Home > Your commissioner > Transparency > Freedom of information log > FOI 172 – Appointment of new Chief Constable

FOI 172 – Appointment of new Chief Constable

The OPCC is asked to provide information about the appointment of the Chief Constable.

FOI Request

Please disclose the following information by way of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000.

  1. In what publications was the post of chief constable advertised following the departure of Iain Spital.
  2. A copy of the advertisement.
  3. What was the cost of the advertising.
  4. How many applications were received?
  5. Of those applicants how many were shortlisted?
  6. Whom comprised the interviewing panel?
  7. Was the existence of two IPCC (now IOPC) misconduct/gross misconduct complaints against Mr Veale disclosed to the panel? Either (i) in writing (ii) verbally.
  8. If the answer to Q7 is yes, were any enquiries made by the panel (or an appointed delegate) of (i) the IPCC (as they were then) and (i) Wiltshire OPCC as to the merits and likely outcome of the complaints?
  9. Was the decision of the panel to apppoint Mr Veale as chief constable unanimous?
  10. Was the existence of the complaints against Mr Veale disclosed to the Police and Crime Scrutiny Panel (PCP) at the confirmation hearing?
  11. If the answer to Q10 is yes, was the disclosure either (a) in the working papers submitted to the PCP (b) verbally during closed session?

Supplementary Questions

Further to my earlier post on this What Do They Know thread. From this report in the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette the Cleveland PCC claims that he knew of the misconduct allegations against  Mr Veale and the IPCC investigation.

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/cleveland-police-knew-allegation-against-14206780

Accordingly, I wish to amend my information request as follows:

Existing question 8 becomes 8 (a)

New questions:

8(b) On what date did the PCC become aware of the misconduct allegations against Mr Veale?

8 (c) On what date did he seek legal advice and from whom?

8(c) On what date was the relevant legal advice provided to the PCC?

Revised question:

10. Was the existence of the complaints against Mr Veale, and the substance of the legal advice he had received concerning those complaints, disclosed to the Police and Crime Scrutiny Panel (PCP) at the confirmation hearing?

FOI Response

I can confirm that the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cleveland does hold some of this information. I will respond in order.

  1. I am refusing this element of your request by reference to the exemption under s21 of the Act – this information is reasonably accessible by other means, namely it can be found at the following web link in the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
  2. The advert was previously on the OPCC website, a copy of which is in the following web link:
    [please note this link has now expired].
  1. I am refusing this element of your request by reference to the exemption under s21 of the Act – this information is reasonably accessible by other means, namely it can be found at the following web link in the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
  2. The advert was previously on the OPCC website, a copy of which is in the following web link:
    [please note this link has now expired].
    1. The information and link to the advert placed in Police Professional can be viewed in the following web link: The advert itself can be found in this PDF.
  3. The total cost for advertising with Police Professional was £2495. The role was also advertised with the National Police Chiefs Council, the Association of Police Crime Commissioners and the College of Policing, all at nil cost.
  4. I am refusing this element of your request by reference to the exemption under s21 of the Act – this information is reasonably accessible by other means, namely it can be read via this link.
  5. I am refusing this element of your request by reference to the exemption under s21 of the Act – this information is reasonably accessible by other means, namely it can be read via this link.
  6. I am refusing this element of your request by reference to the exemption under s21 of the Act – this information is reasonably accessible by other means, namely it can be read via this link.
  7. I am refusing this element of your request by reference to the exemption under s22 (1) (a) of the Act – because at the time that your request was made it was intended for future publication. It has since been published and you can read the document via this link.
  8. There is no recorded information held by the OPCC.
    1. I am refusing this element of your request by reference to the exemption under s22 (1) (a) of the Act – because at the time that your request was made it was intended for future publication. It has since been published and you can read the document via this link.
    2. I am refusing this element of your request by reference to the exemption under s22 (1) (a) of the Act – because at the time that your request was made it was intended for future publication. It has since been published and you can read the document via this link.
  9. The OPCC understands that there was one abstention. s16 of the Act provides that public authorities have a duty to provide advice and assistance to individuals making requests for information under the Act.  To that end the recorded information you seek is likely to be held by the Cleveland Police and Crime Panel and should you wish, I am happy to transfer this element of your request to them for their attention.  In the meantime I have attached a press release issued by the Police and Crime Panel on 31st January 2018 for your perusal, which may be of interest
  10. I am refusing this element of your request by reference to the exemption under s22 (1) (a) of the Act – because at the time that your request was made it was intended for future publication.It has since been published and you can read the document via this link.
  11. I am refusing this element of your request by reference to the exemption under s22 (1) (a) of the Act – because at the time that your request was made it was intended for future publication. It has since been published and you can read the document via this link.

Date responded: 6 February 2018