The Home Secretary and Improved Accountability of the Police?
| Published date | 01 June 2005 |
| Date | 01 June 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.69.3.232.64785 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Home Secretary
and Improved Accountability
of the Police?
Kiron Reid*
Abstract A week is a long time in politics and Charles Clarke has been in
post for some time as Home Secretary after the unplanned departure of
David Blunkett. Blunkett had seen through radical police reforms but his
departure was not because of serious issues like policy. Clarke has con-
tinued to pursue the police reform agenda and this article covers the
direction of Labour government policy in its second term and specifically
key legal developments in David Blunkett’s final year as Home Secretary.
These include the outcome of his dispute with Humberside Police Auth-
ority over its refusal to comply with the suspension of its Chief Constable.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has started work in this
time and its early impact is reviewed. There have also been significant
reports into: policing in London (the Morris Inquiry); policing and police
complaints by the Commission for Racial Equality; and Police Disciplinary
Arrangements for the Home Office. The article considers the general
problem of litigiousness regarding police complaints and also highlights
issues of accountability relating to national police work and European
cooperation in light of the creation of the Serious Organised Crime
Agency.
This writer has often been highly critical of government policy for
eroding civil liberties and centralising control over policing. The two
Home Secretaries since 1997 have largely continued Conservative gov-
ernment policy, but have shown flashes of principled support for what
now appears a rare emphasis on increased police accountability.1The
summer of 2004 could come to be seen as a defining moment, where
central initiatives served the public and the police through increasing
accountability and professionalism, while the old structures had sig-
nificant failings. Paradoxically, in the long term, this may well exacer-
bate the trend of increased centralised control and decreased
accountability of the police at a local level.
There are three reasons for this assertion. We have seen the first few
months of the new Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
The potential difference between the old body, the Police Complaints
Authority (PCA), and the new shown by the result in the case of R (on
the application of Green) vPolice Complaints Authority2in the House of
Lords. Here the Law Lords upheld the lack of disclosure of an investi-
gating officer’s report by the PCA to the complainant. The new body will
be able to act with greater transparency than its predecessor. Secondly,
* Lecturer in Law, University of Liverpool; e-mail: k.j.c.reid@liverpool.ac.uk.
1 See generally K. Reid, ‘Law and Disorder: Victorian Restraint and Modern Panic’, ch.
5 in J. Rowbotham and K. Stephenson (eds), Behaving Badly: Visible Crime, Social
Panics and Legal responses—Victorian and Modern Parallels (Ashgate: Aldershot, 2003).
2 [2004] UKHL 6, [2004] 2 All ER 209.
232
we have seen the most politically charged battle between David Blun-
kett and the Humberside Police Authority over the suspension of Chief
Constable, David Westwood, following criticism in the Bichard inquiry.3
Was this interference by central diktat or the Home Secretary inter-
vening to safeguard the public interest ignored by a local police auth-
ority too cosy with its police chief? Thirdly, the Home Office has set up
the Review of Police Disciplinary Arrangements, which commenced in
June 2004 with a timescale to report to the Home Secretary in December
2004.4This may increase public confidence by making police discipli-
nary arrangements more effective—both in dealing with complaints and
encouraging the continued increase in professionalism. On the other
hand, if the Home Office review is seen to streamline the process at the
expense of a fair outcome for complainants it may contribute to a feeling
that complaining to the police is fruitless for an ordinary member of the
public and contribute to both indirectly undermining the IPCC and
increasing litigiousness fuelled by solicitors who fail to advise clients of
the non-legal means of resolving a perceived or actual grievance. At the
same time a perceived lack of fairness towards officers involved could
undermine cooperation with the complaints processes. A final, indi-
rectly related development that will affect police accountability and
governance is the creation—completely outside of the traditional tri-
partite structure—of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. That may
make police cooperation at national and international level more trans-
parent and open to scrutiny.
Each of these issues will be looked at in more detail below.
The IPCC
The PCA lacked public confidence, but its good work should be put on
record—high quality of reports, independence, hard work by members
and staff. It was perceived as not being independent, as well as the real
problem that the police carried out investigations themselves. A lack of
knowledge of its work contributed to general misconceptions, fuelled by
media reporting often focused on negative aspects of complaints pro-
cesses rather than positive. For example, whenever a person dies in an
accident involving the police, this was automatically referred to the
PCA. The same now happens with the IPCC. The media invariably
simply reported that the incident was being investigated by the PCA—
giving the impression straight away that the police involved were at
fault. The role of the media is considered later in this article.
The IPCC has got off to a good start. It has committed and experienced
members. They are enthusiastic about promoting the body.5It has clear
independence in investigating the most serious cases, and there is more
3 See at www.bichardinquiry.org.uk/, accessed 14 March 2005.
4 This is a review of procedures under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004
No. 645). The 49 page report (excluding appendices) was published in January 2005.
5 For example, Deputy Chair, Claire Gilham, spoke at the 2nd Annual ‘United Against
Injustice’ support groups conference in Liverpool, 11 October 2003, six months
before the body started work (part featured in Channel 4 television documentary
about Robert Brown, Picking Up the Pieces: Robert, 22 July 2004). John Wadham, also
The Home Secretary and Improved Accountability of the Police?
233
To continue reading
Request your trial