Privatisation and Protection: Spatial and Sectoral Ideologies in British Policing and Crime Prevention

DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1993.tb01906.x
Published date01 November 1993
AuthorLes Johnston
Date01 November 1993
THE
MODERN LAW REVIEW
Volume
56
November
1993
No.
6
Privatisation and Protection: Spatial and Sectoral
Ideologies in British Policing and Crime Prevention
Les
Johnston
*
Introduction
In Britain, ideological differences about policing and crime prevention occupy two
dimensions: one sectoral, the other spatial. First, there is debate about the relative
roles of the public and private sectors in policing and crime prevention. Second,
there is dispute about the appropriate spatial level (central state or local state) from
which police and crime prevention services should be provided and controlled.
This article considers two aspects of these debates, both of which illustrate the
complexity of the issues arising. Part One of the article examines police responses
to the emergence of private, quasi-private and ‘hybrid’ police forces in some towns
and cities, paying particular attention to the resurgence of municipal policing
bodies. Part Two considers some of the changes which have occurred in crime
prevention policy, changes which raise serious concerns about the nature and
extent of public accountability, the rights and obligations of citizens and the
relationship between central and local politics.
A
The Resurgence
of
Private and ‘Hybrid’ Forms
of
Policing
(i) Who Polices? Sectoral Changes in Policing
At present British policing is undergoing a crisis, the symptoms of which are many
and varied. Recent exposure of police malpractice, following several cases of
wrongful conviction, has exacerbated the problem of declining public confidence
in the police. There is also widespread public criticism of the police due to their
apparent inability to cope with escalating levels of recorded crime. At the same
time, government continues to
look
for new ways of maximising output and
~~ ~
*Deputy Director of the Centre for Police
&
Criminal Justice Studies, University of Exeter.
This
is
a revised version of a paper previously presented at the 44th Annual Conference of the American
Society of Criminology, New Orleans, November
(1992)
and at a meeting of the British Criminology
Society Southern Branch, London, February
(1993).
Research for this article was undertaken whilst the
author was in receipt of a Hallsworth Fellowship at the University
of
Manchester. The author also thanks
Chief Inspector Bryce-Bennet and Inspector Walker of the Metropolitan Police, Mrs
J.
Killian and
Inspector Scullion of the Royal Borough of Kensington
&
Chelsea, and Chief Inspector Dennis and Mr
Stevens of Wandsworth Parks Constabulary. Any opinions expressed here are those of the author alone.
0
The Modern Law Review Limited 1993 (MLR
566,
November). Published by Blackwell Publishers,
108
Cowley Road, Oxford OX4
1JF
and
238
Main
Street,
Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
77
1
Zke
Modem
Law
Review
[Vol.
56
eliminating waste from police organisations. There is, however,
a
more
fundamental issue at the root of the crisis: the question of ‘who polices’?
Had one asked the question ‘who polices?’ twenty years ago, one would have
been met with blank incomprehension by British police and public alike. At that
time it was assumed
-
however mistakenly
-
that public police forces enjoyed
exclusive rights over those social functions which we call ‘policing.
Historical
analysis tells us, however, that policing has always consisted of a complex division
of labour: a varying balance between public elements, private elements and those
‘hybrid’ elements whose status is neither unambiguously private nor unambigu-
ously public.2 At present in Britain, that sectoral division of labour is being
renegotiated. In the words of the Audit Commission:
A debate about the boundaries of the core public role of police forces should be valuable, not least in
defining the long term functions of the service at a time when its structure, and the scope for contracting
out areas of law and order services, are increasingly under discussion.’
In fact, there has been surprisingly little genuine public debate
-
and even less
rational political decision
-
on this issue. Instead, market forces and consumer
demand are being allowed to redefine the division of labour within policing. This
process is occurring in three ways.
First, there is privatisation of functions, hitherto undertaken by public police
forces. In recent months there have been several examples of this sort. Private
security companies have been contracted by residents to patrol streets and housing
estates in Hightown, near Liverpoo14 and at Wigan in Lanca~hire,~ the latest in
a long line of similar examples.6 Arguably, a more significant event occurred
some months ago when the Port of London Authority Constabulary, a body
established by Act of Parliament in
1802,
became the first statutory police force to
be privatised.
A second development has been the re-emergence of what one might call ‘citizen
self-policing,
activities ranging from citizen street patrols to the summary justice
imposed by ‘vigilance committees.’ Though such activity is difficult to document,
it would seem to be on the increase, various cases having come to light in recent
years.7 Concern about the problem of vigilantism was again sparked off recently,
following incidents in Manchester, North Wales and Norfolk.8
Finally, there has been increasing activity in the ‘hybrid’9 or ‘grey”O areas of
policing, those forms undertaken by bodies occupying an ambiguous position with
1
This process began with the demand for ‘effectiveness and efficiency,’ Home Office,
Circular
114/83
Manpower, Effectiveness andEficiency in
the
Police Service
(London: Home Office,
1983)
and led on
to the policy of ‘civilianization’ of police posts, Home Office,
Circular
10988
Civilian Staffin the
Police Service
(London: Home Office,
1988).
Its latest manifestation is the ‘Sheehy Report’ on police
pay, conditions of service and rank structure:
Inquiry
Inro
Police Responsibilities and Rewards
(London: HMSO,
2
vols,
1993)
Cm
2280.1.
2
Johnston,
The
Rebirth
of
Private Policing
(London: Routledge,
1992).
3
Audit Commission,
Taking Care
of
the Coppers:
Income
Generation by Provincial Police Forces
(Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales,
Police Paper No
7,
November
1990: 13- 14).
4
Police Review
(1992) 7
February, p
244.
5
Beatt, ‘Market Forces,’
Police Review
(1992) 4
September, pp
1628- 1629.
6
Boothroyd, ‘Nibbling Away at the Bobby’s Patch’
Police Review
(1989) 13
January, pp
64-65.
7
Factor and Stenson, ‘At the End of the Line,’
Yourh in Society
(1987)
January, pp
18- 19;
Boothroyd,
‘Angels With Dirty Faces,’
Police Review
(1989) 6
January, pp
64-
65;
Craig, ‘Vigilantes Fill Police
Shoes and Stop Thefts,’
Sunday
Times
(1989)
5
March; Johnston,
op cit
n
2.
8
Rawling, ‘Vigilantes v Villains,’
Police Review
(1992)
11
September, pp
1680- 1681.
9
Johnston,
op
cir
n
2.
10
Hoogenboom, ‘Grey Policing: A Theoretical Framework’
(1992) 2
Policing and Society,
pp
17-30.
0
The
Modem
Law
Review Limited
1993
772

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT