You could be forgiven for thinking that, in comparison to other behemothic human rights issues in the UK at the moment, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill is, well, rather vanilla. Part 1 delicately replaces Police Authorities with Police and Crime Commissioners. On closer inspection, however, this is a real cause of concern. By requiring Commissioners to be elected by the public and, thereby, politicising the whole process we run the gauntlet of cultivating an environment in which miscarriages of justice are more likely to occur.
A significant reason for resisting this reform is the irrefutable tenet that the police must not be swayed by public opinion. They must not arrest someone just because the public are calling for blood. They must not charge someone just because the media portray a suspect as ‘lewd’ and ‘creepy’. They must not prosecute someone they suspect is actually innocent just because public pressure demands results.
Unfortunately, history reflects this sad truth. In the case of the Bridgewater Four, police manufactured evidence to get a false confession out of Patrick Molloy. Undoubtedly, underlying such police transgression was the need to relieve the perceived burden placed on them by the public. They needed to demonstrate to the public that they had solved the brutal and inexplicable murder of the young Carl Bridgewater even if this compromised the accuracy of the result. Moreover, following an IRA motorway bombing which killed 12, the conviction of Judith Ward concluded a period of tremendous public pressure for the perpetrator to be brought to justice. A previous post recounts the flagrant misconduct of the police in that case in order to achieve the result.
Consequently, it is clear that even without Part 1 of this new Bill, there is always the danger that public pressure will foster miscarriages of justice. Part 1, however, appears to reinforce this trend by legislating for public opinion. The public are now in charge. It seems apparent that if Commissioners are to be elected by the public, then they will presumably attempt to curry favour with the public by pursuing the most populist policies and toeing a populist line. Unfortunately, due process is not always popular. Appeasement of the majority, however, will filter down through the ranks and public emotion could be allowed to influence a discipline, a prerequisite of which is that it be conducted dispassionately.
Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, gave evidence to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill committee last week. She maintained that, ‘Of course the police should be accountable – but the question is accountable to what? To who?’ In a similar fashion we might compare police accountability to judicial accountability. There are ways of holding someone to account without requiring that they be elected by the public.
Nonetheless, the solution is certainly not politicising the organisation. It is important that the decisions made and the powers at the top are not dogged in politics. Trust in the police is essential to the wellbeing and security of a society and it must continue to function without becoming mired in the political battlefield. The police must not be tied to the leg of party politics, so fragile to stumbling.
In essence it makes no difference whether the reforms take place or not. Police forces are a White male dominated structure. It is very difficult for it to adapt or welcome ethnic minorities. It is just adjusting to increasing and promoting White females in forces. It’s specialist departments are enclosed & closed door fields and it wouldn’t surprise me if they just hung a sign post saying ‘whites only’. The govt previous and current know these practises exist. Unfortunately the police forces are at liberty to not provide data or information of ethnic officers life span in police careers – I can assure you ethnic officers are disposed of quickly and robustly for matters their White counterparts are given a slap on the wrist. So politics have always existed in this field – within.
I also dislike this Bill. Nevertheless, Police accountability is pretty poor at the present time. How could it be imporved without going down the Police and Crime Commissioner route? Maybe the Police Authorities could be retained but reformed into slimmer versions with more teeth to direct operational priorities? [We used to call them "Watch Committees"].
Regrettably, I also concur with the views of Tariq Hussain expressed above. If any organisation needs to look at becoming more “diverse” it is the Police.
In relation to both of you. I am an “ethnic minority” officer and your views absolutely disgusts me.
The police service has the most diverse training standards in ANY firm or public sector. You obviously do not know what you are talking about and I suggest you do your research before commenting like this!
People do not join the service because of the colour of the skin, or where they have come from. It is to fight crime and arrest criminals!
You narrow opinions do nothing to help community relations, neither to us as officers with different cultural backgrounds.
I too agree this bill is not right but this is modern day policing and we are living in a change in economical circumstances.
If you have any opinions please leave our cultural background and skin colour. You will only stir up racial tension and this is unacceptable.
The miscarriages cited all happened under the current regime. What makes you think the new regime will make things worse?
I have to say that I disagree with you, our police need far greater reforms, democratic accountability being just one of them. It works elsewhere in the world.
My suggestions run far deeper: http://www.bruceonpolitics.com/2011/02/06/what-is-wrong-with-the-police-in-britain/
The Police Reform Bill is very worrying for its ignorance of history. The British constabulary are presently accountable to local elected authorities. It is the very local nature of the organisation of the British police service, as it has evolved, that has made it a service, almost unique in the world, in the degree of trust with which it is regarded by the majority in local communities. This is crucial to the effectiveness of the force. The grouping together of constabularies into regional authorities with elected commissioners may introduce a new layer of democratic control, but it will fatally weaken the connection between the police service, local communities and their elected representatives. This will undermine local democracy, politicise the police service, and severe local links on which the police service crucially depends. The London Met of course are a different matter altogether. But what might democratise the met does not apply over the rest of the country and as one of the more notorious, least popular and accountable constabularies they are hardly an example to imitate. This is a rare occasion on which I agree with Shami Chakrabarty completely.
The reason for electing police is very clear. The police now are over-managed and do not provide a good service. An example: Recently I was struck by a car speeding and undertaking me. The lady drove off, I followed flashing my lights. After about a mile she stopped, ask why I ran into her, then claimed she did it because someone behind here was beeping at her. She then refused to provide details or insurance and drove off. I contacted the police (or rather the police call center). I was told there would be NO ACTION.
Following a stabbing (again, the result of police inactivity IMHO), I went to a public meeting ogranised by the police. I said that the call centers seemed like a cost cutting device and not good. The inspector glared at me as if I had no right to say such a thing. I would do anything to vote that guy out, but I have no say.