Lincolnshire Police and Crime Panel criticise PCC’s response to review

At a meeting on Thursday, the panel discussed the findings of Operation Motala, which scrutinised his recruitment of the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police.

The report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) stated his actions “did not meet the threshold to be considered wilful misconduct” however they were not appropriate to be considered by a criminal court.

However, it said: “Having carefully reviewed the evidence, the decision-maker [investigator] concluded that Mr Jones did not always adhere to the guiding principles of fairness, openness, and merit at all times during the process, and moreover, at times, his decisions were directly in conflict with these principles.”

The Police and Crime Panel itself, however, was mainly frustrated by a series of comments made by Mr Jones in response to the investigation.

These included threats of legal action, accusations of the PCP wasting public resources, and telling the committee that “any residual confidence and trust he had in the PCP’s direction and leadership had ‘ebbed away’, and would be hard to rebuild due to the PCP’s ‘wasteful and perplexing course of action’.”

Mr Jones had called on the PCP investigation to “review the actions of the Panel and its chairman”, and complained about the PCP’s “selective” and “cloak and dagger” approach.

He also publicly tweeted: “PCPs in their current form are worse than a waste of money; they are a negative drain on resources. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be better.’

“We are subject to substandard scrutiny, though, which is much more dangerous. Some of that ‘scrutiny’ is very politically motivated and very corrosive. PCPs are, in my experience, a costly waste of time and a massive distraction from delivering quality service for the public.’

“The cost isn’t the issue; it’s the structure. We are accountable to the public at the ballot box, the police authority didn’t have a PCP. We need a standardised structure for mediation with Chiefs, but the rest is political. The Panel is a pointless distraction.”

Councillors were clearly angered by the comments Mr Jones had made.

Chairman Chris Cook, who was part of the group which originally launched the investigation, told the meeting: “I think, as chairman of this panel, that our PCC has been subject to a high standard of scrutiny, and that’s why we’re here today.”

He mentioned the impact on all those involved, including some witnesses breaking down during interviews.

“It is important to not only reflect on the content of the report but to look to the future,” he said.

“What happened in this process all that time ago must never happen again.”

Councillor Phil Dilks, who was not a member of the panel at the time the investigation was launched, paid tribute to the chairman and staff who “have handled this issue to date and done their duty as required in referring the matter to the relevant body, which found it was a necessary and correct referral”.

Mr Jones has previously commented that the report by the IOPC cleared him of any wrongdoing; however, Councillor Dilks disagreed.

“I am extremely disappointed with his response to these matters from start to finish. I found it a thorough and professional report, but I also find it quite shocking,” he said.

“The PCC did not always adhere to the guiding principles of fairness, openness, and merit… his decisions were directly in conflict with these principles… and had a negative impact on many of the parties.

“That finding falls clearly below the standard we, here in Lincolnshire, all expect of someone elected to such a high, influential, and trusted office.

“I’m disappointed that at every stage he sought to deny he had done anything wrong… but worse, he sought to blame others.

“The PCC would do well, in my humble opinion, to reflect on the events now in question, which have been for years, and to accept it as a professional report.

“A public apology would be a good idea… especially looking ahead to the next recruitment.”

Councillor Stephen Woodliffe was even more scathing.

“I find it insulting and an attack on my integrity and that of this committee.

“We come here of our free time; we were elected by free council – there’s no cash at the end of the line… I feel I have been demeaned. I feel the PCC has demeaned and damaged my integrity. Every member of this committee has carried out their duties with integrity.

“It’s damaging to me and to many people on this committee, and I’m very disappointed. The PCC needs to work hard to rebuild his relationship with each and every one of us because we have been wronged.”

Councillors noted that there was a void in what they could do as a panel.

They noted the findings of the report and made several recommendations, including seeking assurance that the forthcoming recruitment process following the departure of Chief Constable Chris Haward would be fair, open, and merit-based, and to meet the national guidelines in place to ensure the protection of Police and Crime Commissioners, appointment panels and the candidates involved. They also called for reviews of Government and College of Policing processes to strengthen them in the future.

In a statement afterwards, Chris Cook, Independent Chair of Lincolnshire Police and Crime Panel said: “The real and personal impact of the process upon many of the individuals involved is made clear in the report and the subsequent representations, and the Panel’s primary concern is to ensure this does not happen again.

“As a result, we will be writing to the Commissioner and other relevant bodies, including the College of Policing and the Home Office, to seek assurances, the review of guidelines and to ensure that future selection processes in Lincolnshire and across the country are conducted to the high, professional standards that the public, policing colleagues and those involved deserve, including for the county’s upcoming Chief Constable recruitment.”

Mr Jones was not at the meeting on Thursday, instead opting to attend the Police Bravery Awards in Sheffield; however, in a previous statement, he said he had “cooperated fully” with the inquiry.

“I am not surprised, but am satisfied, I have been cleared of wrongdoing by the investigation,” he said.

“I was always confident I acted in the best interests of the people of Lincolnshire.”

However, he criticised the report, saying it contained “subjective interpretations, misunderstandings, and bizarre omissions”.

He said: “Having now experienced first-hand the IOPC process, I am clear in my mind that they are not suitable to handle matters, often political, relating to publicly elected and accountable police and crime commissioners.”

He said he had raised his concerns regarding processes with Ministers and wanted to see “this vital element of policing standards reformed for the benefit of all”.

However, he concluded: “As far as I am concerned, this matter is now concluded, and I look forward to carrying on the important work of keeping the communities of Lincolnshire safe.”