Sir Mark Rowley joined the police a decade after the departure of Sir Robert Mark, the former Met commissioner whose campaign against a culture of corruption led to an exodus of 478 police officers. Nearly 40 years later, the culture is still rotten. With Sir Mark now at its helm, the Met has been found institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic. Transforming it will be an uphill battle and an even bigger challenge than that faced by Sir Robert. Corruption in the Met today is less about back-handed bribes than widespread tolerance of behaviours that could threaten the very existence of the force.
Sir Mark intends to start by sacking officers. Last week, he wrote to Suella Braverman and Sadiq Khan calling for new powers to do so. The Met is prevented from directly firing officers by a requirement that misconduct hearings be heard by an independent chair. The Home Office is currently reviewing this system, but changes should be approached carefully: as the president of the body that represents tribunal chairs pointed out on Monday, the current rules were introduced in 2015 to make the process more open. Returning to the old system, where hearings were private, would not bring more transparency. Instead, the Home Office should heed Louise Casey’s advice and give chief constables the right to appeal against tribunal decisions to reinstate officers.
The Met’s employees are now being checked against the police national database, and the force has launched a new initiative to re-vet officers whose behaviour is of concern. Singling out rogue officers should be the simplest part of Sir Mark’s job. The more difficult task will be changing the internal culture of the Met, where misogyny and racism are frequently dismissed as “banter” and problems are denied. Lady Casey’s damning report revealed a culture where solidarity and silence are prized over speaking out. Supervisors warned against making allegations and officers who reported misconduct were ostracised. Complaints, particularly those concerning sexual or racial discrimination, were more likely to be dismissed than acted upon.
Turning this around will be difficult. Part of the problem is depleted resources: professional standards units (PSUs), the crucial local bodies that handle the majority of misconduct allegations, have been overstretched and understaffed. Detectives are not permitted to work in local PSUs, meaning they lack the capacity to properly investigate allegations. One officer described them as “the dumping ground for staff”. Meanwhile, leadership training for sergeants has been stripped back, allowing mediocre performance to go unchecked. While Sir Mark is trying to transform the Met from the top, the power to influence its internal culture is exercised by line managers and supervisors. Providing proper leadership training is imperative.
Large public organisations are not famed for their eagerness to change. In New Zealand, a national programme of police reform has taken a decade to bear results. In 2007, an investigation into failures to deal with allegations of sexual assault by police officers resulted in 47 recommendations. The progress of police was monitored and results were reported quarterly over nine years. To overhaul the Met, a similar monitoring process will be necessary. Lady Casey has called for a new governance structure to scrutinise progress on the recommendations in her review. It cannot be left to the Met to make the changes that are so urgently required of it.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
