The series of failings the IOPC identified in WMP’s criminal investigation were sufficient to indicate a criminal offence may have been committed, which is the basis on which the IOPC is required to refer material to the CPS for its consideration. In January 2017, the IOPC therefore referred ACC Jones and D Ch Supt Foster to the CPS for a decision on whether both should be charged with the criminal offences of misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice, in relation to the WMP criminal investigation.
In March 2018, the CPS announced that no charges would be brought as the evidential threshold for prosecution had not been met. The CPS stated that “whilst there was found to be some cause for concern in the actions of both suspects, there is insufficient [evidence] to reach the high threshold required to prove a criminal offence.” In particular, the CPS noted that while there was evidence that some aspects of the investigation were not carried out to a high standard, “there is a lack of evidence showing any deliberate plan or action by the suspects to hinder it.”
The CPS decision not to charge either former officer was challenged under the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme. The evidence was reviewed by a different prosecutor, who upheld the original decision.
The IOPC nonetheless reached the view that both ACC Jones and D Ch Supt Foster would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct, for failing to investigate SYP effectively. In addition, both would have had a case to answer for not intervening in SYP’s account amendment process.
Further, D Ch Supt Foster would have had a case to answer for not submitting all relevant evidence to the DPP and for failing to investigate the competence of SYP’s match commander.
In each case, the disciplinary offence would have been neglect of duty.
Further, the IOPC was of the view that the fixed mindset with which both ACC Jones and D Ch Supt Foster approached the criminal investigation meant that consciously or unconsciously, they failed to conduct a rigorous investigation because they were biased towards the force and against the supporters. On this basis, the IOPC view was that both officers would have had a case to answer for gross misconduct, for the disciplinary offence of discreditable conduct.
