Chapter 5: Hampshire Constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service
How the families’ complaints against the police were investigated
Between 1998 and 2007, a number of complaints were made by family members regarding the conduct and management of the first, second and third police investigations. During that period, six investigations into police conduct were carried out and six reports were produced on various aspects of the three investigations. Additionally, the IPCC carried out one review of a complaint investigation and one complaint investigation of its own. The following is a summary of those complaints, investigations, reports and reviews.
Mrs Mackenzie’s complaint
On 20 November 1998, during the first police investigation, Mrs Mackenzie made a complaint alleging that the investigation being undertaken by Det Con Maddison was flawed, not properly supervised, and that Det Insp Morgan had spoken to her in an inappropriate manner (HCO501756).
The notice to Det Insp Morgan alleged that during a telephone conversation Det Insp Morgan was aggressive, uncivil and unprofessional towards Mrs Mackenzie, that Det Insp Morgan had also misled Mrs Mackenzie regarding the submission of papers to the CPS, and that she had failed to supervise the investigation in a manner that ensured it was dealt with thoroughly.
The notice to Det Con Maddison alleged that, having been tasked to undertake an investigation, he had not properly carried out the investigation, that the investigation undertaken by him was flawed and failed to secure all available evidence, and that he had breached Mrs Mackenzie’s confidentiality by informing a film crew of the facts of the case.
On 16 August 1999, Det Supt Longman provided a report to Ch Supt Basson (‘the Longman report’), which confirmed that his terms of reference were to “Review the investigation undertaken by officers from Gosport CID and report to the Head of Complaints and Discipline in respect of the quality and conduct of the investigation” (HCO501805, p20).
Det Supt Longman reached the following conclusions:
“I believe that the seriousness of the allegations warranted, on receipt, overall responsibility for the investigation being taken by the Detective Inspector as Senior Investigating Officer, the use of a Policy Book to record the decision making processes and the use of a simple action based paper system to administer the enquiries.”
“Statements should have been obtained at an early stage from both Mrs. McKenzie and Mrs. Lack outlining their allegations and concerns.”
“Mrs. Lack’s detailed notes should have been produced correctly with a proper explanation on how, when and where the notes were compiled.”
“Early efforts should have been made to secure and produce the relevant hospital notes. It is not clear if these have ever been in police possession.”
“Opinion should then have been obtained from an independent medical expert preferably in addition to the report obtained from Dr. Lord who has strong connections to Gosport Memorial Hospital.”
“This independent statement ideally should have contained best practice procedures in this sort of case together with a comparison of the treatment received by Mrs. Richards as recorded on her hospital notes commenting specifically on the lack of intravenous fluids during the period of syringe driver pain killing medication prior to her death … an interview should then have been arranged by appointment with Dr. Barton under caution where her response to the allegations should have been sought.”
“The papers should have then been submitted to the CPS for advice.”
“I do not think however that those enquiries would have altered the outcome or the decision of the CPS.” (HCO501805, pp22–3)
On 18 August 1999, Det Ch Insp Burt was instructed to assume responsibility for the investigation to address the shortcomings that had been identified and pursue any other appropriate lines of enquiry (HCO000635, pp8–11).
By April 2000, Supt Stogden had decided, in agreement with Mrs Mackenzie, that her complaint would be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the second police investigation (HCO501733).
Superintendent (Supt) Adrian Whiting was appointed to take over from Supt Stogden as the Investigating Officer by 23 June 2000, and the complaint investigation was revived (HCO501818).
Mrs Mackenzie, dissatisfied with progress relating to her complaints, had contacted the PCA in November 2000 (HCO003653).
On 21 November, Ch Supt Basson, Head of the PSD, wrote to Mrs Mackenzie in response to her complaint and informed her that the PCA had no part to play in the complaint investigation at that stage. He apologised for the delay and confirmed that Supt Whiting would be in contact in due course (HCO501754). Some communication followed with Mrs Mackenzie (HCO501801, HCO501800, FAM004373).
On 17 January 2001, Supt Whiting submitted his report to Ch Supt Basson (‘the Whiting report’, HCO502128). The report concluded along similar lines to the Longman report and added:
“… it would have been reasonable to have secured and produced the relevant hospital notes and medical records, even though at this stage no decision had been made about further prosecution action, such items would doubtless have been essential to the proceedings had any commenced at that point … the opinion obtained from Dr LORD was not as independent as ought to have been the case, and that this ought to have been clear from his [sic] report, where he sets out his responsibility for the ward.” (HCO502128, p22)
Supt Whiting recommended that the most appropriate course of action would be to provide operational advice to both officers (HCO502128).
On 13 February, Dep Ch Const Readhead submitted his report to the PCA. His report concluded that the investigation “had not found any part of Mrs Mackenzie’s allegations to be founded and no impropriety had been found on the part of either officer” and recommended that both officers receive operational advice (HCO501752).
The Panel notes that Dep Ch Const Readhead’s report consists of three paragraphs and did not set out the exploration of events as recorded by Det Supt Longman and Supt Whiting. In this regard, the report lacks any detail around the investigation. With reference to the conclusions reached by Det Supt Longman and Supt Whiting, the Panel cannot see any basis for Dep Ch Const Readhead’s report to the PCA that Mrs Mackenzie’s allegations were unfounded.
On 13 March, the PCA endorsed Dep Ch Const Readhead’s recommendation (HCO501746, p1). The PCA informed Mrs Mackenzie of the outcome (pp2–3).
On 26 March, Hampshire Constabulary’s PSD sent a letter of apology to Mrs Mackenzie (HCO003359).
The complaint against Det Con Maddison and Det Insp Morgan was brought to a conclusion (HCO501795, p4).