The Metropolitan Police commissioner has defended her force, following report findings which claim the Met police is institutionally corrupt.
Dick refused to accept the findings from an independent panel, which found officers put the forces reputation ahead of solving the 1987 murder of private investigator Mr Morgan.
We want to hear from you: let us know what you think about this story and be part of the debate in our comments section below
‘I don’t accept that we are institutionally corrupt’
On Wednesday 16 June, the day after the report was published, Dick said “I don’t believe we are institutionally corrupt. No, I don’t accept that.
“I have the deepest feelings for Daniel Morgan’s family. They have shown extraordinary grit and determination and courage.
“And yesterday I apologised again to them for our failings and the fact that we have not brought anybody to justice despite six investigations and countless other reviews and pieces of work.
“And for the fact that, in so doing and along the way, we have clearly, we the Met, my force of which I’m very proud to be the commissioner, we have caused them extra anguish.
“But I don’t accept that we are institutionally corrupt, no.”
Morgan’s family have said Dick should “absolutely” be reconsidering her suitability for her role as commissioner, following the report’s publication.
She defended Scotland Yard’s work and her job, as the report led by Baroness Nuala O’Loan found the force “dishonest” for “concealing or denying failings, for the sake of the organisation’s public image.”
‘dishonesty… for reputational benefit’
The panel’s report said: “Concealing or denying failings, for the sake of the organisation’s public image, is dishonesty on the part of the organisation for reputational benefit and constitutes a form of institutional corruption.”
In 2011, the Met admitted gross negligence in that it inadequately investigated Mr Morgan’s death in the initial aftermath of his murder - the murder scene was left unsearched and unguarded. The force accepted it had been hampered by corruption.
But O’Lean’s independent panel found corruption had stretched beyond the initial inquiry, and questioned why no none of those who corruptly sabotaged the investigation were brought to justice.