Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

Nicholas Perry could be dismissed after incognito colleague filmed interaction.

A Met Police officer thought he was saving himself hours of paperwork by letting a member of the public off the hook for drug possession - but could now be dismissed as the man was an undercover officer.

PC Nicholas Perry, based at the Roads and Transport Policing Command, was carrying out a routine patrol alongside a probationer colleague when he saw a man walking towards him “brazenly” holding two small bags of cannabis in his hands.

He told him to hand over the drugs then ground the contents under his boot, in north-west London in October 2016.

He did not file any records or carry out name checks and even told the man “Do you want to get arrested?” when the apparent member of the public asked if he was going to be served with paperwork, a misconduct hearing heard.

PC Perry accepts his action amounted to misconduct but denies gross misconduct, arguing his behaviour does not justify dismissal. 

Stephen Morley, representing the force, said PC Perry had been an experienced officer at the time of the incident, with seven-and-a-half years service under his belt.

He had been on a routine patrol with PC Ricardo Kuronis, sweeping the area near a bus stop for knives and other weapons.

An officer named at the hearing as “Simon”, was on a separate, undercover operation at the time and had just bought two bags of cannabis.

“As the three officers walked towards each other as, Simon says 'Alright?' PC Perry says 'Hi, what have you got in your hand'.”

Simon insisted he had “just a phone” until PC Perry lost patience, asked him to “hand over the gear”, told him “Off you go” and dropped the cannabis on the floor, Mr Morley said.

Mr Morley added: “Simon turns around a bit cheekily and says don’t you give us no paperwork or anything. PC Perry says do you want us to nick you?

“He grinds it on the floor with his boot and puts the plastic wrappers in the dustbin.”

Because of the sensitive nature of Simon’s work, PC Perry wasn’t given his misconduct notice until June 2017 and was not interviewed until last October.

Mr Morley said: “PC Perry was immediately honest about what happened and said he remembered and accepted he’d taken the drugs and destroyed them. He said it was a small amount of cannabis and decided to simply use his discretion to destroy the cannabis and apologised.

“He knew in essence he should have done the checks and records. He said he’d let himself and PC Kuronis down and agreed he let the police service down as well.

“It was unfortunate it was an undercover officer. It could have been someone who walked away from that incident with a very low view of the police service. 

“It was topped off with the threat to arrest. We say this was a serious statement.”

PC Perry told the misconduct panel although he had no idea Simon was a police officer, he was “99 per cent sure” he was not a drug dealer as he did not fit the demographic and would “have to be out of his mind” to encroach on local drug dealers’ territory.

He said he had mistakenly believed he had the right to use his discretion and wanted to save himself two to three hours paperwork, bypass the force’s “bureaucratic system” and prioritise searching the area for weapons instead of dealing with a tiny amount of cannabis.

But he also argues his judgement at the time was clouded by work related stress and personal struggles.

He claims he had been bullied by a colleague in the 18 months prior to the October 20 incident. He said his concerns about working conditions were “largely ignored and dismissed” and he was eventually referred to occupational health for depression and work related stress.

PC Perry recalled that in September that year he had been working in a small team based in the Civic Centre in Harrow and was chatting with other officers and PCSOs about how the day had gone when another officer launched into a verbal attack.

“He stood leaning over me as I was sat down and said 'Fuck off you fucking wanker I fucking hate you.'

“I requested to move teams. That was ignored. I felt very uncomfortable working with him and I requested many more times to be moved,” he said.

PC Perry had a two week residential occupational health internment later that year.

His lawyer, Nicholas Yeo told the panel the PC did not have a lenient attitude towards cannabis and had seized £120,000 worth of the drug from a residential property after smelling the drug on his walk to work on the same day as the incident with the undercover officer took place.

Mr Yeo said: “From a common sense point of view the decision he [PC Perry] came to was not a bad one having regards to there wasn’t much in the way of drugs [and] the time that would have been spent in dealing with the drugs.

“By way of background, in 2004 the Labour government reduced cannabis from Class B to C. In 2009 Gordon Brown put it back to B. Research shows 190,000 [of police] hours were saved by having it as Class C.

“It was a rather unusual set of circumstances. Simon deliberately brought himself to the attention of the police, he passed one would think deliberately close to the officer.

“This officer has given evidence saying he met his eye. He was the first to speak to him and had the drugs in his hands.

“Ordinarily people who don’t want to be arrested wouldn’t be acting in that way.”

PC Kuronis was initially investigated alongside by PC Perry but dealt with via management action as it was decided although he should have challenged PC Perry, he was a junior officer and was not the perpetrator.

The hearing continues.

View On Police Oracle

[Radman + 2,163]

I personally would stop check the individual and if everything came back alright just write up a street warning in my EPNB and get them to sign it.

You're talking it all being mostly sorted there and then with a small statement to attach at the end of it which again can be written up in my EPNB now.

No more than 30 minutes work.

As many of you know I'm a stickler for drug possession and use though...

Edited July 31, 2018 by Radman

[Zulu 22 + 4,574]

I see it as Misconduct but not Gross Misconduct. Interesting that he had been responsible, that day, for the seizure of £120,000 worth of the drug when off duty on his way to work.  He was, perhaps, misguided to deal with the mater by summary justice destroying the drug in the offenders view. He did put the empty plastic bags into a bin.

Another concern for me would be the time scale the incident was in October 2016 and was not reported until June 2017 ?  There is some hidden story in that time scale. He was then not interviewed until October 2017 some 12 months later. When interviewed he was honest about what had happened.

Perhaps it is a case of cracking a nut with a sledge hammer.

[andi + 1,262]

It says why it took so long in the article.

“It was unfortunate it was an undercover officer. It could have been someone who walked away from that incident with a very low view of the police service.

I'm sure they'd have been gutted to avoid getting done for possession! [emoji23]

[Fedster + 1,307]

PC who used discretion to destroy cannabis keeps job

Officer wanted to get on with weapons search, so didn't file paperwork.

 

Date - 31st July 2018
By - JJ Hutber at the Empress State Building

 

A misconduct panel chairman raised concerns taxpayers’ money has been wasted by bringing gross misconduct proceedings against an officer who destroyed £10-worth of seized drugs without filing paperwork.

A hearing over claims PC Nicholas Perry, based at the Roads and Transport Policing Command (RTPC), breached Standards of Professional Behaviour has now concluded.

Metropolitan Police officer PC Perry has been cleared of gross misconduct, with panel chairman Maurice Cohen describing him as “an otherwise good officer”.

In October 2016 PC Perry had passed a man “brazenly” walking towards him in Peel Road, Wealdstone, north-west London, with £10-worth of cannabis in his hand.

PC Perry seized the drugs and destroyed them by grinding them with his boot but did not file any records or carry out name checks.

Unfortunately for the constable, the member of the public was actually an undercover officer working on a drugs-related operation. He filmed the interaction.

PC Perry admitted misconduct but not gross misconduct. He said the paperwork for seizing the cannabis would have taken him two to three hours and he wanted to get on with carrying out a weapons search of the area.

Today Mr Cohen concluded PC Perry’s behaviour amounted to misconduct but not gross misconduct and did not justify dismissal.

Mr Cohen said he had been particularly impressed with PC Perry’s work uncovering a cannabis farm worth £120,000 on his way to work on the day of the October 2016 incident.

He said he appreciated PC Perry was prioritising a weapons sweep in an area commonly used by gangs to hide weapons, but the officer should have “at the very least asked for the identity of [undercover officer] Simon”.

“The hearing’s view of aggravating factors is that PC Perry was aware there was a policy in regards to the seizure of drugs and he did not follow the procedure in the mistaken belief it was up to his discretion.

“The panel accept this was his genuine belief.

“PC Perry felt unsupported at work where he was harassed by a colleague.

“He is an otherwise good officer. The panel did not consider that PC Perry was not an industrious officer but [that he] acted impulsively in an encounter lasting 20 seconds.

"He has an otherwise unblemished record.

“The panel do not find his actions amounted to gross misconduct. The panel do not find the nature of the misconduct constitute dismissal.”

Mr Cohen said he was concerned that allegations of dishonesty and integrity, which were withdrawn by the force’s lawyer yesterday, were ever raised against PC Perry as he immediately confessed to every other claim against him at the first opportunity.

He added: “His actions should have been considered at a misconduct meeting rather than a hearing and PC Perry should not have been taken off operational duties for the best part of a year. There is also issue with respect to the cost to the public purse.”

Police Oracle contacted PC Perry's lawyer but the officer declined to comment. 

View On Police Oracle

[andi + 1,262]

Correct decision. Ridiculous that it got a so far over £10 of weed. Of course, he should have done the checks, and submitted the crime, and booked the cannabis in, but his intention were quite sensible to be honest.

[Hyphen + 693]

I have to say I’m absolutely staggered by this, how on Earth has it got as far as it did? And it sounds like he has been on restricted duties? 

Why couldnt this have been dealt with by his supervision? At most yes, a misconduct meeting and slap on the wrist. As usual, it seems like someone has really overegged this yet again, seems a common theme with the Met.

Yes he should have done a check, he should have recorded it properly, I think we can all agree. Ultimately what he has done is use his discretion as from the sounds of it there were more pressing things going on at that moment in time. 

I also see that the cop appears to have been honest throughout despite being interviewed a year later from what was a very forgettable interaction, he seems to be a good officer with a clean record. Just seems completely over the top.

We all use our discretion, this should never be taken away. How often do we let things go? (Usually NTE type disorder), How often do crimes get filed as investigation not in the public interest? To be fair in the right context and circumstances it could be completely inappropriate to be spending time on simple possession of £10 worth of cannabis.

At least a sensible decision has been reached, yet again thank goodness for these independent chairs.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Hyphen
Trying to change font

[Zulu 22 + 4,574]

The Chairman of the tribunal made his opinion very clear in his remarks about the waste of time.

[HazRat 762]

That’s because the MPS see it as a discipline system. Its like the aims of the Taylor reforms bypassed then. Hopefully with the changes next year we’ll see a difference and we will start learning from minor mistakes rather than trying to gross misconduct anything and everything.

[Zulu 22 + 4,574]

What ever happened to the stern words of advice and a reprimand from a Sergeant or Inspector. Not everything has to be subject of a discipline report.

[Mac7 808]

What ever happened to the stern words of advice and a reprimand from a Sergeant or Inspector. Not everything has to be subject of a discipline report.

I agree and believe the complaints system has swung to far from where it used to be as forces, press the NPCC etc seek even greater openness and transparency. We forget the public perception and opinion. Is this what they really want.

The officer failed to record a crime, failed to dispose of the drugs correctly, failed the evidential chain and many other things but does it really warrant this level of investigation? I don’t think so. I feel there could have been a much more common sense outcome.

[SimonT + 1,185]

The thing I find most concerning is that there are issues quite often. Files not completed appropriately, evidence left in desks, offences crimed as x rather than y etc etc These could all be issues. 

This rarely leads to anything at all and shouldn't. But then one thing happens and suddenly its a full scale investigation with dire consequence. It's the lack of consistency of any sort and gross overreaction. 

"pc x, that cannabis should have been crimed and ideally you should have done some Id checks, but I understand your reasoning and you were on a priority tasking. I will keep an eye on your crime records for a while to see if you are dealing appropriately." done. 

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

This was essentially an admin issue... based on the way we run our system.

Had it been a non-recordable offence there would have been little issue other than the lack of a name check. Which can be dealt with as a performance issue rather than a misconduct issue.

I think he made a common sense decision I might very well have made myself.

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

I am not going to say on a public forum whether I disposed of cannabis in this way on one or two occasions prior to Cannabis Warnings being introduced but if I had done, I would have recorded it in my pocketbook after PNCing the individual concerned. I would have only done so because I get that there was no public interest in nicking someone with no previous for cannabis possession and taking up a cell at a particular time of night when there were no aggravating factors about their possession. But I have nicked loads of people for cannabis possession and they often only come to police attention as a result of the aggravating factors about what they were doing.

 

It’s the lack of recording of the incident that just makes it sloppy.

 

The undercover Officer clearly wanted to get ‘caught’ and it makes me wonder why? A legitimate question would have been “where did you get it from?”, at which point the undercover Officer would have probably told him and thus he would have ‘laundered’ the intelligence, so it wouldn’t have been attributable to an undercover operation.

 

[Mac7 808]

I’m surprised a UC would blow cover for such a small quantity of class B.