Thursday, January 31, 2008

The Stop & Search Question

The stop & search form was introduced in the 1990s as a result of recommendations made by Sir William Macpherson in his report on the inquiry into the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence.  Sir William recommended that all “stops” and “stop and searches” be recorded with the record including the reason for the stop, the outcome, and the self-defined ethnic identity of the person stopped.  The stopped person must also be provided with a copy of the record.  The form itself differs in length from one force to another.  In terms of time it can take at least ten minutes to complete a single form on the street and a further 20-30 minutes to complete the rear of the form back at the station.  The rear serves as an intelligence report which is forwarded to the local intelligence team for updating of the intelligence database although in some forces officers are able to update the intell database directly.  The stop & search form is widely considered to contain some valuable information but is particularly bureaucratic and takes too long to complete.  Therefore, it rather begs the question exactly what information is necessary to record in respect of a stop & search and whether a form is the best (or only) way to record such information.

The stop & search form provides a record to a person detained for the purpose of a search based on a suspect description, suspicious behaviour or actions, or other intelligence.  The information and analysis of a force’s stop & search records is reviewed by police authorities and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.  The form is also understood to safeguard ethnic minorities against discriminatory police tactics and prevent the stopping and searching of individuals on the basis of race alone.  In truth, completion of an obligatory form will not prevent a police officer from stopping and searching an individual on the basis of race although it does compel the officer to state which statutory power he/she has used to justify the stop & search and the grounds for doing so.  Such grounds may be the subject of dispute if a complaint against the officer is made.  Therefore, the grounds for search are important considerations regardless of the searched person’s race.  

It is worth noting that a person is under no obligation to provide their name and address to a police officer for the purpose of a search.  During completion of the stop & search form the detained person classifies their ethnicity alongside the officer’s perception of their ethnicity.  The detainee is then asked to confirm the descriptive details and sign the record to verify they have received a copy although they are under no obligation to do so.  If, as in the majority of cases, the detained person chooses not to take a copy of the search record they can present themselves at the officer’s station within a year of the date of search to obtain their copy.  In such cases it is not uncommon for officers to take details to complete the form back at the station for intelligence purposes with no real likelihood that the searched person will present themselves within a year for their copy.  Where the form is completed at the roadside there are those who will gleefully tear it up in front of the officer or screw it into a ball and throw it in the nearest bin.  The fact that corners have begun to be cut, particularly when searching large groups of people (which presents practical problems completing several forms on the street, see “When Tricks Are No Treat, November 2007) suggests that a more efficient form of good practice must be established. 

It is also worth noting that other developed countries of a mixed ethnic composition have no equivalent of a stop & search form.  As a result, it is a question of some debate whether ethnic minorities in those countries feel more vulnerable and less protected as a result and whether, conversely, ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom feel less vulnerable and better protected for the form’s existence.  The question remains whether it is necessary that the information gathered during a stop & search procedure should result in a foot long form which takes too much time, both on and off the street, to complete.  Furthermore, it is entirely feasible that the information can be captured using more efficient means which will not result in a loss of information.  As for the Government’s initiative of palm pilots or similar devices of technological wizardry it is still wide of the mark, overlooks the technology which officers already have and leaves one wondering from where will the money come?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=THU21044LKVNHQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/30/nsearch330.xml
 

Posted by Johnno at 18:44:46 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Monday, January 28, 2008

Trouble & Strife

Johnno.

In light of our ongoing pay dispute with the Government it would be all too easy to jump on the bandwagon and take a swipe at those who run this country.  However, at the present time there are other issues within the police service which require alteration and more importantly some stability for officers on the front line. 

I am a serving officer working within CID.  The constabulary with whom I am employed introduces new ideas week in and week out.  For instance we have now been told that all files must be placed in envelopes prior to submitting them to, say, the Criminal Justice Unit or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).  Whilst I understand that these files may contain sensitive material and other matters of a confidential nature, I fail to see why this request has been made.  I cannot recall a time during my somewhat lengthy police service when such an issue has been so important. Yes, I understand that certain government related documents have been lost of late but these have no connection with the police.  This practice appears to be another bureaucratic waste of money.

Next, the method of obtaining a decision to charge on a crime file has changed beyond recognition.  We have one CPS lawyer working in our station between the hours of 9am-5pm, or thereabouts, Monday to Friday.  When this system was first introduced it worked reasonably well.  At the present time the system can be likened to a doctors’ surgery.  We are asked to fill in a daily sheet which contains 6 appointment slots.  It is clear that currently these sheets are being completed up to four days in advance.  If you have a live prisoner in custody on a day when the CPS diary is full it becomes a battle to see a lawyer.  How much longer before someone from management suggests that we implement an electronic buzzer similar to those found in a surgery?  It is little wonder that the average prisoner can now expect a longer period in detention because of this ridiculous method?  Cutbacks may well be necessary in the current climate but for heavens sake here we are in 2008 using ideas which equate with the ark.  

Without wishing to criticise unduly the role played by the CPS, one has to question some of the charging decisions they make.  I was recently asked to put together a full court file for one of our regular visitors to our custody complex.  I submitted the file to the CPS expecting to hear that the offender had received a custodial sentence for one of his many ASBOs.  Alas, I should have known better.  Just the other day I was informed that my case was dropped as the offender had a similar case against him.  His sentence, believe it or not, was a £5 fine and a conditional discharge.  What message does this send out?  British justice…?

In addition, one has to mention morale.  Just prior to Christmas there were a number of large posters placed in prominent areas within our station.  The posters pointed out the fact that our division required a number of further detections in order to meet a specified percentage.  Detections, detections, detections.  I assume our area commander received his bonus.  Did he thank us?  I think those of us with our feet firmly planted know the answer!

The amount of paperwork being completed by officers has not decreased in the slightest since I joined the service.  Only the other week I was advised that I had to submit numerous forms in relation to a domestic violence case I was dealing with.  These forms are both time consuming and purely for statistical purposes. 

My force is now about to embark upon a change in the way we police the county.  Whilst I appreciate some may view this as a positive step forward these alterations have been used by previous chief constables only for someone else to take over and change it all again.  Change for change sake springs to mind.  We have seen the best years of being a police constable in this country.  Sadly, I for one cannot see a return to practical policing under the current climate.

An anon officer. 

Posted by Johnno at 18:56:08 | Permalink | Comments (2)