‘It’s on my head’: Risk and accountability in public order policing
| Author | Ian Leach |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X211041021 |
| Published date | 01 March 2023 |
| Date | 01 March 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The Police Journal:
Theory, Practice and Principles
2023, Vol. 96(1) 61–82
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0032258X211041021
journals.sagepub.com/home/pjx
‘It’s on my head’: Risk and
accountability in public order
policing
Ian Leach
Durham Constabulary, Durham, UK
Abstract
Heavy policing remains ‘a chronic feature of public order operations’(Waddington PAJ
(1994) Liberty and Order: Public Order Policing in a Capital City. London: UCL Press),
both in the form of officer numbers and in the proportionality of tactics employed. This
paper argues that at the heart of this lies the assessment of threat and risk and how police
commanders perceive, predict and manage the potential for disorder. It reports on the
findings of a mixed-methods study, combining data from observations of three separate
public order events, with in-depth interviews of seven high-level, police public order
commanders from five different UK police forces. Analysis suggests that commanders
construe ‘risk’in very broad terms, seeking to mitigate not only physical harm but also
abstract consequences such as reputational damage and loss of public confidence.
Structured models central to the task of threat and risk assessment give the appearance of
a quantitative and objective process. However, the actual appraisal of threat and risk, both
before and during public order operations, is almost entirely heuristic. Furthermore, the
analysis suggests commanders’decision-making is acutely affected by the pressure of
accountability. It is argued that at a tacit level, their threat and risk assessments reflect this
and a direct consequence is the deployment of additional police resources. At a time
when the police service is under intense pressure to do more with less, this paper
discusses how refining the assessment of threat and risk may prove to be a critical factor
in the delivery of cost effective and proportionate public order policing.
Keywords
policing, public order, threat and risk, accountability, legitimacy
Corresponding author:
Ian Leach, Durham Constabulary, Headquarters, Aykley Heads, Durham DH1 5TT, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland.
Email: ian.leach1327@gmail.com
Introduction
The College of Policing (2018, Ch.1.1) has issued risk management guidance in which it
describes police officers of all rank as ‘professional risk takers’who must display a
‘willingness to make decisions in conditions of uncertainty’. While the physical risks of
policing are well known, perhaps less well understood are the implicit, socio-political
risks associated with command level decision making. Relevant here is the distinction
between ‘on-the-job’and ‘in-the-job’trouble, put forward by Waddington (1994) in the
context of public order policing. From this perspective, on-the-job trouble refers to the
everyday policing problems associated with public order events such as the occurr ence of
disorder, disruption or damage. In-the-job trouble on the other hand, can be regarded as
the ‘fallout’from such incidences. The potential for in-the-job trouble is vast, ranging
from the burden of arrest paperwork to a long-running public inquiry and ‘top down’
pressure from senior commanders and political leaders. Irrespective of its severity, in-the-
job trouble is seen as something to be avoided. At best, its effect will be bothersome; at
worst there is potential for extensive personal and professional harm. Thus, as
Waddington (1994) points out, for a public order commander, ‘risk’must be construed in
very broad terms, because it includes not only the physical, such as damage to property
and injury to individuals, but also the abstract, such as reputational damage and loss of
public trust.
Dying in a ditch
Waddington’s observations were made against a backdrop of significant change. The 80s
and early 90s were characterised by recurrent periods of civil, industrial and political
unrest which provided impetus for the transformation of public order policing from
cordons of ‘bobbies’donning standard issue helmets with chin-straps, to legions of
officers wearing overalls and riot helmets (Jefferson, 1990: 3). The Public Order Act 1986
replaced several, common law public order violations with statutory offences, imposed
legal duties on the organisers of protest, and gave the police new powers to regulate
protest activity by restricting participant numbers, limiting duration and specifying march
routes. This legislative review was announced long before its realisation –in the late 70s
when Margaret Thatcher’s government first came to power –but the timing of its im-
plementation was too coincidental for some. Northam (1988: 42) argued that public order
tactics had been ‘geared up’deliberately in preparation for the mid-eighties miners’strike
where they were subsequently utilised by police, earning them the epithet ‘Maggie’s boot
boys’(Jenkins, 2006: 135). Waddington challenged this ‘authoritarian state’rhetoric,
arguing that the police were largely pragmatic when it came to managing public order. The
overriding objective of the police, he suggested, was to deal effectively with on-the-job
trouble, while avoiding the ‘grief’(p.43) of in-the-job trouble. In order to achieve this, the
police sought to exercise as much control over a situation as possible, whether by ne-
gotiation, coercion or physical force. Waddington observed how confronting a crowd
‘head on’was seen as a last resort due to its potential for creating in-the-job trouble.
Nonetheless, at times, for example, when charged with safeguarding high-profile political
62 The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles 96(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial