Joanne MurphyLike most people, I’ve been horrified at the information which has dripped out of the Metropolitan Police during and after the trial of Wayne Couzens for the abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard.
I was also horrified at the earlier revelation that Met officers took selfies with the dead bodies of two sisters, Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry, after they were murdered in a Wembley Park. And horrified too when their mother had previously complained that she had had to organise a search for her missing daughters herself.
I’m again horrified to learn that a police officer from the same unit as Couzens has been charged with rape, and that a number of his colleagues are under investigation for exchanging misogynistic, racist and homophobic material in WhatsApp messages.
When it comes to police and misogyny there is a lot to be horrified about. What there is not, however, is much surprise. Allegations of institutional misogyny have dogged the Met and other police services for years. A rape conviction rate of 3% is one of the reasons why, as are the outpouring of stories on social media from women who have reported abuse and found their police ‘protectors’ wanting. Such experiences are particularly acute when the perpetrator is also a police officer – and even less likely to be held to account.
Initial reaction
This week the Met announced a review of standards and culture to “look at our training, leadership, processes, systems and standards of behaviour, and examine cases where officers have let the public down.” Much has been written about the ‘canteen cultures’ of police organizations and perpetuation of harsh environments that celebrate toughness, machismo and black humour as coping mechanisms for what are often frightening and isolating jobs. Much was made of this during the Macpherson Inquiry which established the Met as “institutionally racist.”
In Ireland, we know a lot about processes of policing change – having seen the Patten Commission in the North and various processes at work in the South, including the Garda Cultural Audit. The latter focused on the need to build a culture of psychological safety to encourage openness, learning and inclusivity – rather than a tendency to close ranks when threatened.
Despite the Met’s announcement of a review, it’s hard to not feel that closing ranks is exactly what has occurred – with the minimum response to crisis and a hope that the news agenda will move on. This isn’t an unusual reaction, and the news agenda has a tendency to do exactly that.
Repeating past mistakes
However, there are also some important reasons why organisations fail to learn or change after a major event such as this – even when it is in their interest to do so. A review of organisational change failure after extreme events has identified a number of areas of concern that scupper organisational transformation even after unspeakable tragedies such as the deaths of Victoria Climbié and Peter Connolly. Such work points out that in situations such as these, change receptiveness should be high and resistance low, but this is not always the case.
Change in the extreme context of an untoward event tends to cultivate not progressive agendas but defensive ones. Often extreme incidents are not routine. It is much easier for organizations to write of an incident as ‘atypical’ and call for change as an overreaction. Alterations in process capture the innocent as well as the guilty and result in resentment and push back. Membership of an investigating team influences both the nature and credibility of recommendations, and stakeholders often use such processes to pursue their own agendas. Change is also stifled when multiple organizations – or organisational units – are impacted. Momentum is quickly lost and problematic cultures re-establish themselves without careful management.
Change may be unlikely, but it isn’t impossible
My own research into policing change in Ireland comes to similar conclusions. But it is also important to recognise that certain features can make change more likely. Taken seriously, external review, expert engagement and independent oversight of implementation make the chance that change will last much more likely. The implementation of these safeguards saw the newly established PSNI make significant progress post the Good Friday Agreement – although transformation in the midst of a contested society requires ongoing attention.
As with all organizations, internal cultures produce (and reproduce) themselves continually and the tone is set from the top. So far, the leadership of the Met has shown no awareness of the degree to which trust in their organisation has been damaged and their credibility diminished by the events of the past few months. Neither has it reached for the kind of root and branch review of the Macpherson Inquiry or the Patten Commission. They seem almost content to settle on expressing the same horrified sentiments as the rest of us.
There may come a time when being horrified is not enough, and appropriate action will be taken. Unfortunately, our knowledge of change after extreme events illustrates that we shouldn’t hold our breath. If the Metropolitan Police is serious about dealing with institutional misogyny, it first needs to recognise the scale of the problem it faces.
