Sir Mark Rowley’s and Dame Lynne Owens’ disciplinary hearing record

 

I note you seek access to the following information:

 

I am seeking information about Sir Mark Rowley’s and Dame Lynne Owens’ disciplinary hearing record during their previous roles at the Metropolitan pPlice.

 

In relation to Sir Mark, my request relates to the timeframe of 2011-2018 when he was Assistant Commissioner.

 

Are you able to provide the following information please

-The number of disciplinary hearings that were chaired by Sir Mark, and the number of hearings for which he was a member of the panel 

- In relation to each of the hearings in which he was involved, can you please provide the outcome i.e. whether gross misconduct, misconduct, no further action. Can you please stipulate whether he was the chair or member of the panel. 

- In relation to each of the hearings in which he was involved, can you please provide the sanction i.e. dismissal, final written warning, etc 

- In relation to each of the hearings in which he was involved, can you please provide the nature of the allegation and as much information as possible about the gross misconduct charges

- I appreciate that the regulations changed over this period. If possible can you say which were accelerated hearings and which were ordinary hearings

 

In relation to Dame Lynne, my request relates to the period between 2009 and 2012 when she was a Deputy Assistant Commissioner and then Assistant Commissioner

 

Are you able to provide the following information please [the same questions apply]

- The number of disciplinary hearings that were chaired by Dame Lynne, and the number of hearings for which she was a member of the panel 

- In relation to each of the hearings in which she was involved, can you please provide the outcome i.e. whether gross misconduct, misconduct, no further action. Can you please stipulate whether she was the chair or member of the panel. 

- In relation to each of the hearings in which she was involved, can you please provide the sanction i.e. dismissal, final written warning, etc 

- In relation to each of the hearings in which she was involved, can you please provide the nature of the allegation and as much information as possible about the gross misconduct charges

- I appreciate that the regulations changed over this period. If possible can you say which were accelerated hearings and which were ordinary hearings 

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

 

Please find below information pursuant to your request above.

 

I will respond in chronological order.

 

Prior to the introduction of independent Legally Qualified Chairs in 2016, the MPS did not always record who chaired misconduct hearings on the relevant data bases as 

this was not a mandatory requirement. Although this is still not mandatory, since 2016 the details of the Chair are recorded.  This has resulted in a discrepancy in the information we have been able to locate, with more information found to be available for Sir Mark Rowley than for Dame Lynne Owens.

 

I can confirm that, from 2009 - 2018, there were a total 758 misconduct hearings in scope. Of these, there are 2 cases from 2010 where we cannot confirm who the chair was. It is therefore possible that these were chaired by the current Deputy Commissioner.  The Commissioner was not in the Met in 2009 – 2010.

 

I would add that in trying to locate the information for those 2 cases we have exhausted the following indices and reference points: 

 

• Centurion

• Tribune folders shared drive

• Open Source

• MOPAC

• MPS Museums Team

• DPS Intelligence Team

• Misconduct Hearings Unit archived spreadsheet

 

 

We have not been able to locate any records to confirm Dame Lynne chaired or sat on misconduct panels between 2009 – 2012, although this does not preclude the possibility that she may have taken part either of the 2 hearings for which we do not hold any records. 

 

 

From the records that we hold I have been able to ascertain that Sir Mark Rowley took part in 14 hearings. . 

 

 

All were Special Case Hearings*, which are heard by a Chief Officer without a panel.

 

- In relation to each of the hearings in which he was involved, can you please provide the sanction i.e. dismissal, final written warning, etc 

Dismissal Without Notice	13
Written Warning	1

 

 

Please refer to table below.

	Breach Type (Alleg)	Finding	Misconduct Outcome
CM/00092/16	S Other neglect or failure in duty	Proven	Dismissal Without Notice
CM/00400/16	H Corrupt practice	Proven	Dismissal Without Notice
CM/00540/12	G Irregularity in evidence/perjury	Proven	Dismissal Without Notice
CM/00612/16	G Irregularity in evidence/perjury	Proven	Dismissal Without Notice
CM/00626/11	X Improper disclosure of information	Proven	Dismissal Without Notice
CM/00626/16	U Incivility, impoliteness and intolerance	Proven	Dismissal Without Notice
CM/00689/15	H Corrupt practice	Proven	Dismissal Without Notice
CM/00794/15	B Sexual assault	Proven	Dismissal Without Notice
CM/00934/16	X Improper disclosure of information	Proven	Dismissal Without Notice
CM/01061/16	H Corrupt practice	Proven	Final Written Warning
CM/01095/16	S Other neglect or failure in duty	Proven	Dismissal Without Notice
CM/01130/16	X Improper disclosure of information	Proven	Dismissal Without Notice
CM/01221/16	S Other neglect or failure in duty	Proven	Dismissal Without Notice
CM/01275/13	Y Other sexual conduct	Proven	Dismissal Without Notice

 

*Prior to 2020, Accelerated Misconduct Hearings were known as Special Case Hearings

 

You may be interested to know that misconduct hearings chaired by Chief Officers resulted in a higher percentage of dismissals than those chaired by LCQs (since 2016).  On 28.3.23. Professor Larry Sherman published (online) the below findings in the Cambridge Journal of Evidence Based Policing 

 

 “We examined 234 standard misconduct hearings resolved by the MPS in all 22 months prior to the first hearings chaired by LQC in 2016 and in the first 22 months after the first LQC hearings.  A total of 44 months.

 

Findings: The probability of officer dismissal in standard misconduct hearing chaired by Chief Officers was 47% (67 out of 142); the probability in such hearing chaired by LQCs was 34% (31 out of 92).  The probability of dismissal in LCQ-chaired hearings was therefore 29% lower in LQC hearings than in Chief Officer chaired hearings.  Hearings chaired by Chiefs were 38% more likely to decide to dismiss an officer.”