Police failed to ‘do enough’ in murder investigation
The Metropolitan police’s ability to tackle corruption is “fundamentally flawed”, according to reports.
From reports, the policing inspectorate has found a damning report into the Daniel Morgan murder.
The report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services was ordered from this.
Morgan was found dead in 1987 in a pub car park in south London with an axe in his head.
No one has been convicted of the murder.
The force was accused of “indifference”, despite decades of promises.
The Met had still not learned all the lessons, the inspectorate found.
“Failed to properly supervise more than 100 recruits with criminal convictions or criminal connections, to lessen the risk they may pose. Those convictions include handling stolen goods, possession of drugs, assault, and theft.
“The Met does not know if those in highly sensitive posts, such as child protection, major crime investigation, and informant handling, are vetted to the right level.
Matt Parr, the HM inspector of constabulary, said: ”Corruption is almost certainly higher than the Met understands.”
Parr added: “It is unacceptable that 35 years after Daniel Morgan’s murder, the Metropolitan police has not done enough to ensure its failings from that investigation cannot be repeated.
“We found no evidence that someone, somewhere, had adopted the view that this must never happen again.
“We found substantial weaknesses in the Met’s approach to tackling police corruption. The Met’s apparent tolerance of these shortcomings suggests a degree of indifference to the risk of corruption.
The findings from the inspectorate were so serious that the headlines findings were briefed to the home secretary, Met commissioner, and London mayor.
The panel that looked into Morgan’s murder, set up by the government, reported last year and found the Met to be institutionally corrupt.
“We concluded that the adverse matters …..bore the hallmarks of limited resources allocated to the maintenance of professional standards, professional incompetence, a lack of understanding of important concepts, poor management or a genuine error, rather than dishonesty.
Contact Gi National
Email us: firstname.lastname@example.org