It is possible to identify three roles and responsibilities that a police authority has. First it is charged with maintaining an adequate and efficient police force, second it can be seen as a watchdog

It is possible to identify three roles and responsibilities that a police authority has. First it is charged with maintaining an adequate and efficient police force, second it can be seen as a watchdog, ensuring that money is well spent and policing proprieties observed. Lastly, and arguable of increasing importance, the police must promote improved relations between themselves and the community (Benyon & Bourn, 1986). If one considers the third mentioned role of a police authority, the promotion of police-community relationship, it could be argued that this is the most plausible reason for police accountability. This is due to the fact that the core principle of any British police authority is “policing by consent” (Donnelly & Scott, 2002). "Traditional British policing is relatively low on numbers, low on power and high on accountability… it is undertaken with public consent which does not mean acquiescence but a broad tolerance indicating a satisfaction with helping and enforcement roles of policing" (JCC, 1990, Operation Policing Review). If the police service is to police by public consent it must be held accountable for it’s actions. Themes such as legal, democratic, local, service and community accountability are the main sections of the police and their accountability. The tripartite partnership of central government, local authority and the police, has arguable served British policing and society well over the past thirty years (Donnelly & Scott). The tripartite system will be discussed with focus lying on the community accountability.

“The art of achieving accountability...is to enlist the support of the police in disciplinary activities…For processes of external regulation…to be more than highly publicised morality play, the police must become convinced that they will be trusted to bear…the active responsibility for ensuring correct performance” (Bayley, 1983, pp. 158)

It has been argued that effective regulation of police powers and accountability requires that the rules of criminal procedure should be enforceable in the sense that they are broadly acceptable to and respected by the police. Accountability institutions will only be truly efficacious in affecting police practices if they win over and work in conjunction with internal disciplinary and self-controlling processes. None-the-less there is a need for competent and vigorous external accountability, both to symbolise police subordination to law and democracy, and to ensure that internal disciplinary and management processes operate effectively, (Reiner, 2000).

The mechanisms for accountability are related to the traditional tripartite structure that is based on three elements, central government, local government and the chief constable and the most recent partnership being the community. In Scotland responsibility for policing lies with the Scottish ministers. Going back to the fact that policing is by consent it is clear that as things change in areas such as society a sort of re-evaluation of this concept is needed. Perhaps the most responsibility can be seen as to lie on the shoulder’s of the chief constable who is responsible for the efficient administration and management of police operations. www.academicdb.com

Local government which can be seen as the police authority which is composed of representatives of elected local authorities (City and County Councils) and Magistrates, is responsible for the maintenance of an 'efficient' police force and provides substantial funding. The Police Authority appoints the Chief Constable (with Home Office approval). The Chief Constable makes an annual report to the Police Authority. However, the police

This is a preview of the whole essay

authority cannot direct the Chief Constable in any matters related to the operational aspects of policing. The Home Office, one of the departments of central government concerned with the criminal justice system is involved in the appointment of Chief Constables, and monitors the efficiency of police forces throughout the country through HMIC (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary). The Home Office now provides 75 percent of the funding for police forces. Donnelly & Scott (2002) state that no single entity should control the police authority and should only be answerable to the law, acting on behalf of the community rather than the government.

Central government has formal controls over force amalgamations, collaboration between forces as well as chief officer appointments and establishing the numbers and force establishments whilst providing common services. It can also make regulations on things such as promotion criteria, retirement, discipline and pay and allowances. While doing all of this it should be in constant consultation with the police advisory board and police negotiating board both of which are for Scotland.

However, the issue of police accountability has now become less politically orientated than this, and now the debate is more concerned with improving police effectiveness, police management etc. rather than how the police service should be made accountable for what it does. As part of the overall structure of accountability, a local police force has a defining line of accountability to its communities, which extend beyond the local government section of the tripartite system. As mentioned previously the police police by consent, and this is apparently by public consent. However, Waddington (1999)

highlighted a particular case where this may not be the case.

Firstly, is important, therefore, to evaluate what the police force actually is. The police force is a government organisation, therefore one would be forgiven to believe that the government is ultimately in control of the police. However, there are two main forms of police organization. The first of which is described as State Control; this is absolute control of the police by the government. To take a historical example of this would be to view the police of the old Soviet Union. Here there was a very fine line between the police and the army, simply, if the Soviet Union government was experiencing problems from a certain group of citizens, say protestors, they would be arrested, even if no unlawful act had been committed.

At the other end of the spectrum is Demographic Control. This is where, in effect, the people govern the police. In such a system police officers are fundamentally equal to the average citizen, they are significant to a degree, but their power is not overwhelming. Punishment, however, is still controlled by the government. Such demographic control can be viewed in the US where the public appoints a local sheriff through a public vote.

The British system is somewhere between the two forms. The police service would argue that they do not enforce their conceptions of law and order on an unwilling populace, rather, almost all that they do is undertaken at the request by the public, referring to policing by consent. This is reinforced by a recent initiative by Strathclyde police, crime together we’ll crack it, indicating that the police has recognised public fears over crime rates, but also that they need the help of the public and other organisations to do so. This

portrays the British police system in a very positive democratic light. However, Goldstein (1977) indicated that one of the principle roles of a police officer is to maintain order and

keep the peace, Waddington (1999) argues that on occasions this is not so, suggesting that this policy, in practice, can be ineffective.

Waddington (1999) proposed that in certain circumstances where the police are to keep the peace and to maintain order, i.e. during riots, demonstrations etc., that this is not the case. He stresses that on occasion the police seem to serve the government, not the public, and can transform a demonstration into a riot characterised as a battle between two groups (in such a case, rioters and the police). Thus not maintaining order, but maintaining a particular order. An example of this would be during the 1980’s, under the conservative reign of Thatcher, with the proposal of several pit closures. The miners, understandably distressed by the threat, protested against this in the form of strike action. To counter this protest the government ordered thousands of police officers from London to the pit villages to break picket lines to allow others to work and ultimately break the strike. This clearly illustrates how the government used the police to their advantage, this appears to be an example of state control, bearing in mind the statement by Goldstein (1977) that police are to resolve conflict, whether it is between individuals, groups of individuals, or individuals and their governments.

In light of the above example it would appear that the police, in this particular case, were not accountable to the community i.e. the miners, but were held accountable to the government. However, recent policies have been adapted by the British police service

To gain public support and enhance the police-public relationship. They do so even in their name, note the use of police service, in contrast to police force, in an attempt to gain public support to promote the fact that they are not forcing themselves on the public, again the idea of policing by consent. The police service further attempts to enhance community relations such as instating initiatives such as the previously mentioned crime together we’ll crack It (Strathclyde police). Schools, in particular primary schools, are regularly visited by community police officers to develop a strong relationship with todays youth which will progress into adulthood and ultimately reduce the us and them (Turner, 1987) segregation between the police and the public. Public liaison is of utmost importance with regard to the police service in gaining public support. Cases such as the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry have highlighted areas where improvements towards family liaison are required and thus recommendations have been implemented. Another important factor that was also highlighted in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry is the possibility of racism within the police force, also the recently broadcast Undercover Policeman where a journalist was accepted into Greater Manchester Police Force and secretly investigated to what extent racism was a factor within this police institution. In the most police forces in Britain the majority of officers are white and in light of the above enquiries the British police service has put on a recent campaign to include more ethnic minorities once again to reduce this us and them barrier. The media can be a powerful tool as indicated above with the Undercover Policeman broadcast, the police are therefore utilizing this instrument to gain public support. A basic example of this is seen in the Dumfries and Galloway branch of the Scottish police service where pamphlets were delivered door-to-door to those who reside in the area illustrating the current aims, objectives and initiatives of the police service in

their area. Furthermore, Strathclyde police publish The Leader every year after the Chief Constables annual report which presents the crime rates, if they have increased or decreased, their core aims and recent initiatives, Lothian and Borders also publish this. Additionally the majority of police services have a websites that update the public with crime rates, initiatives etc.

All in all, the police are not above the law must be held accountable for what they do. However, the issue of police accountability has now become less politically orientated than this, and now the debate is more concerned with improving police effectiveness, police management etc. rather than how the police service should be made accountable for what it does. The focus is now heavily concentrated on promoting and enhancing a strong positive relationship between the police and the public.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bayley, D. (1983) Accountability and the Control of Police: Some Lessons for Britain, in, Bennett, T. (ed.) The Future of Policing, Cambridge, Institute of Criminology.
Benyon, J. & Bourn, J. (1986), The Police: powers, procedures and proprieties, Pergamon Press.
Donnelly, D. & Scott, C. B. (2002), Police Accountability in Scotland: the new Tripartite System, cited in, The Police Journal, Vol. 75, No. 1, Published under Authority.
Duff, P, & Hutton, N, (1999), Criminal justice in Scotland, Ashgate publishing
Findlay, J, (2000), All manner of people (the history of the justices of the peace in Scotland), The Saltire Society.
Goldstein, H. (1977) Policing a Free Society, Cambridge, Ballinger.
Holdaway, S, (1979), The British Police, Edward Arnold (publishers) Ltd
Rawlings, P, (2002), Policing a short history, Willan Publishing
Reiner, R. (2000) The Politics of the Police, New York, Oxford University Press.
Sampson, F, (2003), Blackstones police manual, general police duties, Oxford university press
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Social Categorization theory, Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell.
Waddington, P. A. J. (1999) Policing Citizens, London, UCL Press.
Williams, K, S, (1997), Textbook on criminology, Blackstone press Ltd, 3rd Edition
www.police.uk