The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill — Part 2
| Author | Andy Khan |
| Published date | 01 April 1984 |
| Date | 01 April 1984 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X8405700209 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
ANDY KHAN, M.A. (Pesh &Keele), LL.B.,
Lecturer in Law: The University
of
Leeds.
THE POLICE
AND
CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE
BILL - PART
2*
The original Bill lapsed as a result of the general elections in 1983.
The Government published a new Bill on October 26, 1983,
incorporating many amendments introduced especially at the
committee stage of the old Bill. Nevertheless, the critics have not
been satisfied, e.g. see the Guardian. October 28, 1983. On the other
side of the coin, Mr. Leslie Curtis, chairman of the Police
Federation, in attacking the Bill as too weak, has said that the
Government appeared to have capitulated all along the line to the
opponents of its proposals. He has said that the Bill is more likely to
hamper the police than help them. It is submitted that Mr. Curtis
exaggerates.
For
instance, he maintains:
"The additional powers in the Bill have been watered down to a
point where we have to think again". (The Times. January 13,
1984).
The
Home Secretary was of the opinion that the Bill had reached its
present form as a result of a process of consultation and review such
as could rarely have been accorded a single piece of legislation before
(Mr. Leon Brittan, Hansard. November 7,1983). The Policy Study
Institute's Report sponsored by Scotland Yard on the workings of
the Met, which discloses prejudice, highlights the defects of present
policing policies and shows that without proper legal, social,
democratic and administrativecontrols or constraints police powers
can be used improperly.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham, MP (Solicitor for the British Transport
Authority) refers to a clearly defined
"set of criminal codes that enables the
COurts
and the police to
operate in a way
that
is understood by everyone to the benefit of
all
...
in the past it has been argued
that
those of us who seek to
improve the law by being sometimes critical of existing law are
anti-police. We are not. We are pro-society, and society is the
main beneficiary of these matters (Committee Stage, November
17, 1983; Standing Committee E).
Powers to stop and search
Part
I of the Bill dealing with powers to stop and search remains
basically unaltered (see 56 PJ164,
Part
I of this article; seethe recent
case Brazil v.
Chief
Constable
of
Surrey [1983] I W.L.R. 1155). It
may be interesting to note
that
in 1982 in the Met. Police area
*(Part I of this article appeared at p. 164of Volume 56).
April
1984 177
approximately 787,000 persons were stopped,
out
of which 70,100
arrests resulted (convictions not known), i.e. an overwhelming
majority was innocent of any offence and possibly were lost as
friends of the police.
The
Policy Studies Institute Report says this:
"It
is clear from the way
that
police officers talk
about
stops
that
the question of what their legal powers may be does not enter into
their decision-making except in the case of rare individuals. They
do, of course, consider the chance of getting a'result',
but
factors
that
they associate with the chance of getting a'result' are often
unconnected with
any
concept of reasonable suspicion. One
reason why the legal powers have little relevance is
that
most
people do not know what they are". See the
summary
of the
Report in the Guardian, November 19, 1983).
Agreat deal of public disquiet exists in the way sometimes the police
conduct stop
and
search operations. AHome Office research unit,
for example, found abuses in the use of these powers and stated
that
black youths were more
than
three times as likely to be stopped
and
searched by officers in or
out
of uniform, although the prosecution
rate was no higher
than
for white youths. Operation
Swap
is a good
example of the argument
that
indiscriminate stop
and
search
practices can create crimes like threatening behaviour, obstructing a
police constable or assault (see the
Scarman
Report; Robin
Corbett
MP,
Committee Stage, col. 20, November 17,1983). The point being
made is
that
not only should the powers be clearly stated, they should
not be misused. According to Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, MP:
"When
the police come face to face with the public in a situation of
confrontation
and
potential conflict, it is crucial
that
every effort
should be made to ensure not only
that
the police are courteous
-which
is normal
and
expected,
and
costs nothing-
but
that
all
proper
safeguard procedures apply to protect the citizen's liberties
and rights.
Part
of
that
must necessarily be the knowledge that
when someone is stopped the officer has a good reason, and can
give the reason, will identify himself by giving his name
and
number
and be clearly identifiable as a policeman by wearing
uniform (Committee Stage, col. 19, November 17, 1983).
Mr. Kilroy-Silk had introduced the following
amendment
to
Part
I
of the Bill:
"I
(II)
The
age, sex or
colour
of a person to be searched
under
this
section shall not form reasonable grounds for suspicion for the
purposes of subs. (2) above,
and
no person identified by age, sex
or
colour
alone may be searched under this section unless
suspected of a specific offence".
This amendment was defeated.
So far as the discriminatory practices
and
attitudes towards
blacks/ Asians are concerned, some inexperienced officers have
brought
the high
standard
of policing intodisrepute(for instance see
the Policy Studies Institute
Report,
p. 95, Vol. I.
For
the use,
effectiveness
and
impact of police stop
and
search powers, see the
/78
April/984
To continue reading
Request your trial