PCC Katy Bourne and CC Jo Shiner due diligence [Consolidated]
Evidence to support call for resignations and investigation. £80million under-reporting of revenue by The Road Safety Trust's subsidiary which runs the National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme.
The incumbent Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex.
The incumbent Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Sussex, Katy Bourne OBE, has been in post for 12 years. This due diligence report is circulated for peer review. Please notify me urgently, in a comment below, if errors are detected or if you have any questions.
The performance of Sussex Police is considered in a separate document, available Sussex Police Performance and observations (substack.com).
Summary of findings on the performance of Sussex Police.
HM Inspectorate's Assessment of Sussex Police:
Failure to provide accessible links to HMICFRS reports by both the SPCC and the Sussex Police and Crime Panel.
Significant shortcomings highlighted in the PEEL assessment, including inaccuracies in crime recording, inadequate response to non-emergency calls, and deficiencies in crime investigation.
Lack of outstanding areas in policing, indicating room for improvement across various domains.
Sussex Police Performance as Provided by Police.UK:
Longer case length compared to the national average.
Disproportionate stop and search rates for minority ethnic individuals.
Significant underrepresentation of minority ethnicities and gender disparities within the police force.
High financial reserves compared to other police forces.
Strengths in emergency response demonstrated by prompt answering of calls.
Complaints Received by Sussex Police:
Increase in complaints year-on-year, indicating potential public dissatisfaction.
Concerning trend of 15% of complaints coming from ethnic minorities, despite their low representation in the population, 0.9% .
Disparities in stop and search incidents contributing to the disproportionately high number of complaints from ethnic minorities.
Top themes of complaints include delivery of duties and service, police powers and procedures, and individual behaviours.
Recommendations for organisational learning focus on improving response timeliness, attention to detail, and empathy toward complainants.
Concerns about Unmonitored Crime:
Potential disparity in monitoring of crime within the white community compared to ethnic minorities.
Questions raised about policing practices based on ethnicity and potential biases in stop and search procedures.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) summarised its findings with the chart below (Sussex PEEL Assessments 2021/2022 - His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (justiceinspectorates.gov.uk) https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/peel-assessments/peel-assessments-2021-22/sussex/).
The findings were mixed and raised concerns with HMICFRS (Concerns about Sussex Police's performance - His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (justiceinspectorates.gov.uk) https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/news/news-feed/concerns-about-sussex-polices-performance/):
HMICFRS said the force did not always record reports of violent crime – particularly behavioural crimes (harassment, stalking, controlling and coercive behaviour), rape, domestic abuse and antisocial behaviour.
Unfortunately, disrupting serious organised crime and tackling workforce corruption are two of the areas of policing that were not considered within the HMICFRS inspection. These are the areas that raise particular concern during my due diligence research.
The HMICFRS Inspector PEEL report, Police.UK and the IOPC Complaints data reflects poorly on the PCC contradicting her claim "I have robustly held the police to account on behalf of residents".
Performance and Accountability Meetings (PAM)
The PCC holds monthly accountability meetings with the Chief Constable’s team and while the Performance and Accountability Meetings are filled with relevant and interesting agenda items, the PCC does not address critical aspects of policing performance, specifically the criteria used by HMICFRS for its PEEL assessment or the Police.UK analysis. I would have expected the PCC to ask the Chief Constable to report on performance against these metrics at each meeting, to avoid surprises that cast a shadow over the Sussex Police Force.
The Sussex Police and Crime Panel, which holds the PCC to account at quarterly meetings, also do not monitor performance based on the PEEL or Police.UK assessment criteria. Which, if they had, would have alerted the PCC and the Chief Constable to the fact that their reporting data about crime was inadequate (Previous meetings – Sussex Police and Crime Panel (sussexpcp.gov.uk)) https://sussexpcp.gov.uk/meetings/previous-meetings/.
Delegation of Powers
A search on the OSPCC website for “delegation of powers” and “scheme of delegation, does not locate this document which describe the legal powers delegated (SPCC - Search (sussex-pcc.gov.uk) https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/search/?keywords=scheme+of+delegation). A search for this document using a search engine returns links to several versions of this document, covering different periods:
Scheme of Delegation FINAL 1.4.14 (sussex-pcc.gov.uk) https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/media/8123/it-09-pcc-scheme-of-delegation-ver-2.pdf
IT 13 PCC Final Word Scheme-of-Delegation_draftv1.0_27July16 (sussex-pcc.gov.uk) https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/media/1123/pcc-final-word-scheme-of-delegation.pdf
1 0 2018 Financial Regulations Review final updated (sussex-pcc.gov.uk) https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/media/8083/it-09-financial-regs-feb-2024-draft.pdf
Scheme of Delegation FINAL 1.4.14 (sussex-pcc.gov.uk) https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/media/7537/surrey-sussex-pcc-scheme-of-delegation-2023-final-if.pdf
None of these Schemes of Delegation provide powers to the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable to act as directors of any company related to their job. It is essential to note that for either the PCC or the Chief Constable to assume the role of a director in a company, such authority must be explicitly stated in the Scheme of Delegation. As of the latest version, there are no provisions granting them such powers. Therefore, any involvement in directorial roles in companies would be beyond their delegated authority.
Accounts made up to 31 March 2023 are overdue
The publication of the audited accounts made up to 31 March 2023 are overdue (SPCC - Accounts (sussex-pcc.gov.uk) https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/about/financials/accounts/)
Notice of Delay in the Publication of the Audited Accounts ended 31 March 2023 on 30 September 2023
The completion of the Final Accounts of the PCC Group Accounts, the PCC Accounts and the CC Accounts have been met within the timescales requested by the above regulations, however the external audit of the draft statement of accounts for the year ended 31 March 2023 has not yet been completed by our external auditors, EY LLP, due to the complex set of factors contributing to audit delays across the sector. This situation is allowed for by Regulation 10, paragraph (2a) of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015. Therefore, this notification explains, as per paragraph (2a), that we are not yet able to publish our audited 2022/23 final statement of accounts in line with deadline of 30th September 2023, as per paragraph (1). The Police and Crime Commissioner, Chief Finance Officer and Joint Audit Committee will consider the results of the 2022/23 audit when it is completed, after which the final audited accounts will be published.
The delay in publishing the audited accounts for the period ending 31 March 2023 is a matter of significant concern, particularly considering the importance of transparency and accountability in the management of public funds. While the explanation provided cites external audit complexities across the sector, it is essential that the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and Chief Finance Officer take immediate and decisive action to expedite the completion of the audit process. Timely financial reporting is crucial for stakeholders to assess the financial health and performance of the PCC Group, and any further delays undermine public trust and confidence in the governance of the Police and Crime Commission.
Issues Identified in this section of the Report:
Performance of Sussex Police:
Significant shortcomings highlighted in the PEEL assessment.
Disproportionate stop and search rates for minority ethnic individuals.
Complaints received by Sussex Police indicating potential public dissatisfaction.
Performance and Accountability Meetings (PAM):
PCC does not address critical aspects of policing performance.
Lack of monitoring of performance based on PEEL or Police.UK assessment criteria.
Delegation of Powers:
Lack of clarity regarding the delegation of powers.
No provisions granting authority to assume directorial roles in companies.
Accounts Delay:
Overdue publication of audited accounts for the period ending 31 March 2023.
Delays undermine transparency and accountability in the management of public funds.
Katy Bourne’s Register of Interests
In November 2022, I undertook a due diligence of the Police and Crime Commissioners which raised concerns that I addressed to the Police and Crime Panel.
Police Katy Bourne’s biography on the Sussex Police and Crime Commission website (SPCC) declared:
She is a former Director of the Board of the College of Policing and former advisor to the editorial board of the Guardian Public Leaders Network. She is currently Chair of the Sussex Criminal Justice Board; Chair and National Spokesperson of the Association of Police & Crime Commissioners Retail & Business Crime Portfolio; and former Chair and a non-Exec Director of the national Police ICT Company. Salary: The PCC is paid an annual salary of £90,500. This includes an agreed increase of £1,900 for all current PCC salary pay bands with effect from 1 May 2022, in line with the pay award made for police officer.
In Katy Bourne’s declaration of interests form, dated 6 12 2021, she declared “None” to; any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain, and to Sponsorship see https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/media/6251/declaration-of-interest-pcc.pdf.
The PCC’s directorships registered in Companies House, November 2022
A search in Companies House, in November 2022, on Katy Bourne’s name, returned three different identities that certainly belonged to the PCC because they use variations of her office address:
Looking at these in chronological order (bottom up):
The first identity, Katy Elizabeth Bourne, date of birth October 1964, was established on 28 May 2013 to register as a director of College of Policing Limited until 30 April 2017. This identity was used to register Police Digital Service, from 20 July 2016 to 25 July 2022 and Bluelight Commercial Limited, appointed 30 September 2022, then active.
The second identity excluded her middle name, Katy Bourne, born October 1964. This was used for a one day appointment, 28 May 2013, to the College of Policing Limited. This was a duplicated appointment to that held in her first identity.
The third identity used the name Katy Elizabeth Bourne and a different date of birth, October 1979, for her appointment as a director to the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, appointed 24 July 2019.
Gaining additional identities requires providing a different name, residential address or date of birth. This causes a “false non-match” in the Companies House software and the unwanted outcome is an additional identity. To the software, there were three people: Katy Elizabeth Bourne, date of birth October 1964, Katy Bourne, date of birth October 1964 and Katie Elizabeth Bourne, October 1979.
The audits in 2019 to 2022 of The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, for example, would not have considered transactions with Police Digital Service Limited and, from 2022, Bluelight Commercial Limited, as related party transactions for Katy Bourne, because her appointment record states “Total number of appointments 1”, her other appointments are “concealed” in her other identity.
Looking at the information above, a person can see that the PCC varied her name to gain her second identity and varied her date of birth to gain a third identity. However a computer, presently, can not deduce this. Duplicated identities for an individual are prohibited by the Companies Act 2006 and our systems of accountability assume that an individual has just one identity. Hence, it is called an “unique identifier”. The effect of multiple identities is that interests held in other identities are concealed from an auditor (audit software or person doing due diligence) on any one interest. This compromises audits for “related party transactions”.
Breaches
Registering 3 identities in Companies House is a breach of Section 1082 of the Companies Act 2006, which makes it clear that an individual should hold only one “unique identifier”.
Providing false details on legal documents.
Failing to disclose her interests in the Register of Interest.
Dual registration as director of College of Policing. The risk being that these dual appointments were referenced to enable dual bank and trading accounts to be opened on 28 May 2013.
There was also evidence of lack of transparency, regarding Katy Bourne’s company appointments, in the SPCC website and accounts, referring to: College of Policing, rather than College of Policing Limited; the Association of Police & Crime Commissioners, rather than The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; and Police ICT Company, rather than Police Digital Service. These seemingly minor anomalies can cause false non-match errors in audit software, allowing transactions to go ahead, that would have been denied if the name was correct.
Progress of my complaint
I complained about Katy Bourne’s multiple identities, her dual registration to the College of Policing Limited and her failure to declare her interests in the Register of Interests to the Sussex Police and Crime Panel. This triggered correspondence between that body and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner which is published on the Sussex Police and Crime Panel website Correspondence from the Panel – Sussex Police and Crime Panel (sussexpcp.gov.uk).
Updated Register of Interest
The outcome was that Katy Bourne updated her register of interests, to disclose that she is a director of The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and Bluelight Commercial Limited, and was a director of Police Digital Service and College of Policing Limited, Disclosable Interests - December 2022 (sussex-pcc.gov.uk).
Observation of Anomalies: The name of her former business and the area for which she was a Councillor are omitted from her Register of Interest. For the purposes of due diligence these names are required, as well as any interest her partner and close family members may have, to enable testing for whether they any conflicts may have arisen. For example, has the area she represented as a Councillor received disproportion funding from the fund that she manages? Did she sell on her business and now awards contracts there? These are questions that can not be answered. By failing to declare this information Katy Bourne has not fulfilled her duty as a public officer.
Deduplication of two of Katy Bourne’s identities in Companies House
In addition, since my complaint Katy Bourne has instructed Companies House to deduplicate her multiple identities. A search on her name now locates just one identity, with four appointments, Katy Bourne - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk) (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/search/officers?q=Katy%20Bourne) :
Katy Bourne now has one identity, or more correctly “unique identifier”. This means that since mid 2023, audits and due diligence, for example, as required for Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing legislation, will be transparent and she is accountable.
Her unique record now presents appointments to the four interests of which the PCC is associated, Katy Elizabeth BOURNE personal appointments - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk).
Deduplication changes are not tracked
The Companies House software lacks a feature to track changes resulting from deduplication processes. Consequently, important details such as the PCC's dual appointment as a director of College of Policing Limited and an appointment to the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, held under an identity with an incorrect date of birth, are omitted from the record. This flaw in the software design renders deduplication effectively equivalent to concealing evidence of potential wrongdoing.
Although the PCC has rectified the records at Companies House and in her Register of Interests, her previous use of three identities compromised the audits of the companies with which she was associated. Additionally, her failure to disclose her interests in the Register of Interests rendered the Police and Crime Panel unable to hold her accountable for her actions in these roles, thus failing to ensure transparency.
Given the breaches described, Katy Bourne’s interests require reviewing in a forensic audit as part of a police investigation.
Katy Bourne promotional video, fails to disclose Conservative Affiliation
Katy Bourne has published a video called 10 Years Of Making a Difference - Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner on YouTube.
10 Years Of Making a Difference - Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne - YouTube. For information, the following text is provided.
Nov 15, 2022
In 2011 the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act introduced elected Police & Crime Commissioners in the biggest reform of police governance in living memory. The move was a response to low public confidence in the police and sought to re-engage communities with the police forces who served them. PCCs’ responsibilities were to ensure effective and efficient policing in their force area and listen to public concerns before reflecting them back to Chief Constables. The first elections for PCCs took place in 2012, where Sussex business owner and former local councillor Katy Bourne won the majority of votes. After taking an ‘oath of impartiality’ where she swore to ‘serve the people of Sussex without fear or favour’ and ‘give a voice to the public, especially victims of crime’, she took office on 15 November 2012. She was re-elected in 2016 and again in 2021, making her the longest serving female PCC.
Transcript.
Katy Bourne (my emphasis in bold):
I've been in this role now for 10 years I can't believe how quickly the time has gone but in that time what local residents want hasn't changed that much really ultimately they want to see more police officers on the beat in our communities walking amongst them and that has been my one priority throughout. Text overlay: When Katy Bourne first took office there were 2959 officers in Sussex Police. Sussex is on track to have 3,089 Full Time Equivalent officers (out of a headcount of 3,186) by April 2023.
I now hold the National Road Portfolio on behalf of my Police and Crime Commissioner colleagues for Road safety, and our Chief Constable holds the National Portfolio on behalf of all the Chief Constables so we complement each other quite well and that’s why its so important that we have a dedicated Roads Policing Unit and try and I try and get out with them as often as I can, as does the Chief Constable too.” Logo of Association of Police and Crime Commissioners presented.
A great part of the role have being able to give rewards to local communities from my Safer in Sussex Community Fund,” Text overlay: “Over 10 years Katy Bourne has allocated £1.90m to 477 community projects”
What local residents want, and lack of transparency relating to Katy Bourne’s Conservative party affiliation
Katy Bourne's emphasis on boosting police numbers overlooks broader community needs and complaints (statement 1). While increasing officers can enhance public safety, it's crucial to address diverse challenges and engage with community concerns beyond mere headcounts. Additionally, her role in securing funding without transparently disclosing her political affiliation raises questions about accountability and impartiality. Despite being elected as a Conservative party candidate, Bourne fails to acknowledge her affiliation in her official biography or Register of Interests. Moreover, she takes credit for increasing officer numbers when this was a Conservative policy for which she received funding, further raising concerns about transparency and accountability (SPCC - Your Police & Crime Commissioner (sussex-pcc.gov.uk) and disclosable-interests-commissioner-2023.pdf (sussex-pcc.gov.uk) https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/media/7728/disclosable-interests-commissioner-2023.pdf).
Separation of Powers Issues PCC National Road Portfolio and CC Roads Policing Unit.
Katy Bourne's statement 2 (above) raises potential separation of powers issues. The separation of powers principle is foundational in democratic systems, ensuring that different branches of government—such as the executive, legislative, and judicial branches—operate independently to prevent the concentration of power and safeguard against abuses. When a Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) holds a national portfolio on behalf of all PCC colleagues and collaborates closely with the Chief Constable, who similarly holds a national portfolio on behalf of all Chief Constables, it blurs the lines between executive and operational functions within the police force. This close collaboration could potentially compromise the independence and autonomy of law enforcement operations, raising concerns about accountability and impartiality. It may be perceived as consolidating too much power within a specific group, potentially undermining the checks and balances necessary for effective governance. Therefore, such arrangements should be scrutinised to ensure they do not infringe upon the principle of separation of powers.
Safer in Sussex Community Fund
The OSPCC website lays out the details of how to access this fund for projects less than £5000 (SPCC - Safer In Sussex Community Fund (sussex-pcc.gov.uk) https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/get-involved/apply-for-funding/safer-in-sussex-community-fund/. There is np breakdown of the funds awarded.
The 2022/2023 draft Accounts declares “The PCC also provides Victims Services, grants for Community Safety initiatives, funding for Community Safety Partnerships.” However, no figures are given and the “Safer in Sussex Community Fund” and no details of total value of awards is provided.
Conclusion
Based on the information provided, several conclusions can be drawn regarding the Safer in Sussex Community Fund:
Lack of Transparency: The absence of a breakdown of funds awarded and total value of awards for the Safer in Sussex Community Fund raises concerns about transparency and accountability. Without clear documentation of how funds are allocated and the overall financial impact, it becomes challenging for stakeholders to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the fund.
Limited Oversight: The draft accounts for 2022/2023 mention the provision of funding for various initiatives, but fails to provide specific figures for the Safer in Sussex Community. This lack of detailed information suggests a potential gap in oversight and accountability in managing public funds allocated for community safety initiatives.
Need for Enhanced Reporting: To ensure transparency and accountability, it is essential for the Office of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (OSPCC) to provide comprehensive reports on the Safer in Sussex Community Fund, including detailed breakdowns of funds awarded, total value of awards, and outcomes achieved through funded projects. This level of reporting would enable stakeholders to assess the impact of the fund and ensure that resources are effectively utilized to enhance community safety in Sussex.
Precept
With the establishment of the Police and Crime Commissioners on 11/01/2013 the cost of policing in Sussex was £138.42 for a Band D property (SPCC - Police & Crime Panel to be told new Plan won’t cost taxpayers more (sussex-pcc.gov.uk) https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/about/news/police-038-crime-panel-to-be-told-new-plan-won-t-cost-taxpayers-more/).
On 26 January 2024 the Sussex Police and Crime Panel supported the proposal of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (the PCC) to issue a band D council tax precept for the Sussex area of £252.91 (SPCC - Latest Precept Information 2024/25 (sussex-pcc.gov.uk) https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/about/spending/police-budget-spending/latest-precept-information-202425/).
Additional £10 per year on average increase resulting in 87% increase in 11 years.
Sussex Police has a precept of £239.91 which is below the median of £261.56. The SPCC publishes the Latest Precept Information 2024/25 on its website (SPCC - Latest Precept Information 2024/25 https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/about/spending/police-budget-spending/latest-precept-information-202425/)
How much does £1 on the precept raise in Sussex?
In 2024/25 each £1 of precept will raise £652,167.
How much does the precept raise in total?
The precept raises £164.9m (42% of total income), the Home Office contributes £229.6m (58%).
Household estimates.
Referring to the Office for National Statistics Census 2021 estimates on the number of households in England and Wales. The estimates are as at Census Day, 21 March 2021 (Number of Households - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk)):
Brighton and Hove 121402 East Sussex 240119 West Sussex 375216
Total 736,737 households.
The Office for National Statistics Census 2021 estimates there were 736,737 households in 2021. The Precept Information states that an increase of £1 raises £652,167, in 2024/25. This suggests that 652,167 households pay the precept. I query why there is such a large disparity of over 84,000 households between these two estimates. There have been extensive housebuilding programmes since 2021 which would increase the disparity. Further explanation is necessary.
Conclusion relating to PCC Katy Bourne
Assessment of Performance and Concerns:
In conclusion, the assessment of the incumbent Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Sussex, Katy Bourne OBE, reveals a series of significant concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and adherence to regulatory standards. The performance evaluations of Sussex Police highlight various shortcomings, including inaccuracies in crime recording, deficiencies in crime investigation, and disproportionate stop and search rates for minority ethnic individuals. Furthermore, the delay in publishing audited accounts, coupled with the lack of transparency in the allocation of funds through initiatives like the Safer in Sussex Community Fund raises questions about financial management of the precept and oversight.
Issues Regarding Katy Bourne's Conduct:
Additionally, issues regarding Katy Bourne's multiple identities, failure to disclose interests, exceeding her powers by being a director of College of Policing Limited, Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, Police Digital Service and Bluelight Commercial Limited and lack of transparency regarding her Conservative party affiliation further undermine public trust and confidence. The close collaboration between the PCC and Chief Constable on national Road portfolios also raises concerns about the separation of powers within the police force.
Call for Action and Consideration of Resignation:
To address these issues and uphold the principles of accountability and impartiality, it is imperative for the PCC and relevant authorities to undertake comprehensive reviews, enhance reporting mechanisms, and ensure compliance with regulatory standards. Given the gravity of these issues and their potential impact on the integrity of governance within the Sussex Police force, it is prudent to consider the ramifications for the incumbent Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Sussex, Katy Bourne OBE.
Rationale for Resignation:
The accumulation of breaches, including the use of multiple identities, failure to disclose interests, exceeding her delegated powers and lack of transparency regarding political affiliations, seriously undermines the public's trust and confidence in her ability to fulfil the duties of her office effectively. Moreover, the delayed publication of audited accounts and the opaque allocation of funds through initiatives like the Safer in Sussex Community Fund further compound these concerns.
Conclusion:
Given the gravity of these issues and their potential impact on the integrity of governance within the Sussex Police force, it is prudent to consider the resignation of Katy Bourne as the Police and Crime Commissioner. Resignation would not only demonstrate accountability for the lapses in transparency and oversight but also pave the way for a fresh start and renewed confidence in the leadership of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Moreover, it would signal a commitment to upholding the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct, which are paramount in positions of public trust. Ultimately, the resignation of Katy Bourne would serve the best interests of the community and ensure the effective functioning of the Sussex Police force moving forward.
A non-exclusive list of the issues identified is presented in Appendix A.
It is the PCC’s role to hold the Chief Constable to account.
Chief Constable Jo Shiner
The Chief Constable’s Accounts for the year ending 31 March 2022 are available on the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner’s website. There are no external interests declared for Chief Constable Jo Shiner (2021-22-sussex-cc-final-accounts-221130-signed.pdf (sussex-pcc.gov.uk) https://www.sussex-pcc.gov.uk/media/7050/2021-22-sussex-cc-final-accounts-221130-signed.pdf).
However, a search in Companies House on the name Joanne Shiner, returns two identities that are hers (Joanne Shiner - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk) https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/search/officers?q=Joanne+Shiner).
Her first identity contains a resigned appointment to Norfolk Community Foundation as a director, appointed on 16 December 2013 and resigned on 23 June 2014, in which she gives her occupation as Police Officer (Joanne Elizabeth SHINER personal appointments - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk) https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/-yhv5_7o9En8ewJJOOEG5648T5I/appointments).
The second identity contains one active appointment to The Road Safety Trust as a director, appointed on 5 July 2021, in which she gives her occupation as Chief Constable (Joanne Elizabeth SHINER personal appointments - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk) https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/DvDqqbR9N3_nKOVI6giWO3sZ_rc/appointments).
The Road Safety Trust
Chief Constable Jo Shiner failed to declare her active directorship of The Road Safety Trust in the Chief Constable Statement of Accounts 2021/2022, when she had a duty to do so. No Register of Interests for the Chief Constable could be located.
The Road Safety Trust group of companies' accounts made up to 31 March 2023 disclose that UKROED Limited is its “trading subsidiary”, available via THE ROAD SAFETY TRUST filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk) (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08837451/filing-history).
Quoting from the 2021 Accounts, UKROED Limited is a not-for-profit company that educates road offenders as part of the National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme. It “distributes all its surpluses up to The Road Safety Trust for distribution through the Trust’s grants strategy.” The financial review explains that “Since its establishment, The Road Safety Trust has awarded £6.8m to 85 projects. The Road Safety Trust relies on surpluses generated by its wholly owned trading subsidiary, UKROEd”. The Basis of Preparation of the Financial Statements states “The financial statements consolidate the results of the charitable company and its wholly owned subsidiary, UKROEd Limited, on a line-by-line bases. The Road Safety Trust is the sole member of UKROEd Limited and by virtue of this wholly controls UKROEd Limited.”
However, upon visiting the records for UKROED Limited in Companies House, there are no persons with significant control disclosed, UKROED LIMITED persons with significant control - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk) (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08773977/persons-with-significant-control). This is an apparent violation of the Companies Act 2006, which mandates that a company must record its person with significant control, a role fulfilled by The Road Safety Trust as the sole member of UKROED Limited.
In summary, the examination of Chief Constable Jo Shiner's accounts and her records in Companies House reveals alarming discrepancies that call into question transparency and compliance with regulatory obligations. The Chief Constable's breach of section 1082 of the Companies Act by registering multiple identities is a serious matter. Moreover, her failure to declare her interest in The Road Safety Trust in the Accounts, along with the subsidiary's failure to disclose The Road Safety Trust as its person with significant control, underscores a troubling lack of accountability.
In a remarkable twist of irony, while it falls within the Police and Crime Commissioner's mandate to hold the Chief Constable accountable for their actions, both figures have found themselves entangled in a web of discrepancies and oversights. Despite their pivotal roles in upholding transparency and compliance, they have each registered multiple identities and neglected to declare their interests, casting doubt on the integrity of their leadership. This glaring contradiction not only undermines the very essence of accountability but also highlights a disconcerting lack of adherence to regulatory standards within the highest echelons of law enforcement leadership.
Speeding Fines Penalties
The Government website provides information regarding speeding fines (Speeding penalties - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) https://www.gov.uk/speeding-penalties).
The minimum penalty for speeding is a £100 fine and 3 penalty points added to your licence.
You could be disqualified from driving if you build up 12 or more penalty points within a period of 3 years
You’ll have to pay a £100 fine and have 3 points added to your licence, unless you’re given the option to attend a speed awareness course.
These are the speed awareness courses coordinated by UKROED Limited, a subsidiary of The Road Safety Trust, which UKROED Limited fails to disclose in Companies House.
Attempts to locate where speeding fine penalties are accounted for, located a Freedom of Information request on the subject (FOI2017-13509_-_Revenue_collected_in_fines_and_penalties_from_driving_offences.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a75b8f1e5274a436829979d/FOI2017-13509_-_Revenue_collected_in_fines_and_penalties_from_driving_offences.pdf)
Ref: FOI2017/13509 Freedom of Information Act 2000: Revenue collected in fines and penalties from driving offences
Thank you for your Freedom of Information enquiry of 3 August 2017. You asked for the following information: “Please supply information detailing the total revenue collected by HM Treasury in fines and penalties issued for driving offences in England and Wales collected following the issuance of speeding tickets and other driving offences, where the police were not present at the time of the offence. These would specifically be fines and penalties issued as a result of fixed and mobile cameras and NIP notices issued by the police.”
I can confirm that HM Treasury does not hold information within the scope of your request.
I can explain that speeding fines and penalty receipts are paid into the Consolidated Fund which is regarded as central Government’s current account and used towards general Government expenditure, rather than ring-fenced for specific spending. Further details about the Consolidated Fund are published at the link below: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hmt-central-funds#consolidated-fund .
The Freedom of Information response indicated that the speeding fines and penalty receipts are paid into the Consolidated Fund. The most recent Consolidated Fund accounts were accessed for the year 2022/2023 (Consolidated_Fund_Account_2022-23.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/653a25abe6c968000daa9b36/Consolidated_Fund_Account_2022-23.pdf). The Accounts confirm (my emphasis in bold):
The receipts of the CF mainly consist of: • tax revenues such as those collected by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) • other receipts paid over by departments known as Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts (CFERs) • tax-type revenues such as fines, penalties and certain licence fees paid over by departments and known as Trust Statement income • repayments from the Contingencies Fund • balancing payments from the NLF when daily payments by the CF exceed its receipt
Penalties are reported on page 27 (précised):
3. Miscellaneous receipts
Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts (CFERs) 2022-23 £16,058m; 2021-22 £20,598m
Trust Statement revenue 2022-23 £11,700m ; 2021-22 £10,988m
CFERs comprise: • Negative Supply (for Departments that end the year with a negative net cash requirement outturn); • departmental income that falls outside the ambit of the Estimates or is in excess of the amounts allowed to be retained under agreement with HM Treasury; and • fines, levies and penalties considered insufficiently material to be reported in a Trust Statement.
Trust Statement Revenue comprises fines, levies and penalties considered sufficiently material to be reported in a Trust Statement.
The categorisation of speeding penalties as either Trust Statement Revenue or Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts (CFERs) remains unclear, necessitating further clarification on the specific criteria used for categorising such revenues. Additionally, a breakdown of the constituent parts that determine whether speeding penalties are deemed sufficiently material for separate reporting in a Trust Statement or fall under CFERs is requested. This breakdown would provide insight into the factors considered in determining the materiality of speeding penalties and ensure transparency in the reporting process. Clarification on these points is essential for a comprehensive understanding of how speeding penalties are accounted for and reported within the financial framework.
Speed awareness courses
The most recent accounts for UKROED Limited were accessed via the filing history in the Companies House record, “Full accounts made up to 31 March 2023” (UKROED LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk)).
Speed awareness courses known as the National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme (NDORS) are operated and administered by UKROED Limited.
In the year of operation, UKROEd Limited collected income of £88,262,606 (2022: £76,083,182). After paying out the police force cost element of the charges, the Scheme generated a gross surplus of £7,175,059 (2022: £6,224,522), a margin of 8.1% (2022:8.2%) The overall surplus after running costs for the year was £1,649,095 (2022: £2,285,239). The distribution to the Road Safety Trust was £1, 649 (2022: £2,285,239).
For the year ended 31st March 2023, 84% (2022: 83%) of eligible offered a course went on to complete a course.
The element of the Scheme Participation Charge income recovered by the Police Forces during the year was £80,452,575 (2022: £69,131,535)
The Road Safety Trust is correctly declared as UKROED Limited’s ultimate parent undertaking, within the 2022-23 accounts.
However, as identified earlier in this report, UKROED Limited does not declare its ultimate controlling party in the Companies House registry. This is a breach of Section 790 of the Companies Act (UKROED LIMITED persons with significant control - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk)).
The UKROED website was located via an internet search and the trends and statistics accessed (Trends & Statistics | UKROEd https://www.ukroed.org.uk/scheme/trends-statistics).
In 2023 a total of 1,931,283 NDORS courses were completed, 2022: 1,764,543.
Estimating the income generated from the total number of courses completed, at £100 per course, this would generate an income of £193,128,300 in 2023 (2022: £176,453,000), whereas the accounts report “In the year of operation, UKROEd Limited collected income of £88,262,60 (2022: £76,083,182).”
More accurate data was sought and the following scheme of costs was located (The complete guide to NDORS courses and their costs | Adrian Flux https://www.adrianflux.co.uk/blog/2024/03/complete-guide-ndors-courses/)
National Motorway Awareness Course (NMAC) (classroom or online)Exceeding the speed limit on a motorway and other infringements on a motorway 3 hours £78.00 – £92.00
National Rider Risk Assessment Course (NRRAC) (classroom or online)Riders who have been brought to the attention of police through their riding behaviour 3 hours £69.80 – £132.00
National Speed Awareness Course (NSAC) (classroom or online) Speeding offences 2 hours 45 minutes£80.00 – £100.00
Safe and Considerate Cycling Course (SCCC) (online) Cycling offences 30 minutes£38.40
Safe and Considerate Driving (SCD) (classroom/road) Carelessness leading to an accident 6 hours 55 minutes£120.00 – £200.00
What’s Driving Us? (WDU) (classroom or online)Deliberate misdemeanour 3 hours £73.00 – £95.00
Your Belt Your Life (YBYL) (online) Failure to use a seat belt or appropriate child seat 30 minutes £54.00
The detail provided by UKROED Statistics provides the following breakdown (Trends & Statistics | UKROEd):
The UKROED Limited accounts for 2023 stated “In the year of operation, UKROEd Limited collected income of £88,262,606 (2022: £76,083,182)”.
Using this information a spreadsheet was constructed to calculated the estimated average revenue for 2023 and 2022, based on the number of courses, and course charge, excluding motorcycling retraining, which were omitted in the charge schedule located.
This table calculates the estimated average revenue, using the actual number of courses delivered as reported by UKROED Limited, and Adrian Flux’s course charges (The complete guide to NDORS courses and their costs | Adrian Flux).
Revenue generated:
2023 Low: £153,128,884 High £190,905,864 Average £172,017,374
2022 Low: £140,014,081 High £174,586,683 Average £157,300,382
The balance or “shortfall” being 2023: £83,754,768 and 2022: £81,217,200 (Estimated average revenue less reported revenue).
Conclusion: Significant discrepancies in estimated and reported revenue.
Regarding speed awareness courses operated by UKROED Limited, discrepancies arise in their financial reporting. While the company's accounts indicate a lower income figure, a more detailed analysis based on course charges and the number of courses completed suggests a significant underreporting of revenue. The discrepancy amounts to £83.4 million in 2023 and £81.2 million in 2022, as calculated based on the provided data.
The accuracy of the calculation regarding underreported revenue hinges on the reliability of the course charges provided by Adrian Flux. Thus, confirmation of the accuracy of this calculation is requested to ensure the integrity of the analysis.
Please review the provided information and calculations for accuracy, and inform me of any errors or areas requiring further clarification.
Implications of Revenue Shortfall and Remedial Measures
1. Financial Implications
The revenue shortfalls identified in UKROED Limited's financial records, a subsidiary of The Road Safety Trust, have significant financial implications for both organizations and their stakeholders. These implications include potential mismanagement of funds, breaches of fiduciary duties, and legal liabilities for the directors.
2. Legal Risks and Personal Liability
Operating outside delegated powers, particularly in the case of Chief Constable Jo Shiner serving as a director, exposes directors to legal risks and potential personal liability for the financial discrepancies. Such actions may constitute breaches of fiduciary duties and could result in legal consequences for those involved.
3. Accountability Measures
To address the financial irregularities and uphold transparency and integrity, it is prudent to recommend accountability measures for the board of UKROED Limited and The Road Safety Trust, including Chief Constable Jo Shiner. This may involve considering stepping down from their positions pending a thorough investigation into the matter.
4. Stakeholder Compensation
If the revenue shortfalls are confirmed, it is essential to ensure that affected stakeholders, including individuals who paid fines for speeding offenses, are appropriately compensated. This may necessitate measures to return fines to affected individuals to rectify any financial injustices resulting from the discrepancies.
5. Swift and Decisive Action
Taking swift and decisive action to address the revenue shortfall and its implications is crucial. This includes implementing accountability measures for those responsible, initiating a thorough investigation, and ensuring restitution for affected parties. Doing so will uphold transparency, integrity, and trust within the organisations and ensure compliance with regulatory standards.
UKROED Limited has failed to respond to a complaint raised on this matter. This issue will be escalated to Action Fraud.
Appendix A
Issues Identified in the Report relating to PCC Katy Bourne:
Katy Bourne's Register of Interests:
Failure to disclose interests in the Register of Interest.
Breach of Section 1082 of the Companies Act 2006.
Providing false details on legal documents.
Dual registration as director of College of Policing Limited.
Lack of transparency regarding company appointments.
Progress of Complaint:
Complaint raised regarding multiple identities and failure to declare interests.
Correspondence triggered between the Police and Crime Panel and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.
Update made to Register of Interests disclosing relevant directorships.
Observation of Anomalies:
Omission of certain details in the Register of Interest.
Deduplication of identities in Companies House, lacking tracking of changes.
Concealment of interests compromising audits and accountability.
Safer in Sussex Community Fund:
Lack of transparency in breakdown of funds awarded.
Limited oversight and reporting on fund allocations.
Need for enhanced reporting to ensure accountability.
Assessment of Performance and Concerns:
Performance Evaluation:
Shortcomings in Sussex Police performance highlighted.
Delay in publishing audited accounts raises concerns about financial management.
Issues Regarding Katy Bourne's Conduct:
Transparency and Accountability:
Failure to disclose interests and use of multiple identities undermines trust.
Lack of transparency regarding political affiliation and company appointments.
Concerns about separation of powers regarding national portfolios.
Call for Action and Consideration of Resignation:
Rationale for Resignation:
Accumulation of breaches undermines public trust.
Delayed publication of audited accounts and opaque fund allocation compound concerns.
Consideration of resignation necessary to uphold integrity and ethical conduct.
Conclusion:
Resignation Consideration:
Prudent to consider resignation to demonstrate accountability.
Resignation would signal commitment to upholding highest standards of integrity.
Serves best interests of community and ensures effective functioning of Sussex Police force.
Apologies for the missing images. They used to work. I'll try to reinsert them.