Examining the Proposition That Police Efficiency and Legal and Community Accountability are Inextricably Interdependent
| Date | 01 April 1996 |
| Published date | 01 April 1996 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X9606900207 |
| Author | Kevin B. Thompson |
| Subject Matter | Article |
KEVIN B. THOMPSON, LLB (Hons)
City
of
London Police
EXAMINING THE PROPOSITION
THAT POLICE EFFICIENCY AND
LEGAL AND COMMUNITY
ACCOUNTABILITY ARE
INEXTRICABLY
INTERDEPENDENT
Introduction
In this article I will endeavour to critically examine the proposition that
police efficiency, legal accountability and community accountability are
inextricably interdependent. At the outset, the answer would appearto be
a positive "Yes". I will examine especially Reiner, Uglow, Stephens, and
others to illustrate my arguments.
I have devised a mnemonic rather than repeat the following: Police;
Efficiency;
Legal;
Accountability;
Community;
Accountability.
"PELACA" will govern the heading
of
this study. Any mention
of
the
mnemonic exemplifies the abbreviation. Beginning with a history of
policing in England, I will consider how PELACA applies to different
aspects
of
police work and the duties of a modern police establishment to
the community it serves. I will provide scant reference to case and statute
law, including relevant current issues. I will conclude by detailing reform
strengthening the linkage
of
PELACA.
Historical Background
The Statute of Winchester 1285 is the best sample of a community police
establishment, which created the system of "watch and ward". The town
watchmen supplemented traditional duties of athirteenth-century constable,
by creating a watch of up to 16 men, who were stationed at the gates
of
a
walled town, at night time. Powers
of
arrest were granted to the men, who
were summoned on rota for their duties. Absence could result in being
placed in the stocks! Dutieswere devolved from the constable who would
take charge of the prisoners detained each morning. The Saxon practice
of "hue and cry" was revived; whereby those that resisted arrest would
have hue and cry levied onthem, burdeningthe whole populationto pursue
the fugitive. Town elders had to keep in their house "harness to keep the
peace", under the provisions
of
an "assize
of
arms": weaponry like a
hauberk and helme of iron, sword, knife and a horse. The poorer classes
needed bows and arrows, and bi-annual inspections were made by the
hundred court and high constables. Clearly PELACA was self-evident
and interdependent in the thirteenth-century.
April 1996 The Police Journal 131
It was the duty of everyone to keep the King's Peace, and any citizen
(as today) could arrest an offender. The unpaid constable had a special
duty to do so, with assistance of the watchman. Indeed, every citizen had
to take up arms on ahue and cry. The justice of the peace was superior to
all, and became the executive agent of justice in his parish. The role was
filled on a roster, depending onqualifications towards local customs, and
in rural areas, according to the tenure of ancient farms. Refusal to accept
office was a fineable offence. Already punishment had developed class
structure: stocks for the dissenting watchman; fines for the dissenting
justice! Thejustice's staffor baton was a sign of his authority, which was
sometimes hung outside his house. It also acted as a weapon. No
distinctive uniform was worn. The advent ofthe justiceled to a downgrading
of the constable. Indeed that role became filledby theold, idiotic or infirm,
because certain sectors of the community refused to serve their tum in
unpaid office, as they were too busy making money as tradesmen and
farmers. Critchley typifies the dilemma faced in 1616, by a Wiltshire
constable, who was relieved of office at his request:
"I am unlearned, and by reason thereofam constrained to go two miles
from my house to have the help of a scrivener to read such warrants as
are sent to me.'"
Aconstable's duties, initially based on common law, were supplemented
by statute, and on induction the constable had to (and still does) swear an
oath to the Crown. The more onerous tasks included maiming, branding
and whipping various vagabonds "until they be bloodie". He also had to
present reports before the court of quarter sessions
of
those who had
offended against the law. These were known as presentments, alongside
which he had toproduce, four times a year, many pieces
of
paperdetailing
the affairs of the parish (a predecessor to the chief constable's annual
report perhaps?)
The Restoration onwards
After the Restoration, from approximately 1660 onwards, there was a
decline of the parish constable, due, in the main, to the contempt into
which the office had fallen - alongside that of the justice - and their
corruptible nature. Notorious criminals like Jonathon Wild were able to
exploit this state of affairs andalmost totally avoid prosecution. Until his
execution at Tyburn, he had obtained total control over the majority of
London's criminals, receiving such quantity of goods in response to his
boast of "Thief-takerGeneral", that theyhad to be shipped abroad, for lack
of warehouse space!
The above led to the development of the stipendiary magistrate in
London, to helpneutralize theproblems ofcorruption and PELACA in the
seventeenth century. The role of Chief Magistrate of Bow Street evolved,
typified by Sir Thomas De Veil, and from 1730 until 1747 he became the
leading Metropolitan magistrate, amassing a fortune in dispensingjustice.
132 The Police Journal April 1996
To continue reading
Request your trial