April 2024: Always more but never better
One poll claims Londoners want more stop and search; another says trust among Londoners is low. Either way, it should be broken up, says the National Black Police Association
Dear StopWatchers,
With further blows to police accountability including: calls to disband the Met from Black officers; complaints from lawyers over the same force’s handling of sex discrimination claims; the bizarre treatment of a freelance photographer from Swansea right through to the point of a jury trial; chief constables assuming control over misconduct panel hearings away from independent legal chairs; and the release of data revealing that the state sanctioned abuse of thousands of children in police custody in the guise of strip-search is commonplace, widespread and poorly monitored, the thought that some branches of the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) would be interested in transparency comes as a shock.
But here we are: the North Wales Police Federation have passed a no-confidence motion in the PFEW executive for refusing to disclose details of the new CEO’s pay, amongst other things. Those guys will want to be careful. What they’re agitating for sounds suspiciously like democracy. They’d better not start protesting about it… they might get an SDPO.
In other business, we welcome our newest recruit, Jodie Bradshaw, who comes in to bolster our policy advocacy work around stop and search in this election year. She led on our analysis (read here) of a certain think tank’s report into policing, more on which below.
Stop and search: Always more but never better
The public have spoken! Conservative party funded think tank the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) have asked the people of London (via pollsters Survation) whether they support or oppose stop and search, and it turns out they want it (if there were reasonable grounds for suspicion and if the police told you what the reason was… dunno why you’d mention this if it was done properly and fairly already, but hey ho). Furthermore, this is despite the tactic coming ‘under sustained attack from lobby groups for several years’ (who could they possibly mean? Not us, surely?).
And with almost one in four Londoners (22%) surveyed saying that they have been attacked or threatened with violence in the last five years, it seems only right that stop and search is what they yearn for to keep order in the capital.
Dedicating precisely zero words to the question of whether stop and search even works, the CSJ report goes on to conclude that:
Despite levels of stop and search falling over the last five years, the public remains largely supportive of it. We believe the reduction in stop and search is not because of any change in legislation, but rather economic and political considerations relating to shrinking police budgets, a reduction in the number of officers, an inability to retain talented police officers, and clear political messaging from lobby groups [again, who? we’d really like to know] and the Mayor of London.
And again, we are left scratching our heads over whether CSJ even cares about the efficacy of stop and search. Does it help prevent or solve serious violence? Is the routine abuse of authority from officers conducting stop and search justified by the end result? What is the end result? Is ‘No Further Action’ in 70+% of stop and searches a good outcome? Why, if stop and search ‘is often used as part of a larger toolkit of preventative techniques against crime’, do they focus predominantly on the tactic above all else?
The closest the report seems to come to addressing all this is when it explored how Londoners would like to see the police better connected with the youth. Foot patrols and a more visible presence won out (51% of respondents), along with secondary school visits (36%) and community engagement (35%).
Of course, when you normalise the police as an omnipresent force, it is nigh impossible to think of scenarios where their presence is unnecessary. But, quite aside from a framing reminiscent of the ‘Leading Questions’ scene in Yes Prime Minister, we politely suggest that this survey was ‘never going to address the broader context of declining public attitudes towards the police generally, and the Met in particular’, no matter how nationally representative it is (StopWatch, 26 Apr).
We don’t suppose any of those surveyed by Survation turned up in the poll commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council earlier this month? Maybe they were one of the 34.6% of Londoners who said that they trust their police force (The Guardian, 18 Apr). In particular, ‘women trusted Britain’s largest force less than men’, thanks to a succession of scandals in recent years, alongside the lingering mistrust that sees ‘less trust in the police among respondents with an ethnic minority background, suggesting that the issues raised already by the Macpherson review are still present’.
So, when the idealistic principles of stop-search policing come up against the harsh reality what many officers get up to in such encounters, we’d recommend to the CSJ that they should probably be less obsessed with asking about officer numbers and the volume of police activity, and focus more on whether forces such as the Met – still in special measures, by the way – are fit for purpose anymore. Posing the question on social media, the Runnymede Trust was able to draw upon three ongoing scandals this month alone.
Instead, the CSJ continue to treat one of the least effective tools in the so-called crime prevention toolkit as an essential component, rather than demand better of the police. For them, there can never be too much stop and search, so they only ever want more of it. But they pay no more than a token nod to the importance of doing it better: conducting the procedure more transparently, causing less harm in the process, ridding the police interactions of prejudicial bias, giving serious thought as to the necessity of the tactic in so many situations, and so on. Perhaps they are too afraid of becoming yet another one of these dreaded ‘lobby groups’ rather than the kind of highly influential player in criminal justice policy that seems to create lasting damage through its policy recommendations.
Other news
Bogus charges against photographer dropped: Swansea Crown Court heard the Crown Prosecution Service had dropped charges against a press photographer arrested while covering a police incident in Swansea last year, one day before a jury trial was due to begin (Wales Online, 08 Apr).
Dimitris Legakis – a freelance photographer and a member of the British Press Photographers’ Association who runs the Athena Picture Agency – was covering a car fire on Sketty Lane in Swansea on the morning of September 22, 2023, when an altercation developed involving people at the scene. Police became involved and the photographer was arrested initially on a public order allegation, then subsequently charged with assaulting an emergency worker. It was later reported that the arresting officer’s original evidence about what happened did not align with a statement he later made. To presiding judge Geraint Walters, it appeared the case was about a police officer taking ‘offence’ to a photographer taking pictures.
Legakis’s legal representative said his client’s case raised ‘legitimate questions about the freedom of the press’. Judge Walters agreed, calling the case ‘disturbing’, and that ‘something has very seriously gone wrong’.
More orders: Yet more public order powers came into force in England and Wales earlier this month as part of the 2023 Public Order Act, this time to prevent individuals causing repeated serious disruption (Home Office, 05 Apr).
NetPol describes Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs) as ‘essentially anti-protest banning orders that can prevent an individual from associating with particular people (including contacting them online), going to certain areas, attending protests, or encouraging others to protest’.
Break it up: The head of the National Black Police Association (NBPA) has called for the Met police to be broken up, while it remains under fire for failing to listen to senior Black officers reporting alleged racism, in some cases getting victimised and targeted as a result of speaking out about possible corruption (Voice Online, 15 Apr).
President Andy George expressed serious concerns at the Met’s failure to take steps to restore public trust following the Casey Review’s damning findings that the force is institutionally racist and not fit to serve Londoners.
George told The Voice: ‘While the Met develops action plans and glossy brochures to show how much activity is taking place, Black Londoners continue to be traumatised by a police service who simply seek to enforce the law rather than working collaboratively with communities to solve crime and prevent harm.’
Role of legally qualified chairs relegated in officer misconduct hearings: Chief constables have been granted the opportunity to decide on the removal of officers found guilty of police misconduct (Home Office, 16 Apr).
Framed as a power to ‘sack unfit officers’, the government claims that police leaders will be held increasingly accountable for their own officers. The independent lawyers who used to preside over such hearings – known as legally qualified chairs – have now been relegated to the role of ‘legally qualified person’ who can be safely ignored provide independent legal advice in a more supportive role.
Payout for man paralysed by Met officer: Jordan Walker-Brown, 27, was left with a broken back after he was Tasered by Met force constable Imran Mahmood in an incident that happened in Harringay, London in May 2020 (Daily Mirror, 17 Apr). Mahmood wrongly believed unarmed Walker-Brown had a knife when he fired the Taser and that he needed to be ‘contained’. Now the Metropolitan Police is due to pay millions for the harm their officer caused Walker-Brown, who was left paralysed.
Prosecutor Ben Fitzgerald KC told jurors: ‘Mr Walker-Brown did not present a physical threat to Mr Mahmood or anyone else. He did not produce a weapon or try to attack anyone; he was trying to get away. Mr Mahmood fired the Taser at the moment when it looked as if Mr Walker-Brown might get away over the wall. He discharged the Taser when Mr Walker-Brown was up on the wheelie bin, with the obvious risk of injury from an uncontrolled fall, which is exactly what happened, with catastrophic results. Mr Mahmood should not have used the Taser. It was not, the prosecution say, a reasonable use of force in the circumstances he faced. It was not lawful.’
Met ignoring sex discrimination claims, say lawyers: Hodge Jones & Allen have uncovered nearly 100 sexual discrimination allegations were made against officers, of which none were recorded within the category of ‘discriminatory behaviour’ (hja.net, 18 Apr).
‘Abuse of position for a sexual purpose’ became a specific allegation type in February 2020, when new regulations came into force. It is defined as: behaviour demonstrated by a police officer or police staff member, whether on or off duty, that misuses their position, authority or powers to pursue a sexual or improper emotional relationship with a member of the public.
HJA authors Nancy Collins and Rebecca Shotton wrote: ‘It is clear from the FOI response that the Metropolitan Police are not treating conduct and complaint matters of a sexual nature with appropriate weight. An urgent change to both policies and attitudes is needed if we are achieve equal treatment for all those who come into contact with police.’
‘Outdated and offensive’: The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has removed a controversial medical term from its incident forms following criticism from campaigners that it plays into racist stereotypes and detracts attention from police brutality (Guardian, 20 Apr).
Until now, police forces referring a death or serious incident have been given the option to tick ‘excited delirium’ (also known as acute behavioural disturbance) in a list of relevant factors, a term that has historically been used to describe people who are agitated or acting bizarrely, usually because of mental illness, drug use or both. But it is not a recognised medical condition, is rooted in pseudoscience and has been criticised for playing into racial tropes about superhuman strength, which campaigners say can lead to increased use of police force; a disproportionate number of the cases where it was used involved Black and ethnic minority men in mental health crisis.
A IOPC spokesperson said the watchdog will now no longer ‘use the term as an option for categorising our investigations’. The College of Policing for England and Wales is also reviewing its guidance on the term.
Police strip-search thousands of children in custody: Data from 41 out of 43 police forces shows that 3,122 strip searches were carried out on under 18s in police custody in the year to 31 March 2023, out of a total of 68,874 (Guardian, 21 Apr). This equates to roughly 60 strip-searches of children in custody every week.
The figures also reveal that Black, Asian and mixed race children are targeted significantly more than their white counterparts. In fact, fewer than half of those strip-searched had their ethnic background recorded as white (45%), compared with 60% of strip-searched adults.
Sussex police conducted the highest rate of strip searches of children in custody as a proportion of the total (15%). About 21% of the children targeted for searches were Black, whilst fewer than 2% of people in Sussex overall describe their ethnicity as Black, according to the latest census data. Just over half of the children searched were white, compared with about 90% of the total population of the region.
Mark Russell, chief executive of the Children’s Society, described the figures as ‘deeply disturbing’ and that they expose a ‘stark racial disparity’ in the strip-searching of children. ‘Strip-searching children is a drastic measure and can be hugely distressing and traumatic for young people. According to strict national guidelines, it should solely happen in exceptional circumstances and always with an adult present – yet too often we know this is not happening in practice,’ Russell said.
Independent force to review Met’s failings in Lawrence case: An independent police force will review the Met’s handling of new evidence regarding the murder of Stephen Lawrence 30 years after his death, the mayor of London has said (Largs and Millport / PA, 22 Apr). It comes after commissioner Sir Mark Rowley apologised to Mr Lawrence’s mother Baroness Doreen Lawrence for not fulfilling a promise to answer questions stemming from a BBC investigation into the murder of the 18-year-old in 1993. The BBC said Baroness Lawrence was promised an explanation after the broadcaster named Matthew White as the sixth suspect in the case last year.
More tech less cost: In its response to the Policing Productivity Review, commissioned by the Home Office and published last autumn, the government has set out how £230 million will be spent over the next 4 years on technologies such as live facial recognition (with £55.5 million committed to its rollout across the country over the next 4 years), drones, knife detection and artificial intelligence (Home Office, 23 Apr). It is claimed that this is part of a suite of improvements that will free up 38 million hours of police time, the equivalent of 20,000 officers.
Section 60 watch*
London
Lambeth, Westminster (23 Apr)
Thames Valley
Bracknell (20 Apr)
Greater Manchester
Longsight & Moss Side (05 Apr)
* This is not a comprehensive list
StopWatch is a volunteer led organisation that relies on the generosity of trusts and grant funders to operate. We DO NOT accept funding from the government or police as we believe this would compromise our ability to critically challenge.
We’d appreciate any one-off or regular donations to help support our work. You can click on our Donate button below to go through to our donation page.
Stay safe,
StopWatch.