Commissioner Delegating Authority and Corruption

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.24.035841

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. If the Commissioner had delegated his authority to investigate a complaint by a member of Parliament and a corrupt officer named in the MG11 given as evidence to the Commissioner because of his promise to London to tackle corruption, like sex attacks to an officer linked to serious corruption including sex attacks via a third party employee of the Metropolitan Police, has the Commissioner committed an offences or would the theoretical individual who did that commit a crime?
2. Would MOPAC be the correct government body to deal with the Commissioner if evidence sent to him of serious corruption including sex attacks ended up with a ranking officer shown to be corrupt by the evidence passed to them to investigate as a result of the delegation of the Commissioners power, which is obviously not appropriate in this situation?
3. What charges would be available to the Metropolitan Police if the Commissioner had delegated his authority to investigate complaints of corruption, like sex attacks to a corrupt officer with serious rank who was named twice in evidence passed to the Commissioner by a member of Parliament?

Decision

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

Please find below information pursuant to your request above.

Q1 - If the Commissioner had delegated his authority to investigate a complaint by a member of Parliament and a corrupt officer named in the MG11 given as evidence to the Commissioner because of his promise to London to tackle corruption, like sex attacks to an officer linked to serious corruption including sex attacks via a third party employee of the Metropolitan Police, has the Commissioner committed an offences or would the theoretical individual who did that commit a crime?

Whilst the Commissioner remains vicariously liable for the actions of the officers and staff in the MPS, this does not absolve those people from responsibility for their own actions, omissions or other criminal responsibility.

Q2 - Would MOPAC be the correct government body to deal with the Commissioner if evidence sent to him of serious corruption including sex attacks ended up with a ranking officer shown to be corrupt by the evidence passed to them to investigate as a result of the delegation of the Commissioners power, which is obviously not appropriate in this situation?

MOPAC is the appropriate authority for complaints or misconduct allegations raised against the Commissioner. Where the complaint or misconduct allegation relates to any other member of the MPS (including those officers using powers delegated by the Commissioner) the Commissioner remains the appropriate authority under regulations (the Police Reform Act).

Q3 - What charges would be available to the Metropolitan Police if the Commissioner had delegated his authority to investigate complaints of corruption, like sex attacks to a corrupt officer with serious rank who was named twice in evidence passed to the Commissioner by a member of Parliament?

Often an offence of Misconduct in Public Office is considered against officers or staff who commit offences during the course of their duties.

I have also included a link below to the Police Reform Act which you may find useful:
Police Reform Act 2002