Covid regulation breaches

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.031035

I note you seek access to the following information:

As you are aware 10 Downing Street became the most fined address in the UK over Covid regulation breaches. It also has a continuous police presence that failed to address the illegal activity at the time. So I would like to know;

1) Has the Met made a statement on how it was possible that none of the breaches were addressed at the time they were occurring?

2) Has the Met had/started an investigation into itself as to how it was possible for the continuous police presence to have failed to act on this at the time?

3) If it has what are its findings, or when are they due?

4) If it has not what is the justification for failing to investigate how the police presence failed to do its job so comprehensively?

5) Did not a single police officer witness anything that merited investigation?

6) Was anything reported or communicated by any of the officers on duty at the time to any other member of the police or their other colleagues?

7) Was there any formal or informal directive to the police on duty at Downing Street to ‘turn a blind eye’ to what was going on?

I am aware of other questions you have answered on the general topic of Covid policing and Downing Street but not the specific questions I have asked above.

Decision

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

Please find below information pursuant to your request above.

Q1 - Has the Met made a statement on how it was possible that none of the breaches were addressed at the time they were occurring?

Cressida Dick gave a statement to the Police and Crime Committee on 25/01/2022. 

Q2 - Has the Met had/started an investigation into itself as to how it was possible for the continuous police presence to have failed to act on this at the time?

On 07/12/2021, the MPS received a public complaint regarding parties held at number 10 Downing Street in December 2020 and the role of police officers at that location; a separate complaint was made against the Commissioner Cressida Dick for allegations of failing to investigate the 2020 parties.

Having reviewed the facts on 17/12/2021, the complaint regarding allegations of officers failing to act in response to the parties was referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) for a determination as to whether the complaint required investigation and if so, how. The complaint against the Commissioner was referred to The Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC), who are the appropriate authority for such matters.

On 22/12/2022 the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) concluded that the matter raised was not a public complaint.

On 23/12/2022, MOPAC informed the MPS that the complaint against the Commissioner was not valid.

On 24/12/2022 The Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) concluded that no further action was required.

Q3 - If it has what are its findings, or when are they due?

Not applicable. Please see our response to your question 2.

Q4 - If it has not what is the justification for failing to investigate how the police presence failed to do its job so comprehensively?

Not applicable. Please see our response to your question 2.

Q5 - Did not a single police officer witness anything that merited investigation?

There have been no adverse findings made in respect of allegations that MPS officers failed to report events that were subsequently subject to investigation under Op Hillman.

Q6 - Was anything reported or communicated by any of the officers on duty at the time to any other member of the police or their other colleagues?

No reports or communications were made by MPS officers at the time of the gatherings which were later subject to investigation under Op Hillman.

Q7 - Was there any formal or informal directive to the police on duty at Downing Street to ‘turn a blind eye’ to what was going on?

No.

The NPCC Guidance at the time was as follows

Police and local authority enforcement

Police will lead enforcement in relation to breaches of requirements placed on individuals.

Officers should continue to engage members of the public and explain changes. If necessary they should offer encouragement to comply. However if the individual or group do not respond appropriately, then enforcement can follow without repeated attempts to encourage people to comply with the law.

We police by consent. The initial police response should be to encourage voluntary compliance. Policing will continue to apply the four-step escalation principles:

1. Engage
2. Explain
3. Encourage and only
4. Enforce as a last resort

Enforcement action in relation to breaches by businesses will be led by Local Authorities (Environmental Health Officers and Trading Standards Officers). The police should only be required as a last resort and to provide support.”