HMIC criticises handling of chief officer suicide

There was a lack of clarity about the division of responsibility and accountability between Wiltshire Police Authority and its chief constable in the build up to, and following the death of,the force’s deputy chief constable David Ainsworth in 2011, while issues around sexual harassment have also been highlighted as a “worrying concern” in the police service.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), in its Lessons learnt review: Wiltshire Police report, said there would have been a benefit in the police authority providing clarity, at an early stage, of its governance and oversight responsibilities and communicating them to all those involved.

The conclusions were made this week following a request by Wiltshire Police Authority for HMIC to identify lessons from the management of the death of Mr Ainsworth.

Mr Ainsworth was found dead in his garage at his home in Potterne, Wiltshire, on March 22, 2011. The 49-year-old had been removed from duties and later placed on secondment after a series of complaints over allegations he sexually harassed female colleagues.

HMIC said the police authority was the “appropriate authority” for the purposes of the subsequent misconduct investigation, but during the period of the investigation, there is little evidence to suggest that it exercised clear oversight or gave proper consideration as to whether the redeployment arrangements were workable.

The matter was delegated to the force chief constable to resolve with many commenting that the resultant redeployment arrangements created an unsatisfactory situation for all parties, including Mr Ainsworth, whose duties were significantly curtailed due to the restrictions placed upon him.

In addition, inspectors said Wiltshire Police Authority, as well as other authorities across England and Wales, fail to fully vet senior appointments.

Wiltshire Police Authority said it is disappointed by the balance of the key findings in the report and the “failure” to reflect the important issues voiced by many of the participants during the course of the review.

It said that certain key issues, which had been raised by numerous participants in the HMIC review, namely: how officers can reach senior positions without appropriate vetting; how conduct matters which could and should be tackled early can be left unchecked – have been either “glossed over or omitted altogether in the final review report”.

Christopher Hoare, chair of Wiltshire Police Authority, said: “With regard to officer vetting, as part of their current professional role HMIC make recommendations on all senior appointments to both the Home Secretary and the appointing police authority. It has done so for decades without, it seems, routinely checking if these officers had received even the most basic vetting.

“In these circumstances, for HMIC to state in their review report that their ‘review team were surprised that both the chief constable and the police authority had ‘assumed’ that vetting had been correctly conducted and completed’ is puzzling.”

He added: “Wiltshire Police Authority feels strongly that HMIC, as the body currently with the ultimate responsibility for recommending the suitability of chief officer candidates to the Home Secretary and police authorities, should be taking the lead in addressing the present random application of the vetting policy.”

A number of recommendations were made to the force and authority to help it deal with other similar cases which include calling for a dedicated ‘whistle-blowing’ policy to be developed.

Meanwhile, Unison welcomed the report’s findings. It said that it must lead to a “root and branch review of sexual harassment in the police; the steps that are taken to tackle it, and the procedures by which it can be reported”.

Ben Priestley, Unison national officer for police and justice, said: “Investigations at Wiltshire and in other forces have revealed sexual harassment in the police to be on a worrying s