Wed, 30 May 2007
The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) and the Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS) are jointly making it very clear that they don't like at
all the ‘
stop
and question’ powers that the government is proposing.
Len Duvall, chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority,
said:
If we want to set back community-police relations and
return to the bad
old days of the ‘sus’ laws of the ‘70s and ‘80s, when levels of
mistrust between police and public were at record highs and had drastic
consequences, then the introduction of a new blank cheque power to stop
and question anyone, anywhere, anytime without reasonable grounds for
suspicion, is a very quick way of achieving this.
Neither the Metropolitan Police Authority nor the Metropolitan Police
Service have called for this power because we understand the serious
damage it could cause to the police’s relationship with London’s
communities.
However, they do like the existing ‘stop and search’ powers they
already have. He added:
Section 44 stop and search powers already give police
the power to stop
someone without having reasonable grounds, just by virtue of the fact
they are in a specified geographical area at a time when police have
satisfied the Home Secretary that there is a heightened risk.
Tomorrow the MPS will present its
Review of police use of
counter-terrorism Stop and Search powers in London
at the MPA monthly meeting. The recommendations are:
That
- the MPS continues to appropriately apply to the Secretary
of State for authority to use Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 (Section
44) powers (currently pan – London);
- the MPS continues to constantly review the
appropriateness
of a pan London authority and based upon the threat, intelligence and
operational requirements continue to only apply for pan-London
authority when it is needed to support tactics to prevent terrorism.
However this recommendation is subject to the further recommendations
made throughout this report;
- the MPS revisits and updates the Section 44 Standing
Operating Procedure (SOP), and ensures that staff receive adequate
briefing for the appropriate and legitimate use of Section 44 powers.
Thorough post event de-briefing will be conducted to ensure
effectiveness and highlight opportunities for improvement;
- the MPS provides sufficient training to enable staff
confidently and properly to exercise their powers under all stop /
search provisions;
- the MPS nominates a strategic lead officer for the
tactical
pan-London use of Section 44, to co-ordinate activity from the receipt
of Section 44 authority through deployment and post deployment
monitoring;
- as with the exercise of all other stop and search powers,
the MPS promotes the tactical option of ‘stop and account’ within a
revised SOP (See Recommendation Three);
- the MPS maximise opportunities to engage public awareness
in the use across London of Section 44 by using appropriate high
visibility signs / other equipment, where appropriate;
- the MPS develop a comprehensive communication strategy
and
engagement plan to ensure Londoners receive a consistent level of
accurate information pertaining to police use of Section 44; and
- the MPS should conduct an annual MPS Equality Impact
Assessment in respect to Section 44 of the Terrorism Act.
These recommendations are in response to the MPA report
Counter-terrorism: the London
debate. The
first
recommendation of this report is: ‘Present an urgent review of the
use of Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 stop and search to the full
Metropolitan Police Authority. Include in this review a clear rationale
explaining why a given individual is stopped and searched rather than
another. If unable to demonstrate to the Metropolitan Police
Authority’s satisfaction through this review that the power is
sufficiently effective in countering terrorism to outweigh the damage
it does to community relations,
stop
using it, other than in exceptional circumstances, such as
where there is a specific threat to a particular location.’
Will the MPA object to the MPS' recommendations? Unlikely as Len Duvall
adds today: “While the MPA recognises the need to use all available
tools to prevent terrorism, we are determined these tools should be as
transparent and publicly accountable as possible.” Len Duvall appears
not to fully endorse the conclusions of the MPA report (the
foreword is signed by Reshard Auladin, Lord Toby Harris and Cindy
Butts) that take the MPS to task. From my very limited experience of
asking
one question to the MPA, I found Len Duvall very much on the
defensive protecting the MPS while other members offered more balanced
views. Here are further, very similar, comments Len Duvall made in
answer to my question: ‘The Chair [...] reiterates that stop and search
is just one of tactics at the disposal of the police and that 'we can't
rule out any tactic'. The Chair also refutes my argument that stop and
searches happen on the basis of a stereotypical profiling, arguing that
there's no profiling: all races are likely to be stopped and searched
(but possibly one faith).’
From the MPS review:
55. ACPO have released advice in relation to Section
44 which also
deals with the issue of selection for searching, emphasising that the
power can be used in both a targeted and non-targeted way but should
never be based on stereotypical views of terrorists. In the absence of
specific intelligence, search activity may be on a more random basis,
with a wide range of people being stopped.
This was of course not what happened in my
case
and the ACPO interim practice advice on stop of search does
recommend
behavioural profiling that is dangerously close to stereotyping.
61. There have been 19 complaints made in the MPS
since Section 44 came
into force in 2000, none of which were substantiated. In 2006 0.22% of
Stop and Search activity (excluding Section 44) resulted in complaint.
For Section 44, the figure was 0.01%. No formal disciplinary
proceedings have resulted from complaints in relation to Section 44.
However, 5 cases resulted in local resolution and the remainder were
classified as unsubstantiated or withdrawn. All the locally resolved
complaints related to incivility.
This data has been selectively compiled. Following my complaint to the
IPCC, several officers involved received
disciplinary
sanctions so my complaint cannot be counted in these ‘19
complaints’. The
stop and search was found to be lawful and hence was not the direct
cause of the sanctions, it is the ensuing arrest and search of my flat
which were found to be unlawful and the general poor conduct of the
investigation that were the justification for the sanctions. This
likely explains why it is not counted in the figure mentioned. If I
hadn't been stopped and searched none of the rest would have
happened. There's likely a large number of similar cases where
complaints that could and should be attributed to stop and search will be counted
only in some other category.
Note: Thanks to DW for pointing out the MPA press release in the
comments of the excellent
Police not consulted
post by UK Liberty.
