Solicitors Journal blog -On the beat

On the beat | Privatising the police

Blog | 24 May 2012

Now is the time to reinstate the police union says Sophie Khan

"We are all in it together!" in times of austerity, say the Tory-led coalition government but with David Cameron chillaxing at Chequers, in reality, it is the public sector workers who are facing the brunt of the cuts and the radical pace of reforms to the services that they provide.

On Wednesday 16 May 2012, the Home Secretary gave her speech at the Annual Conference of The Police Federation of England and Wales.

It was no surprise that Ms May would receive a hostile audience by the thousand or so Federation representatives from across all forces as the police service, as part of the public sector is also facing cuts. A 20 per cent cut has been proposed to its work force which will see 16,000 police officers lose their jobs by the end of this Parliament. The numbers are high but so is the police budget which stands at £14b a year.

The Police Federation agree that cuts need to be made to the police service as the public expenditure on policing is now unsustainable, but their grievances lie with the fundamental changes the Windsor report will bring once implemented.

The reforms will create a new culture of policing, ending the job for life ethos towards a more professional outfit by raising the level of qualifications for those joining as a Constable and introducing a direct entry scheme for talented individuals from the business sector.

However, the level of opposition to such changes during Ms May’s speech is likely to have bruised - if not broken - the special bond between government and police for the first time since 1918, when 10,000 Metropolitan Police Officers went on strike due to poor pay and conditions. The National Union of Police and Prison Officers founded by ex-Inspector John Syme in 1913 and reorganised in 1917 called the strike which led to improvements in pay and conditions.

The enactment of the Police Act in 1919 following the second strike banned the Union and with it the right to strike. The government laid down the law and since 1919 there has been no direct challenge to lift the ban.

But should that change now? I think so, as the challenges faced by policing in the twenty-first century need to be addressed, especially as the government has become fixated with privatising the police which could give private companies 10 to 25 per cent control over police services.

Although, Surrey Police, who are taking part in the Business Partnership Programme, along with West Midlands Police have called for a pause in the timetable to allow for a public consultation to take place over the summer, the shortlist for bidders is still going ahead this Friday.

There does not seem to be a desire to abandon the plans even though the public have already voiced their concerns and now serious questions have been raised over the human rights record of some of the bidders. Do we really want to give the company who built the cell blocks at Guantanamo Bay a stake in our police service?

Under such circumstances no one would criticise the police service if they wished to consider alternative routes to challenge government proposals. Collective action, the traditional weapon of the trade union movement should be an option that is explored. And if a National Union of Police Officers is the answer then a challenge to overturn the ban should be made.

I appreciate that the right to strike would be a last resort for many police officers but that should not deter those who feel that they should have a stake in the future of policing.

If the government is serious about protecting the Office of Constable then instead of privatising the police it should allow the holders of that office the ability to challenge it on an equal footing. The limitations of the Police Federation are evident and as long as there is a ban on Unions, the police service will remain at a disadvantage in negotiations with the government.

The advance of privatisation is a real threat to the future of policing and if the police do not challenge this now they may see that their rights are curtailed even further.

Related Terms:

Police and prison

Solicitors Journal -Tasers

Tasers: the safety of the public must be put first 8 May 2012

By Sophie Khan

The Met Police commissioner has decided to roll out potentially lethal weapons without considering the risks or reviewing the current guidance, says Sophie Khan

Last November, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police pledged that he would increase the number of Tasers on the streets of our capital following the stabbing of four Metropolitan Police officers in Kingsbury, Harrow. And at the beginning of April he did just that and added ‘roll out Tasers’ to his list of ten commitments drawn up for an internal publicity campaign. Within months there will be 64 more stun guns capable of being deployed as two fast response vehicles in each of the London boroughs will also be permitted to carry them.
The commissioner decided not to hold a public consultation, even though he was aware of the public interest surrounding the use of Tasers, and, as the Metropolitan Police Authority has now been abolished, there has also been no scrutiny of his decision. In the absence of any consultation the commissioner’s decision could be subject to a judicial review as he has failed to consider the real risks associated with an increase, especially when the safety of the device is being questioned more and more everyday.
It was only on 27 March 2012 that Taser International, the manufacturers of the stun gun, lost their appeal before the US District Court Western District of North Caroline Division in the case of Darryl Turner who died after being Tasered in 2008 (see ‘The Met Police must heed the warnings about Tasers’, Solcitors Journal 155/47, 13 December 2011). On appeal it was held that the “Taser causes sudden death” and that the device is being given to police with false assurances of its safety. The Taser has also been linked to 26 deaths in Canada and 15 reported deaths in Australia.
Due to the number of fatalities associated with their use the commissioner should have called for a review of the current ACPO Taser Operational Guidance to determine whether the Taser is safe to use on the British public. The incident in Forest Hill in February, which resulted in a man being shot by firearms officers, could have resulted in significant injuries to the officers who initially were relying on the Tasers to incapacitate the man. The reasons why the Tasers failed to deploy in such an incident needed to be investigated and taken on board before any increase in their use was commissioned.

Violence perpetuates violence

In response to my article of 13 December 2011, many readers felt that my criticism of the use of Tasers was unjustified as they felt that they had a right to protect themselves and “go home safely to their families”. I acknowledge the dangers that police officers face on duty but do not think that an increased use of Tasers is the answer, as violence perpetuates violence and instead communication should always be the first resort. The dangers to members of the public do outweigh the safety arguments made by the police and for that reason the commissioner should look again at his decision to roll out Tasers and seek alternative views before taking any further steps.
The use of the Taser has a part to play in policing, but because of the inherent dangers associated with the gun their use must remain limited. If there is to be an increase in their use then the ACPO Taser Operational Guidance has to be reviewed and updated so that the public has confidence that there is the requisite level of accountability when they are used. In the absence of a review it is difficult to see how the commissioner can justify handing over more lethal weapons to his officers when it has been proven that Tasers can cause death.
The commissioner must place the safety of the public first and learn lessons from countries where the number of deaths continue to rise as the number of Taser stun guns grow. I am regularly reminded by police officers that there is a difference in British policing to that of their American counterparts but they forget that the Taser stun gun they use is the same.
The same consequenc es could occur in Britain if the commissioner continues with his ‘roll out’ programme.
Total policing must encompass total consequences and until the consequences in relation to Tasers have been properly reviewed I believe that the safety of the public remains at risk.
Postscript:Sophie Khan is a solicitor advocate specialising in actions against the police at GT Stewart (www.gtstewart.co.uk)

http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/story.asp?storycode=20032&encCode=2108577861BC2234223JTBS737226611