Warwickshire Police

Opening Remarks

The panel are aware that this has been the first discipline hearing conducted in public. We acknowledge that this has been a difficult and emotional week for many people in the room and we wish to thank everyone, particularly the family of Colette Lynch, for the way in which they have conducted themselves throughout the proceedings.

The members of this panel are completely independent of Warwickshire Police.

The decision of the panel will be made available via the Warwickshire Police website next Thursday.

I wish to quote Mr Twigg (advocate for PC COTTINGHAM) at this point who said in his opening:

• This is not an inquest nor a public enquiry.

• It is not an examination of the totality of the Police role.

• Nor is it an enquiry about how these officers’ actions were affected by other professionals.

This is a hearing about how the officers’ dealt with Colette Lynch on the night of 1st February 2005.

The role of the panel at this hearing has been to hear the evidence and to decide on the balance of probabilities whether or not the conduct of the officers concerned met the appropriate standard within the Code of Conduct. The panel has applied their professional knowledge and expertise in coming to this decision.

Despite the fact that this is a discipline hearing held in public, which is a new development in accountability and transparency for the Police, the panel’s judgement has not been swayed in any way by either perceived public opinion or the nature of the proceedings.

The panel acknowledge that at no time in these proceedings has it ever been suggested that either of these officers were responsible for the death of Colette Lynch.

The panel are aware of the dangers of hindsight. We are conscious that we are looking back at events which took place nearly three years ago. We have been careful to consider the evidence on the basis of the policing environment and policies which existed in Warwickshire at that time. We note there have been significant changes and improvements to the force since then.

The Panel’s Findings of the Facts

The initial deployment to this incident by PCs HALL and COTTINGHAM was in response to “ Some sort of disturbance ongoing, a black male smashing glass”. Despite the fact that this radio transmission did not make reference to a domestic disturbance the panel feel that it should have been easy to establish the domestic nature of the incident upon arrival at the scene. We also take the view that Community Beat Officers are perfectly capable of dealing with such an incident and we have heard evidence that both officers have attended domestic incidents in the past.

It is apparent to the panel that the officers treated this as a criminal damage offence upon arrival and did not sufficiently consider other possible offences which may have already been committed nor the risk of further offences. In other words they took too narrow a view of the incident.

The panel have considered at length the evidence and submissions relating to which officer was the officer in charge at the scene. Despite the fact that this was PC HALL’S area, even using a civil burden of proof we feel unable to confidently identify one or other officer as being the officer in charge. The reasons for this are as follows:

• Both officers made significant radio transmissions.

• Both officers spoke to witnesses and Colette Lynch.

• Both officers were inside 16 Garyth Williams Close at the same time.

• There is no convincing evidence that either officer exerted a positive influence over the outcome of the incident.

• Neither officer made an adequate pocket notebook entry nor completed the domestic violence form.

The fact that we have been unable to identify an officer in charge, whilst clearly of significance to the officers, has not prevented the panel reaching conclusions about the breaches.

The panel accept that the two officers did not have an adequate knowledge of the domestic violence policy which existed at the time, undoubtedly this was influenced by the way in which it was communicated by the Warwickshire force. The panel note the recommendation to the force by the IPCC in this regard. Nevertheless, even on their own account the officers failed to do the most basic of tasks. For example, in interview PC COTTINGHAM stated that a responsibility at a domestic violence incident is to check that all parties are safe; this was not done. In addition, PC HALL accepts that she failed to obtain a full account of events from any available source. Over and above all this the panel are strongly of the view that the minimum standards outlined in the domestic violence policy required no special or detailed knowledge to implement. These are basic, bread and butter investigative actions which are applicable to almost any enquiry, not just domestic violence.

The panel are all of the view that the officers bore some responsibility for ensuring that they were equipped with adequate knowledge of the domestic violence policy at a level proportionate to their duties, notwithstanding the failures of the force identified by the IPCC.

Even in the absence of knowledge of the domestic violence policy the officers should have asked Colette Lynch and the witnesses some quick, simple and fundamental questions to ensure they were aware of the basic circumstances of the incident. For example, had they confirmed the identities of those present and asked each of them:

• What did you see or hear?

• What do you know about the incident?

• How did this happen?

then they would have quickly obtained an overview which would have allowed them to assess the subsequent actions to take and the degree of risk posed by Percy Wright.

The panel feel that the questions the officers should have asked were few and basic. The answers could easily have been obtained without delaying Colette Lynch’s departure to Hospital. These basic failures contributed to the lack of detail in each pocket notebook and are indicative of the blinkered approach adopted to the incident by each officer.

The panel are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Colette Lynch had not clearly articulated a wish to complain about any crime prior to the officers leaving 16 Garyth Williams Close. On the other hand, we are of the view that she clearly wanted Percy Wright treated. Nevertheless, if either PC COTTINGHAM or PC HALL had asked the relevant questions they would have placed Colette Lynch in a better position to understand her options. This course of action may have shed greater light on the concerns about Percy Wright’s mental state or about her capacity at that stage to make an informed decision.

At the time of leaving 16 Garyth Williams Close we find that the officers incorrectly believed that there were no offences to investigate and therefore they foresaw no immediate actions other than checking back on Percy Wright’s welfare. A more robust approach to the enquiry would have potentially revealed other offences or different lines of enquiry. In turn this led to the advice to another officer not to arrest Percy Wright.

The point has been raised about proportionality when considering evidential opportunities in this case. The panel agree that taking glass or blood samples from the scene would have been disproportionate. Nevertheless, we feel that seizing the stick used by Percy Wright to break the window should have been an essential step in ensuring that the offender could be linked to the offence in the event of this vulnerable victim changing her mind about complaining.

The panel takes the view that both officers should have realised the need to make a positive arrangement to contact Colette Lynch after her hospital treatment because they should have recognised that this was a domestic violence incident and that Percy Wright had mental health issues. Had the officers asked the right questions at the outset the need for such follow up would have been clear, but even based on their limited view of events the need should have still been apparent.

The panel has considered whether the subsequent events would have been significantly different had the investigation been better from the outset. It has not been suggested by the presenting side that it would, and the panel are in agreement with this view.

The Panel’s Opinion Regarding the Standards Required of the Officers

It is the panel’s task to determine whether the officers met the required standards. The presenting officer’s case is that PC COTTINGHAM and HALL failed to be conscientious and diligent in the performance of their duties. It is for us to identify the standard which we, on behalf of the Police service expect of our Police officers. Let me be clear on this point, we do not expect officers to be perfect or infallible. We understand that officers have to make decisions in unexpected or unpredictable circumstances, or in circumstances where complete information is not immediately available. Nevertheless, having made our findings regarding the facts we are of the view that both officers failed to meet the required standards in the following ways:

• The initial questioning of Colette Lynch and the witnesses at 16 Garyth Williams Close was inadequate and failed to establish the full facts.

• The officers adopted a blinkered and inflexible approach to the incident.

• Neither officer clearly adopted the role of officer in charge and both officers made significant and unwarranted assumptions about the role of the other.

• The officers failed to comply with the domestic violence policy even to the extent that they were aware of it.

• Both officers failed to recognise the importance of the evidence available at the scene or to deal with it appropriately.

• There was no recognition of the need for positive follow up action nor was there any recognition that the victim’s views about complaining could change.

Findings in Relation to the Allegations

The panel has considered the wording of the breaches and for the reasons already stated we find each of the particulars of the breaches to be proved against each of the officers.