Sacked home secretary Suella Braverman should not have publicly lambasted the Metropolitan Police as she pressured the force to ban a pro-Palestinian march, a watchdog has found.
Chief inspector of constabulary Andy Cooke said Ms Braverman’s comments over the Armistice Day march in which she accused the force of bias and playing favourites in policing protests – ultimately leading to her dismissal from government – should have been delivered in private if deemed appropriate.
In a report published on Tuesday, which Ms Braverman herself had ordered, his findings also detail how police chiefs warned they were often subject to “improper” interference from significant political figures.
Then-prime minister Rishi Sunak fired Ms Braverman amid the furore last year as she stood accused of stoking tensions ahead of protests in London and defied Downing Street by writing an unauthorised opinion piece for The Times newspaper.
In it she said “pro-Palestinian mobs” were “largely ignored, even when clearly breaking the law”, while aggressive right-wing protesters are met with a stern response by officers, whom she accused of “double standards”.
But the force said it had no legal powers to ban the march due to a lack of intelligence indicating any risks.
More than 100 arrests were made after right-wing protesters clashed with officers, while some members of the large pro-Palestinian march were accused of using antisemitic slogans.
Mr Cooke produced the report after Ms Braverman called on the watchdog to inspect police involvement in politically contested matters in September last year.
After setting out the details of the Remembrance Day protests and her actions, the findings said: “Forces and politicians alike should pay close attention to the risk of any improper political interference.
“This includes the risk of actual interference or perceived interference, whether that perception is accurate or not. Usually, such an intervention, if deemed appropriate, should be done in private.”
Making 22 recommendations for improvement to the Home Office, National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and College of Policing, Mr Cooke described the inspection as one of the most “challenging” the watchdog had carried out, requiring inspectors to navigate complex laws, regulations and relationships between politicians and police as officers are tasked with keeping the peace.
He said: “The operational independence of chief constables is a cornerstone of policing in the UK. And the exercise of democratic accountability and governance is also a fundamental element of policing.
“Chief constables must be held to account for how efficiently and effectively they carry out their duties. There is a delicate balance to strike between these equally important concepts.
“Chief officers told us that they often experience what they believe to be improper pressure or interference from significant political figures. We found that overt attempts to influence operational policing challenge the police’s impartiality and could reduce public trust.”
Calling for a clear definition of operational independence for forces to follow, he added: “Police chiefs, police and crime commissioners, mayors and senior politicians should pay close attention to the risk posed by improper political interference, whether actual or perceived.”
The 129-page report also highlighted an incident where Mr Sunak apparently backed down after initially severely criticising a police officer dealing with protesters.
Mr Sunak told the BBC he was “appalled” by video footage of an interaction between a Jewish man and a police officer during a pro-Palestine protest in April, sparking calls for Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley to resign.
Nine days later, when a longer clip was released of the interaction, showing that the officer had dealt with the confrontation reasonably, the then-prime minister declared he had confidence in Sir Mark.
The report said: “Senior politicians should take great care to make sure they are in possession of the full facts before making public statements that can have a detrimental effect on the public perception of police impartiality.”
It also found that some police and crime commissioners (PCCs) wrongly think that chief constables are their employees and must implement their police and crime plan.
One officer said they received three to four emails a day from their PCC’s office asking for an operational response to certain issues.
Chief constables who need a contract extension to reach pensionable age are under increased pressure to keep PCCs happy, the report found.
Many officers told the watchdog that local councillors and MPs had tried to influence operational policing.
“In one force, interviewees told us of an MP contacting a chief officer by telephone about the police response to a public demonstration that had blocked a road.
“The MP had told the officer that they would receive a call from ‘the minister’ if they didn’t get the road open,” the report said.
Another interviewee said that PCCs, MPs and councillors get “an enhanced service” because they have a direct line to senior officers.
They claimed officers “drop everything” for them.
Chief Constable Gavin Stephens, chairman of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, said the report highlighted the “complex balance” faced by force leaders.
“Police and crime commissioners, MPs and other elected officials have a vitally important role in speaking up for and reflecting the views of the people who elect them. They also hold policing to account,” he said.
“For that accountability to be effective, police officers must have independence in their operational decision making.
“We are a police service for every community and in taking decisions, policing must remain independent and empowered to keep the public safe without any undue influence.”
Mrs Braverman and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners have been approached for comment.
A Government spokesperson said: “Our police officers face challenges every single day and act without fear or favour to keep our streets safe, and it is vital they are supported.
“The Government strongly supports operational independence, which is the bedrock of our policing model.
“We welcome the report and will work closely with policing to consider the recommendations.”
