Many infamous public disorders took place in 1981, such as the Brixton riots, where 7,000 officers were deployed, 400 officers injured and 250 people were arrested. Such riots according to Lord Scarman who was appointed to investigate the case were apparently caused through the lack of police accountability and the general public opinion that the police did not understand public needs, therefore areas such as community consultation needed corroboration.
Police expenditure was heavily increasing and the question of its reliability was decreasing. The police were becoming an increasing financial burden but they were not reducing crime rates and clear up rates were decreasing by the year. Morgan and Newburn (1997) state figures from CIPFA police statistics, demonstrating, clear up rates for notifiable offences declining from 41% in 1979 to 35% in 1984, which suggests that Police efficiency was in need of reform.
In an attempt to improve these figures, Thatcher bought with her the strict policies of a monetarist regime in 1979 and encouraged privatisation, which was itself an attempt to remove inefficiency and stagnant industries. This inevitably led to a fresh approach to police accountability and efficiency brought about by the strict budgets imposed by Mrs Thatcher. The minors strike of the 1980’s, again managed to change the ever-changing face of the police force with the almost complete removal of the friendly British bobby.
However, through the development of the tripartite system, some chief constables felt that they had god given powers to do as they pleased. The question of accountability was once again raised when a chief constable in Manchester felt it was his duty to remove all homosexuals from the streets (Anne Dunn, 2002; Lecture 5 “Police accountability”).
These issues of corruption that took place in the 1980’s highlighted the concern for police practice, accountability and the concentration of police powers. To this end, Operation countryman was an inquiry into the alleged corruption amongst metropolitan police officers. Ironically, even this investigation into corruption was surrounded by a shroud of sleaze, (Morgan and Newburn 1997).
As a result of such malpractices in the 1980’s, the Police Act 1964 introduced a police complaints board which was to attain copies of any investigation taking place and were able to recommend a disciplinary tribunal. However this did not work, as their decisions were based solely on the majority vote, a vote that included police votes, therefore an inevitably biased result. In response to the failure of the complaints board, the police and criminal evidence act (1984) replaced the complaints board with the Police Complaints Authority (PCA). The PCA was able to investigate into any case they wished, and were allocated specific cases to review, such as notably alleged assaults by the police. However research has shown that public opinion states, “the new system commands no more confidence than the old one” (Reiner and Spencer 1993 cite Maguire and Corbett 1991).
In 1993-1994 The Tories took managerial control and as a result the white paper report, Sheehy report along with the Audit commission together limited police power and reduced police expenditure, encouraging a steady tightening of financial and managerial accountability. Sheehy report suggested that the pyramid of police ranks should be flattened, there should be fixed term contracts, and performance related pay (PRP). Its suggestions were taken into consideration, and gladly only PRP was rejected. As a result of the Police and magistrates courts Act 1994 chief constables were given limited contracts of 5 years in an attempt to strengthen accountability rates. Encouraging constables to deal with complaints without having to take long period relationship with other officers into consideration. Hoping to reduce corruption within the complaints system.
More recently Morgan and Newburn (1997), stated that the police and magistrates courts act, in 1994 reconstructed the tripartite structure to police decision making. They believed more powers should be available to police authorities along with the home secretary, and this act was consolidated through the police act 1996.
However although accountability was heading in the right direction many officers were still being caught with their fingers in corrupt activities.
However, before we begin to speak of future alternatives to strengthening police accountability there has been a growth in governmental bodies, which practice strict monitoring services for the police force at present. Along with the PCA there is another department known as the Internal Affairs Divisions (IAD). IAD officials have a tough role; they want to be fair to their fellow officers, while increasing public confidence in their ability to provide justice. The IAD sometimes prove unpopular with rank and file officers, but even they have a chain of command. These internal review stratagems are almost guaranteed to be tainted, by personal biases and occupational loyalties, and so external independent bodies would need to be introduced. Lay involvement has also been in practice for some time. It appears to be profitable for people in police custody, as these professionals are able to walk into police stations and keep track of suspects, and their treatment. However this is not enough to ensure that the police are fully accountable, and they remain far from being transparent.
However the essential issue in Police accountability revolves around the following contradiction: How can the Police be accountable to any one person in the community, and yet not suffer the criticism that they were biased or impartial. The question ultimately is how the police are to be accountable to every member of the community, including different groups and classes in society.
Police accountability obviously needs re-defining, which means an emphasis must be placed on local police training centres and constables to state that accountability is a critical element when working for the public. This leaves us with the notion that the ways in which the police are expected to be accountable has changed over the years. There is an element of police independence, which could be related to the fact that the police have been given increasingly greater degrees of freedom over the years.
It appears that over the years, the “police have become more accountable and less autonomous” (Reiner and Spencer 1993).
Reiner and Spencer (1993) recommended that the responsibility for making police decisions needs to be balanced between central and local governments, leaving chief police officers to reverse present trends concentrating on effective central control. Police officers should be given recording devises in which they record their day-to-day activities, or even carry video surveillance, which would be checked simultaneously by anyone who wishes to view them, including the public if they hold valid reason.
Police accountability can only be strengthened with the help of the community, and the Police need to revise the recommendations of Lord Scarman and increase community consultation plans in all areas. Through community consultations, the police may be able to develop a better relationship with their local community and hence make their jobs more effective.
Training programmes need to be set up which highlight the severity of malpractices and corruption within the police force. It should be explained that these issues will not be taken lightly, and will be dealt with in a strict manner. Undoubtedly many officers still think that they can be involved in illegal practise and they will not be caught because they are the law. The Canadian police force were presented with a directional statement in 2002 stating that accountability is one of the most important aspects, along side honesty, professionalism, compassion and respect. Without these elements the police force would not operate effectively. The police need to realise that they must be answerable to the communities that they serve, and their actions just like a criminals actions need a reason.
Independent bodies such as the Audit commission need to be built upon and made stronger in order to help keep regulations understood. The government needs to work alongside the police and help the public identify the police force, thus avoiding additional weak accountability structures such as joint boards and police authorities. These boards if they are to be used need to be advertised to the public, and be recognized as a place where complaints can be made. Their literature needs to be available in different languages and formats, which are appropriate for the population that they are serving. Community groups may be set up by the complaints authority to help victims who might feel intimidated by officials, and therefore this will allow them to address complaints from those victims. Also victims within the police force are able to attend community group meetings about the police and submit confidential complaints discretely. Other independent bodies such as police monitors could be appointed, who have professional knowledge of police practice and are involved in community complaints meetings. Police monitors may be able to speak on behalf of the community erasing any unfair situations in understanding police language and its system.
Finally the police authority should be entitled to information being gathered internally for HMIC, Home office, and the audit commission as the police authority should be responsible for the police service rather than sending it to those providing the service.
Reiner's analysis raises the questions that need to be answered in a particularly vivid manner. He says, “The police exercise powers which profoundly affect the lives of all citizens”.
To conclude we can say that it is a basic requirement of any modern police service that they should be accountable to their community just as politicians are accountable to their electorate. Those that wield power must understand that they have certain obligations and responsibilities towards those over which they exercise that power. This will allow communities to trust the police force and therefore make them more credible and efficient in their work. For example when the police make pleas to the public for help regarding crimes in the community it is more likely that they will receive a accurate response from a community that has faith in their ability to resolve the crime.
References
- Dunn, Anne (2002) “Police accountability” Lecture 5
-
Canadian police force home page. Directional Statement 2001 (January).
- Jefferson, Tony & Grimshaw, Roger (1984) “Controlling the constable” Fredrick Muller Limited.
- Morgan, Rod and Newburn, Tim (1997) “The future of policing” oxford university press.
-
P. Alpert and Mark H. Moore (1998) “Measuring Police Performance in the New Paradigm of Policing”
- Spencer, Sarah (1985) “Called to account; case for police accountability in England and Wales” NCCL.