Policing the Police

A post about police culture and criminality, and how to address it.

The dreadful murder in March 2021 by kidnapping, strangulation and rape of Sarah Everard by police officer Wayne Couzens and the recent convictions for rape by PC David Carrick have each sent commentators into understandable apoplexy about contemporary police culture, especially (although not exclusively) in the Metropolitan Police Service.

But are our police services institutionally corrupt? Is the concept of institutional corruption fair or helpful in relation to policing? How can we best address a clear crisis in public confidence in relation to the police?

Corruption, or at least a lack of integrity, exists all around us, evident in commerce, politics, the arts and the church, as well as the police. No organisation has escaped its calamity. It is an intrinsic human flaw arising from competition, dishonesty and avarice that is only kept in check by a combination of strong moral codes and the incentives and sanctions to back them up.

Whilst I do not criticise those who brand policing as institutionally racist or corrupt, I sense that this diagnosis is not especially constructive. We need a cure. And this is where I propose to start with this post.

Back in the 1970s, Sir Robert Mark – my Commissioner – was the first to speak of ‘institutional corruption’ within the Metropolitan Police, vowing to eliminate it from the force. I had joined the Met as a young graduate in 1974. Robert Mark’s presence was already beginning to be felt within the service, although my initial experience of policing told me that he had a huge, perhaps impossible task ahead of him.

Whilst my experience as a Metropolitan Police officer is historic, my last forty years as standing counsel to Constabularies prosecuting serious disciplinary cases has served to inform my understanding of contemporary police culture. What insight have I gained?

Let us begin with the Nolan principles, formulated by the Committee on Standards in Public Life set up in 1994 by former Prime Minister John Major under its chairman Lord Nolan. Whilst its remit was to examine standards in Parliament, the Executive and quangos, the principles have had universal application and are now deployed to guide all of those that work in the public interest.

Twenty years after Nolan, in July 2014, the College of Policing formulated its Code of Ethics for policing, comprising ten outlying codes, taking over the historic task of Rowan and Mayne’s nine principles created in 1829 (see Tony Moore’s biography here). These have statutory force under s.39A Police Act 1996.

In February 2022 the Metropolitan Police appointed Baroness Casey of Blackstock to conduct a ‘review of culture and standards‘ to rebuild confidence in the service. Her report is due to be published next month.

Concern lies not in the standards to be applied, but in their implementation. In addition to issues concerning recruitment screening, there are problems arising from inadequate in-service reviews, and a completely outdated misconduct process.

Baroness Casey is to address the first two areas – those to ensure that sufficient effective screening identifies and eliminates those whose moral compass may be in issue; and that of continuing oversight and review of the office holder’s record of behaviour.

Yet I am hearing no proposals concerning the misconduct process by which officers can be removed from office. Should you have the misfortune to consult the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 you are in for a miserable read. The police misconduct process is harnessed to the outdated concept that all police members are essentially ‘office holders’, and those seeking to remove them must follow a Victorian procedure. Yes, in 1829 it was a viable concept, and probably an important one given that individual police officers were to be given extensive powers based on trust and integrity. But that experiment has not survived into twenty first century policing. Now we must depend, not on the trust of the office holder, but on webcam recording of their activities and public accountability via mobile phone videos.

Perhaps the time is right for the concept of ‘office holder’ and the protection to officers it affords to be removed from policing, making way for commonly accepted ordinary rules of employment and disciplinary processes under which police members could be easily suspended, re-instated or sacked. This would go some way to remove the absurdity of the requirement for a detailed civil trial (such as the ones I have overseen) to remove a corrupt police officer. Like other employees, police could then be sacked, leaving a remedy of unlawful dismissal should they seek to contest.

The removal of the status of ‘office holder’ cannot undermine an already fragile public confidence in policing – but would remind members of the police service that they remain highly accountable, and stand to be removed the moment they transgress.

Advertisements appearing below this post are placed by the platform not the writer. They are neither endorsed nor monetarised.

*

*

*