Liberty - Protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

LIBERTY NEWS

Policing on the agenda

3 July 2013
Author: Rachel Robinson, Policy Officer
In 2011, more than 100,000 people were stopped and searched in Britain under counter-terrorism laws. How many were arrested for terrorism-related offences? None. Not one. As statistics go, that’s pretty damning. Overbroad stop and search powers have proven not just blunt and ineffective, but discriminatory. Lax and ill-targeted powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act have now been significantly tightened, but there are still powers on the statute book allowing police to stop and search people without any suspicion. Under the now notorious section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, you’re far more likely to be stopped if you’re Black or Asian than if you’re White. Inevitably, such measures have seriously undermined community confidence in policing.

All of this means that yesterday’s announcement of a review of stop and search, including section 60, is a welcome one. The Home Secretary has urged forces to scale back their use of the power; to focus instead on a more selective, intelligence-led approach. After years of bad and counterproductive practice, it’s encouraging that the Government is waking up to concerns, but it remains to be seen whether genuine legislative reform will follow. Worryingly there has also been mention of the possible removal of vital reporting requirements which help monitor use of the power.


Meanwhile, Schedule 7 – a similarly discriminatory power to search and detain without suspicion at ports – is also under scrutiny. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill seeks to address some of its flaws – imposing restrictions and extending certain safeguards. But the legislation fails to tackle the most fundamental problem: the failure to require criminal suspicion before such intrusive measures are imposed.


Other concerns over British policing are also coming to the fore. Following revelations regarding the Lawrence family, police use of surveillance and undercover operatives is again being questioned. It’s already been announced that the Office of Surveillance Commissioners is to authorise long-term covert deployments. But this doesn’t go far enough. Our “Lawrence amendment” to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill would ensure that all intrusive undercover policing operations would require prior judicial authorisation. Doreen Lawrence has already given her backing to the reform, which we’re working hard to get tabled in the Commons.


Elsewhere, members of the influential Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) have turned their attentions to the new political heads of police forces, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), introduced last year. A recent HASC report expressed serious concerns about PCCs’ power to suspend Chief Constables, the ability of Policing and Crime Panels to keep a check on Commissioners and the lack of diversity amongst PCCs, who don’t reflect the communities they’re supposed to serve.


Britain enjoys a long, distinguished tradition of policing by consent. But overbroad, divisive measures and inadequate oversight and accountability mechanisms threaten that proud heritage. Warm words and guidance from the Home Secretary are all well and good, but they’re no substitute for tightening up the law.

EMAIL LIST
Join our email list for regular campaign updates
Please join Liberty today and help protect our fundamental rights and freedoms. The support of our members makes all our work possible.