Discipline

The MPA was responsible for deciding whether any disciplinary action should be taken against Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick. The MPS was similarly responsible for deciding whether to take disciplinary action in relation to the other officers.

During the IPCC inquiry, 15 officers were warned that the investigation might result in disciplinary proceedings being brought against them (commonly referred to as ‘serving a regulation 9 notice ‘ – a 163 notice in the Met ) indicating a possible breach of the police code of conduct regulations *).  

Once the CPS had made its decision, the IPCC considered the memorandum from the MPA and MPS and decided that the Regulation 9 notices against 11 frontline surveillance and firearms officers should be withdrawn.  

However, no decision was made about the four senior officers involved, as the IPCC decided that it would be premature to make such a decision before the conclusion of the criminal trial.  

After the trial, the IPCC received a memorandum from the MPA and MPS about the four senior officers. Nick Hardwick decided not to issue a recommendation for senior officers to face disciplinary proceedings. The trial jury’s rider had specifically said that no blame should attach to the most senior officer, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick.  

* From 1 December 2008 any matters that are sent to police forces/authorities will result in officers being served with a regulation 14A or regulation 15 notice.