The Northamptonshire Police, Fire and Crime Panel met to discuss the response of Danielle Stone, the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC) to a recent Court of Appeal judgement regarding the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police. The panel scrutinised the PFCC's discharge of her statutory functions in response to the judgement. A recommendation was made and approved that the panel should have the opportunity to see and comment on the scope and terms of reference for the PFCC's independent review before they are finalised.

Court of Appeal Judgement

The panel convened to discuss the response to a Court of Appeal judgement relating to the case of Ms Budud Kwasi versus the Chief Constable. Julia Rickards, one of the heads of legal at West Northamptonshire Council, explained that Ms Kwasi was arrested by Northamptonshire Police in September 2021, and subsequently made a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office¹. The office ordered that all police body worn footage should be handed over, but Northamptonshire Police failed to comply. A county court data audit revealed further video footage that should have been disclosed, and the Chief Constable conceded the appeal the day before the appeal hearing. The Chief Constable was appointed to the role in February 2021.

Danielle Stone, the PFCC, told the panel that she was briefed by her monitoring officer on 4 November, and in person on 5 November. On 6 November, she briefed the panel chair, the monitoring officer, and His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMI).

Panel members raised concerns about public trust in policing following the incident. Dr Carolyn Kus, the Deputy Chair, suggested that the panel should be involved in the initial scope of the review to give the public trust and confidence that it is open. She also expressed concern that the Chief Constable was not aware of what was happening in the organisation.

Ms Stone responded that her office is completely independent from the police, and that she would be appointing someone independently to conduct the review. She also stated that the Chief Constable has been a big part of the work to make people feel safer and to build trust and confidence.

Councillor Sally Keeble raised concerns about the fact that the Chief Constable was appointed acting Chief Constable five or six months after the initial statement, and was surprised that nothing came up between then and his appointment. She hoped that the review would look at whether information was withheld during the appointment process.

Councillor Daniel Lister, the Leader of the Conservative Group, said that it was not an admin error but a contempt of court, and asked what it says about how Northamptonshire Police operates and its culture. He also questioned how the PFCC missed a contempt of court proceeding during the vetting process, and suggested that a genuinely independent systemic review of policing was needed, not one led by the PFCC's deputy or another police force.

Ms Stone responded that she didn't know about the incident and neither did the Chief Constable, and that she was anxious to find out if it could happen again. She also stated that there would be someone independent alongside her deputy for panel members to note.

Councillor James Towns asked whether the additional footage had been disclosed to Ms Kwasi, and when the panel would find out the make-up of the independent commission that Marianne would be monitoring. Ms Stone confirmed that all the footage had been disclosed.

Councillor Graham Cheatley said that if he was a member of the public, it wouldn't be a good look for Northamptonshire Police or the PFCC's office. He also stated that he would like more time to challenge and question the operations of the police.

Councillor Vinnie Whitrow said that he was not a fan of marking your own homework, and questioned how many of those in 2021 were involved with the police force. He also stated that it would not be transparent in the eyes of the public.

Ms Stone offered reassurance and corrected an inaccuracy, stating that the Chief Constable spent seven years in the Met.

Councillor Keeble asked for clarity on whether the panel could see the terms of reference for the review before it happens. Dr Kus echoed this point, suggesting that the panel should have the opportunity to make some comment and influence on the scoping. She also suggested that part of the scoping should look at organisational culture within the police service.

The panel agreed that it would like to see the proposed terms of reference and scope for the Commissioner's independent review, and to have an opportunity to have an input in those before they're finalised. Ms Stone agreed to share the terms of reference and the scoping with the panel.

Councillor Mark Arnull, the Leader of the Council and Leader of the Reform UK Group, raised concerns about the recruitment language used at the time of recruitment for the Chief Constable, and asked whether there was trust in the public that the police are competent and have integrity. He also stated that residents are saying that it is the panel's duty to underpin public confidence in policing, and asked what can be done when there have been two occasions of former and current Chief Constables having issues. He also asked whether the Chief Constable would pass police vetting, and what the PFCC's thoughts were on the Home Secretary's statement that the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner is a failed project that needs to go.

Ms Stone responded that she works with all parties, and that she is up for improving the situation and learning as she goes along.

Jonny Bugg clarified that the sanction from the Court of Appeal was a non-criminal matter, and would not impact on the legal framework around fitness to be a Chief Constable. However, he stated that the Chief Constable had been recently reviewed as an abundance of caution.

James Edmunds described a passage on a recommendation that the panel would like to see the terms of reference and the proposed scope for the Commissioner's independent review, and for the panel to have an opportunity to have an input in those before they're finalised.

Ms Stone responded that she felt the panel needed to remain independent enough to carry out its scrutiny function, and advised against joining the Gold Group[^3]. She agreed to share the terms of reference and the scoping with the panel.

The panel approved the recommendation that it should have the opportunity to see and comment on the scope and terms of reference for the PFCC's independent review before they are finalised.

Councillor Keeble made a factual point that the previous Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner candidate wasn't convicted, but cautioned.