Legal and Professional Standards Department - Wrongdoing: counter corruption procedure (P01b)

1. Summary of changes

1.1. This standard operating procedure (SOP) has been reviewed in October 2022 - no amendments to content have been made. 

2. What this procedure is about

2.1. This policy provides guidance in relation to counter corruption, the types of potential corruption and how the force aims to counter it. Corruption in the police service in England and Wales remains a rare event. However, when corruption does occur it has a disproportionately damaging and negative impact upon individuals, police forces and on the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole. Kent Police will continue to assess the threats and identify emerging patterns of potential corruption. We are committed to minimising the risk through intelligence, prevention and detection.

2.2. Corruption is any activity carried out by an individual for gain, favour, advancement, or reward that is inconsistent with the proper practice of their office, employment or responsibility. The definition of corruption is “a law enforcement official commits an unlawful act, or deliberately fails to fulfil their role, arising out of an abuse of their position, for personal or perceived organisational advantage, having the potential to affect a member of the public.”

2.3. Corruption can include criminal offences of fraud. Section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 creates a general offence of fraud and introduces three possible ways of committing it as follows:

1(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

1(2) The sections are:

(a) fraud by false representation

(b) fraud by failing to disclose information

(c) fraud by abuse of position

See PNLD for examples. Further detail can also be found in the Fraud Act 2006.

The penalty for committing fraud is up to ten years imprisonment and/or fine.

2.4. This SOP should be read in conjunction with the Code of Ethics.

Compliance with this SOP and any governing policy is mandatory.

3. Detail the procedure

3.1. Kent Police will not tolerate fraud or corruption in the administration of its responsibilities. It expects senior managers to take positive action wherever fraudulent or corrupt activity is suspected. Disciplinary procedures will be invoked where improper behaviour is indicated. If there is any evidence of criminal behaviour, the matter will be referred to the Professional Standards Department (PSD). Disciplinary matters for contracted staff will be handled through the appropriate channels within the relevant company. However, if the matter relates to criminal behaviour then PSD will investigate. 

3.2. The Kent Police anti-corruption strategy:
‘Through intelligence, prevention and detection, Kent Police is committed to making sure the opportunity for corruption is reduced to the lowest possible risk. Where corruption is identified the organisation will deal with it proportionately and effectively.’

3.3. The Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 places a duty upon specified authorities (which includes the police) to ensure that their functions are discharged having due regard to the need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism. Our staff are not immune from radicalisation, therefore if such concerns regarding an individual or institution are identified, these should be referred to the Kent Police prevent team via the FIMU at Kent SB JIU.

3.4. Culture 

3.4.1. An integral part of the force strategy is the need to expose corrupt staff through reporting incidents and supporting proceedings against the offenders and to therefore engender trust in the integrity of the organisation. PCC members and Kent Police staff are an important element in this stance on corruption and are positively encouraged to raise any concerns, which are associated with Kent Police activity. They can do this in the knowledge that such concerns will be treated in confidence, properly investigated and fairly dealt with. If necessary, a route other than that via a line manager may be used to raise such concerns. There is an expectation and requirement that all individuals and organisations associated in whatever capacity with Kent Police will act with integrity and that staff at all levels will lead by example in these matters. 

3.5. Prevention

3.5.1. Kent Police’s anti-corruption strategy is based on a series of comprehensive and inter-related policies designed to frustrate and discover any attempt of fraud or corruption. Improving the overall level of integrity and preventing opportunities for corruption is essential to maintain and improve a high level of public confidence. Kent Police recognises that a key measure in the prevention of corruption is by setting standards. Seminars and master classes presented by PSD are aimed at new recruits, current staff and existing managers. Information and advice is available through policies, the intranet and various mediums. Staff are also encouraged to contact PSD and if necessary in confidence, through the anonymous PSD email or the confidential phone line.

3.5.2. Rigorous vetting procedures for the recruitment of police and non-police personnel, physical security precautions and IT security, are important elements in the meeting of this threat, but none can be viewed or used in isolation from each other. Kent Police has a number of policies and encourages intrusive management and adherence to basic security principles that will have a positive impact on preventing corruption within the police service.

3.5.3. Information provides vital knowledge that informs the tactical and strategic decision-making process of the force. This may be a significant risk to Kent Police operations by unauthorised and inappropriate access to data sources. Minimising these risks through security, audits and monitoring is a priority.

3.5.4. Factors outside of the workplace can be an influence that will give rise to corruption. This may involve domestic problems in a variety of guises. Staff, supervisors and managers are reminded of the support mechanisms that are in place through the Occupational Health and the Pro-active Scanning Group.

3.5.5. Criminals sometimes seek out financially vulnerable people and offer inducements, rewards or gifts in exchange for information or favours. Unauthorised disclosure represents a real threat to the police service as well as jeopardising the career of officers or staff involved in the illegal trade of information or data.

3.5.6. Cases will arise where Kent Police officers and police staff employees are influenced by family and childhood friends, which may lead to corruption. A common feature is that officers or staff live and work in the same area in which they grew up. This potentially exposes them to a possible conflict of interests if their family or friends are criminals. After initial recruitment vetting, staff that remain in basic vetting posts are encouraged to declare any family members or friends that they consider are criminals to the PSD Counter Corruption Unit. Staff that move into posts requiring a higher level of vetting are required to disclose such associations. This information can be submitted directly to the PSD Counter Corruption Intelligence Unit on an intelligence report.

3.5.7. CCTV is in operation across the police estate. This may be used to investigate both criminal and misconduct allegations.

3.6. Reporting

3.6.1. If you have reason to suspect corrupt activity on the part of a colleague you must raise the matter discreetly and as soon as possible with your line manager. If you feel that immediate contact with a line manager is inappropriate under all the circumstances, the following are directly approachable:

• PSD
• PCC’s internal auditor

3.6.2. As a line manager or senior manager, if an allegation of corruption is made or suspected, you must consult PSD with a view to identifying the appropriate investigative response. Arrangements will then be made to:

• deal promptly with the matter
• record all evidence received
• ensure the evidence is sound and adequately supported
• ensure the security of all evidence collected

3.6.3. The Operational Security Officer (OPSY) works in close collaboration with the Head of PSD, and independently from the force intelligence chain of command. The purpose of the OPSY is to identify and encourage good practice in relation to intelligence handling and operational security, providing advice and guidance to support operational managers and undertaking the independent review and audit of the operational use of intelligence and operational security arrangements.

3.6.4. Kent Police will co-operate with the following external bodies, whose prerogatives extend over the conduct of the authority's business. The list is not exclusive.

• External Audit/Audit Commission
• HM Inspector of Constabulary
• Independent Police Complaints Commission
• Revenue and Customs
• Department of Work and Pensions
• the Local Government Ombudsman

4. Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)

4.1. An EIA has been carried out and shows the proposals in this policy would have no potential or actual differential impact on grounds of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, transgender, disability, age, religion or belief or sexual orientation.

5. Risk assessment

5.1. This SOP has been assessed as low risk.

6. Consultation

• Detective Chief Inspector Professional Standards
• Detective Constable Professional Standards

7. Monitoring and review

7.1. This SOP will be reviewed by professional standards every two years, with the next review taking place in October 2024.

8. Security

8.1 Kent Police has measures in place to protect the security of your data in accordance with our Information Management policy.

9. Retention and disposal of records

9.1 Kent Police will hold data in accordance with our Records Review, Retention and Disposal policy.