Custody visiting: The watchdog that didn’t bark
| Author | John Kendall |
| Published date | 01 January 2022 |
| Date | 01 January 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1748895820967989 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895820967989
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2022, Vol. 22(1) 115 –131
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1748895820967989
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Custody visiting:
The watchdog that
didn’t bark
John Kendall
University of Birmingham, UK
Abstract
This article argues that in qualitative research into the work of a regulator, it is as important
to watch out for that regulator’s omissions and silences as it is to examine what the regulator
does and says. The argument is illustrated by data drawn from a study of the Independent
Custody Visiting Scheme, the purpose of which is (or should be) to safeguard detainees and to
deter police from misconduct which might lead to deaths in custody. Research into the scheme
included using the technique of watching out for what the visitors did not do and did not say.
The data obtained by this method are interpreted through the lens of Lukes’ theory of power
to suggest that this watchdog has been debarked as a result of the power of the police.
Keywords
Custody visitor, observation, omissions, police, power, regulator
Gregory
(Scotland Yard detective): Is there any other point to which you would wish to
draw my attention?
Holmes: To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.
Gregory: The dog did nothing in the night-time.
Holmes: That was the curious incident.
(Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventure of Silver Blaze)
Introduction
Qualitative research typically focuses on observing what happens: what people do, and
what they say. This article champions the use of the technique of observing, or rather
Corresponding author:
John Kendall, Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Email: johnkendall475@gmail.com
967989CRJ0010.1177/1748895820967989Criminology & Criminal JusticeKendall
research-article2020
Article
116 Criminology & Criminal Justice 22(1)
watching out for, what does not happen, what people do not do, and what they do not
say.1 It illustrates this technique by evaluating the work of a police regulator, the
Independent Custody Visiting Scheme. This methodological approach requires the
researcher to start by thinking through systematically what ought to be happening and
what ought to be done and said, as it is harder to spot significant absences if the researcher
is not sensitised beforehand to watch out for these absences. A first step, then, is to con-
struct an ideal model of custody visiting.
An ideal model of the custody visiting scheme
The essence of the Custody Visiting Scheme is that lay volunteers make visits to police
custody blocks in order to check on the conditions under which detainees are held. In
constructing an ideal model of the scheme, it is important not to be confined to its offi-
cially stated aims or procedures as laid down by the Home Office or in legislation. This
is because, as we shall see, these sources of norms are themselves riddled with signifi-
cant omissions. Rather, the ideal model developed here is based on the intentions of its
original proponents, Michael Meacher and Lord Scarman.
Custody visiting was first publicly promoted by Michael Meacher MP in evidence to
the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee during their investigation into deaths
in custody in 1979–1980 (Home Affairs Committee, 1980). Meacher’s proposal was that
members of the public, including lawyers, should make random unannounced visits to
police stations and report on the welfare of detainees. Meacher’s ideas were adopted by
Lord Scarman in his report on the Brixton Riots (Scarman, 1981). Both Mr Meacher’s
proposals and those of Lord Scarman were made in the context of concern about deaths
in custody. The government declined to implement Scarman’s recommendations and,
five years later, established instead an informal scheme known as ‘lay visiting’.
The current system of custody visiting, known as the Independent Custody Visiting
Scheme, is statutory and was established in 2002. It operates in all parts of England and
Wales, with similar schemes in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Each local scheme is run
by the Police and Crime Commissioners (Police Reform Act 2002, s 51, as amended).
Guidance is provided by the Independent Custody Visiting Association (ICVA) whose
only members are Police and Crime Commissioners. Each Police and Crime Commissioner
is elected locally to secure the maintenance of the police force for that area, to secure that
the police force is efficient and effective, and to hold the relevant chief constable to
account for the exercise of their duties (Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act,
2011, s1). Police and Crime Commissioners therefore perform the function of one of the
regulators of the police. The Home Office are the key sponsors of custody visiting; they
devised the original scheme, and they have maintained and updated it.
The scheme is not labelled a regulator in the official literature, but it clearly is a regu-
lator inasmuch as it forms part of governance aimed at ensuring that the police adhere to
standards set for the safeguarding of detainees. Indeed, custody visiting forms part of the
regulatory system known as the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), which is estab-
lished under the United Nations Treaty known as OPCAT, the Optional Protocol against
Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment. It is also said to provide
Police and Crime Commissioners with the information needed to enable them to hold the
police to account for what happens in custody blocks.
To continue reading
Request your trial