Corruption in the Police: The Reality of the ‘Dark Side’
| DOI | 10.1350/pojo.2008.81.1.389 |
| Published date | 01 March 2008 |
| Author | Bryn Caless |
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
DR BRYN CALESS
Kent Police
CORRUPTION IN THE POLICE:
THE REALITY OF THE ‘DARK
SIDE’
This article, the product of original research by the author into
cases of police corruption facilitated by the ACPO Counter-
Corruption Advisory Group from 1999 to 2000, analyses the
nature of corruption in the police, arguing that although its
incidence is very small, the effect of corruption in the police,
both in terms of morale and in terms of the effect on cases
before the courts, is substantial. The author, well experienced
in the application of counter-corruption methods, proposes that
the simplest and most direct inhibitors are often the most
effective. Profiles of likely perpetrators are discussed, as are
the characteristic experiences of policing which might tempt an
officer into corrupt activity. This work blends applied research
and academic analysis with professional knowledge.
Keywords: ACPO Counter-Corruption Advisory Group;
bad apple; contrary to duty; corruption matrix; counter-
measures; definition; free cup of coffee; integrity-testing;
malfeasance; misfeasance; ‘noble cause corruption’; non-
feasance; opportunity; OPSY (Operational Security
Officer); police corruption; predisposition; profiles; pro-
tective marking; research data; slippery slope; theories
about corruption; tenure; vetting
There is a dark underside to the ethics of policing which is all
too seldom discussed or exposed. Corruption among or by police
officers is, in some respects, almost a taboo subject. Very little
research has been done in the UK, and the majority of literature
and commentary on police corruption is American (Newburn
1999). While much has been done to establish counter-measures
and to raise awareness of the occurrence of corruption among
police officers (ACPO 2000), no primary research has been
carried out for at least 10 years and the Home Office does not
seem to treat the subject with any sense of importance. Its last
commission to look at the subject was Miller (2003). Yet police
corruption continues and, while not at the level it attained in
1998–2000, is still happening. In October 2006, two police
officers from Nottingham were sentenced to a total of eight
The Police Journal, Volume 81 (2008) 3
DOI: 10.1358/pojo.2008.81.1.389
years’ imprisonment for passing information about police invest-
igations to suspected criminals. The major offender, a police
constable who had joined the force in 1999, passed to the owner
of a fashion shop details of the investigation into the murder of
Marian Bates, a jeweller shot dead in 2003. He was rewarded
with discounts on clothes from the store. Evidence was produced
which showed that the officer had also carried out intelligence
checks on suspected criminals at their own request. A subsequent
case almost exactly a year later in London involved six men, five
of whom were former police officers, who were sentenced to
varying terms of imprisonment for conspiracy to intercept com-
munications and with ‘aiding and abetting misconduct in a
public office’. The offences were committed over a period from
1999 to 2004 and were investigated by the Metropolitan Police’s
Anti-Corruption Command. The men had set up an illegal
company which charged clients to hack into computers or bug
telephone lines.
Almost every year, there is a headline case of this kind which
involves a corrupt police officer working alone or with others.
Any investigation into criminality or corruption by the police is
made more difficult when insiders are involved. There is also the
danger that the insiders themselves will be alerted by well-
meaning friends or colleagues. Investigation techniques can be
compromised and police intelligence passed to the very people
the systems are designed to catch: the criminals. This did not
happen in either of the cases described above, but it has been
known to happen elsewhere. We need to understand how wide-
spread corruption is likely to be and how we might prevent it.
Before that, though, we need to ask more profound questions and
seek answers to them: what is corruption? Why does it happen?
What makes a police officer or police staff member corrupt?
What are the theories about corruption and can they help an
investigation? Can we determine what kind of officer or staff
member in what situation is likely to become corrupt?
Let us begin with a definition. Corruption exists when a
member of a police force illegally puts personal interests, or the
interests of others, above those of the people he or she is pledged
to serve (Klitgaard, 1988). There are some holes in this, as we
shall see, but we will take it as a working definition for the
purposes of our discussion. There are also technical and legal
definitions of some aspects of corruption ‘in a public office’.
These are:
Non-feasance (not doing what you should)
4 The Police Journal, Volume 81 (2008)
To continue reading
Request your trial