Khan slams ‘flawed’ review into his role over Dick departure

Mayor of London hits back at author of review that found he’d not followed ‘due process’, reports Joe Talora, Local Democracy Reporter

Former Met Police boss Cressida Dick (left) and London mayor Sadiq Khan (right)
Former Met Police boss Cressida Dick (left) and London mayor Sadiq Khan (right)

Sadiq Khan was yesterday (Wednesday) involved in a heated clash with the author of a report which claimed Cressida Dick had “felt intimidated” into resigning as Metropolitan Police commissioner earlier this year.

Sir Tom Winsor’s review into the handling of the former commissioner’s resignation found that Khan had not followed “due process”, though the mayor of London responded at the time by saying it was “biased” and “ignored the facts”.

Speaking at a meeting of the London Assembly’s police and crime committee, the mayor repeated this claim and added: “The process is flawed.”

He said: “We all know – it is a matter of public record – Sir Tom’s close association with the former commissioner. We all know Sir Tom’s former association with former home secretaries. In Sir Tom’s own words, he has given more weight to those from police officers. The conclusions of Sir Tom weren’t a surprise to many.”

Sir Tom, formerly Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, responded by saying the mayor’s claims were “absurd”.

He went on to tell assembly members that his review, which should have taken six weeks, ended up taking 22 weeks because the mayor and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (Mopac) “failed to properly engage” with the process.

He said: “Unfortunately the mayor and others of his staff failed properly to engage with this investigation until a very late stage in the proceedings and only after nine requests for interviews.

“The idea that the facts have been ignored is absurd, particularly because at a late stage in the process the mayor’s office provided me with detailed factual material which caused me to revise my report in a number of material respects.”

Can you help us? Our membership scheme has many different options, starting from £3 per month, depending on your ability to contribute. Rewards include having a copy of the paper posted to you every month. Local businesses and charities can also sign up and, from as little as £10 per month, access discounts on advertising

Sir Tom went on to deny the claim he had a “close association” with Cressida Dick, though he did reveal he had attended “one social occasion” with the former commissioner – a dinner held “at the very end of my term of office as chief inspector of constabulary” which was “to say thank you for twelve years of service”.

This story is published by Enfield Dispatch, Enfield's free monthly newspaper and free news website. We are a not-for-profit publication, published by a small social enterprise. We have no rich backers and rely on the support of our readers. Donate or become a supporter.

His term as chief inspector came to an end on 31st March, six days after he was commissioned to undertake a review of the circumstances surrounding Cressida Dick’s resignation.

The mayor had been formally summonsed to attend the London Assembly’s police and crime committee, the first time the assembly’s formal legal power to summons had been used on a sitting mayor.

Asked to explain why he called the report “biased”, Khan said: “The primary witnesses Sir Tom relies upon for his review are [then] acting commissioner Steve House, are acting deputy commissioner and former assistant commissioner Helen Ball – appointed by Steve House – and the version of events given by Dame Cressida Dick’s team.”

He added, “nowhere in Sir Tom’s report does he mention any of the series of scandals” that had surrounded Cressida Dick’s resignation, such as the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer or the subsequent policing of a vigil in her honour on Clapham Common.

Khan said: “I would’ve liked Sir Tom to be as unhappy about the lack of dignity given to Bibaa [Henry] and Nicole [Smallman], the lack of dignity given to Child Q, the lack of dignity given to Sarah Everard, the lack of dignity given to those at the vigil at Clapham Common, the lack of dignity given to Bianca Williams, the lack of dignity given to the Morgan family, the lack of dignity to the victims of Stephen Port.”

We know times are hard

If you are struggling to make ends meet, we are keeping Enfield Dispatch free because of you. We know that many people cannot afford to pay for local news, so this website and our print paper will always be free. If you can afford to, and value what we do, a small monthly, yearly or one-off contribution can support us to keep providing quality journalism for Enfield to our community for free.

Monthly direct debit 

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.  

Donate now with Pay Pal

More information on supporting us monthly or yearly 

More Information about donations