, and will effectively tackle malpractice where necessary. However, I am less confident in their ability to challenge Chief Officers directly on integrity issues – in other words, albeit in a different context to that which I have usually used this phrase, who will be the guardian of these guardians? Neither is this a theoretical issue. It has not gone without notice that there have been a number of incidents of concern recently which may have called into question the robustness of the corporate governance arrangements in place within forces.1324

¶11.44 I entirely recognise that any recommendations that I make in this area may be temporary in

nature. Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are now in place, and nationally the Home Office will be creating a police professional body which will be responsible for standards, skills and professionalism at all levels of policing. This new body will also play "a very active role in setting standards of ethics and integrity."1325 That being said, I set out my views and recommendations as to the way forward in Part G Chapter 4 below.

¶G

980