Background News       

Limiting Access to the Police: a question of police service priorities versus crime victims needs

7 October 2011

Over the past decade there has been a systematic decline in public’s direct access to the counter service offered by the police. Although busy police stations have often been overwhelmed by members of the public, there has nevertheless been a policy to not effectively staff and manage busy counters and police counter closure. For all the trumpeting of victim friendly policing, the reality is that the need for victims to have direct and personal access to the police are not supported by the majority of police services . The blue lamp of policing stations has been flickering out – in these circumstances emergency services or no services seems to be the policy.

In a report produced by the Daily Mail in early October 2011 it was reported that “the number of police stations across the UK could fall as chiefs try to save money to redirect to officers on the frontline. More than one in three police stations may close their doors to the public within months as chief constables battle to cut costs.”

“Across 30 of the 43 forces in England and Wales, 350 of the 931 public counters at stations – 37 per cent – will be closed in the next six months. Many more will cut the hours of public access, with 26 of the forces set to have no stations open around the clock. Crime victims will be told to contact call centres using non-emergency numbers, fill in internet forms or email the force.”

The effects of these closures will be that victims
of crime will be less able to access policing services and - as a bi-product of this policy – crime will appear to reduce as victims are prevented from reporting their crimes in the way that they feel is most effective for them. Crime victims being unable to get through on the phone to report a crime or left dangling on the end of a phone, is a commonly reported experience - which is frequently heard at even the most informed of meetings (such as Police Community Consultative groups).
The reality is that many of the most vulnerable victims just want to explain their problem face to face; without a huge telephone charge to add to their loss, but also without calling out the emergency services. The current trend for closing down access to counters and station based services is a policy which is against the interests and needs of the victims of crime!

A Private Session with the Met

September 2011

When Deputy Assistant Commissioner Mark Simmons appears before the House of Commons home affairs select committee, it will be in secret. He will be attending to explain why his department of the Metropolitan Police decided to try to force The Guardian to reveal it sources in the phone hacking scandal by using the Official Secrets Act. We can only hope that whatever the MPs discover will be - at least in some form - revealed to the general public so that we can all be made aware of what ever logic the MPS applied in this matter.


There is a taint that automatically attaches itself to any request by a public body to keep its activities secret. More so when a police service makes such a request of parliament. In this case we are left thinking 'is this another example of the lack of public accountability of the police'.

The phone hacking scandal is just that - it’s a scandal. It is not a matter of national security; it is at most an illustration of the way in which various elements within the media and various elements within the police service have colluded to both invade the private lives of people. It is also indicative of corruption - which may or may not be unlawful but is definitely not acceptable to 'right thinking people'. All of which needs to be fully understood by the public at large.

Mark Simmons is a respected and highly experienced police officer who appears not to have known that a member of his department decided to invoke the Official Secrets Act. However, for him to give evidence in secret, on such an important matter, is a further demonstration of the MPS's failure to be transparent in its general conduct and open to scrutiny.

Hard on the costs of crime

On 26 August, the prison population stood at  the record figure of 86,821. By 2 September this had reduced by just over 100  to 86,710 prisoners. This suggests that the hike in the prison population - by almost 1,300 in the three weeks following the riots in England - was either an aberration or  an short term opportunity for sentencers to switch back to their default setting?

In fact prisons minister Crispin Blunt said that the riots influx would not have a long-term effect on inmate numbers and that the disturbances earlier in August were a "one-off" event. This approach is in line with the Lord Chancellor's stated commitment to reduce prison numbers with an expectation that prison numbers will fall to about 83,000 in 2012.

The Coalition policy of diversion from prison sentences is aimed at cutting costs by reducing the population through the introduction of the more robust community sentences, for some offenders, and improvements in the rehabilitation of offenders. But, as we are witnessing, that is easier said than done.

The problem is that sentencers are in an impossible position, on the one hand they are being encouraged to use non-custodial sentences and on the other they are being offered less and less 'good quality' non custodial sentences; as Probation trusts are experiencing a cut of up to 9.8% for financial year 2010/11 with further cuts will follow and are expected to exceed 15% by 2013/14.

To quote from report Criminal Justice in Meltdown (published in July 2011):

"This [cuts] can only be achieved by reducing staff numbers
and closing offices. Already offices have been shut down in at least
12 probation trusts. This results in staff and offenders travelling
greater distances for their appointments and is bound to impact
 negatively on compliance rates".

Intelligent sentencing cannot be bought cheaply and it is currently a no brainer for any sentencer, lay or professional, that diversion from custody is not being replaced by none custodial sentences that are aimed at reducing offending first and cutting costs second. It is not just a matter of UK sentencers being a punitive bunch it is that actually what is on offer in the pantheon of custodial alternatives are not convincing and cuts, outsourcing and the de-professionalisation of rehabilitation services will only make it harder for sentencers to avoid using the punishment end of the tariff rather than the non-custodial rehabilitative end.

An Appointment with Party Politics

The appointment of Bernard Hogan-Howe as the new chief police officer of the Metropolitan Police was a party  political act. To quote from The Telegraph newspaper "It is easy to see why Bernard Hogan-Howe appealed to Conservative politicians looking for a new Metropolitan Police commissioner." Mr Hogan-Howe cannot be blamed for his popularity amongst the politicians of the right but, because of his 'blue rinse attraction', he will need to prove to both to his colleagues and the communities at large that he is not merely a party political stooge

Hacked Off - not quite the end of confidential police briefings The failure of the Metropolitan Police to effectively investigate the hacking of phones by News Corporation staff is rightly seen as a scandal. If The Guardian newspaper had not pursued the matter, and if a police officer/s had not passed on key information to them, we can be sure that these crimes would not have been properly investigated. The Metropolitan Police - in a fit of peak or frustration - decided that it had to force The Guardian, through the application of the Official Secrets Act, to reveal the source of the Dowler leak. A novel use of what is ostensibly an act aimed at preventing spying. Which it has now 'temporarily' withdrawn. The relationship between the police and the media (especially newspapers) has often been on the edge of unlawful. We have though heard it suggested that 'confidential briefings' by  police officers to their favoured journalists and news organisations is important in enabling key information on cases to enter into the public domain which otherwise would be lost to public scrutiny. It looks like these public interest facts will continue to be available - at least for the time being - and that the newly shelved Met Police policy will mean that all off the record and unattributed briefings by police officers will not now be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act.

He will know that he is neither the first choice of the Metropolitan Police Authority nor the Home Office selection committee - who both appear to have selected the outspoken and highly experienced Sir Hugh Orde. He will consequently be aware that the decision by the Home Secretary to recommend his appoint to Her Majesty (that's the way it is) was a wholly Conservative party political decision. This is constitutionally and practically unsound and flies in the face of the established practice of central government and police authority joint decision making. He will consequently know he is vulnerable to attack and challenge from opposition politicians as well as the politically unaligned critics of London policing practice.

Teresa May's support for Bernard Hogan-Howe was the clincher, it clearly got him the post and may be a further indicator of the policy shift (see below) aiming to wrest control of the Metropolitan Police away from local government. But on a day to day basis the Home Secretary will be of little help if his colleagues and his police authority see him as an also ran who has been imposed upon them. He will need to work exceptionally hard to prove that he has the skills, experience, knowledge, ability and subtlety to take on this complex post and not just the ability to portray London as a city in need of heroic and muscular policing.

London Mayor's Office for Policing

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act received Royal assent on 15 September 2011 establishes the first directly elected 'strategic commissioner' for policing services.  Chapter 2, parts 4 and 5 apply specifically to the London region (Metropolitan Police District).

Part 4, which will probably be implemented in December 2011, establishes the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC). The Act will make the Mayor (and the Deputy Mayor, if the Mayor chooses to appoint a Deputy Mayor) directly accountable to the public for policing performance in London, under the scrutiny of the Greater London Assembly. This scrutiny will be undertaken through the Assembly's Police and Crime Panel (PCP).

Operational policing will remain the responsibility of the appointed Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police but the Mayor or his appointed deputy will set the strategic 'direction'.

The Mayor and Deputy Mayor will be accountable for:

(i) the overall performance of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

(ii) setting the MPS's strategic direction

(iii) allocating resources

Linked to this change, the MOPC will be responsible for overseeing crime and disorder reduction activities across London. As a consequence of this it will act as a conduit for any funds coming from central Government for the purposes of crime and disorder reduction in the metropolis.

Boris Johnson, Kit Malthouse and the Resignation of Sir Paul Stevenson - what did they know?

On the 6 July 2011 the Metropolitan Police Chairman and Deputy Mayor for Policing Kit Malthouse was quoted as saying

"This morning I had discussions with the Commissioner about the ongoing investigation into whether officers were paid by the News of the World for information. The Commissioner has assured me that at this time he has not seen any evidence requiring referral to the MPA in respect of any senior officer. I also discussed this matter with the IPCC and I am content with the assurances they have given me regarding their involvement in the investigation thus far.
The MPA has an important governance role to play where the conduct of senior officers is concerned and we will continue to be briefed as the investigation proceeds."

We are now left wondering what actually did Sir Paul say in this private conversation?

Since Boris Johnson was elected as the Mayor of London in May 2009, it has been quite clear that he and his deputy mayor have taking over the responsibility of managing the Metropolitan Police and that they have effectively trailblazed the Coalition Government’s policy of stripping power and responsibility away from the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) and placing it firmly in the hands of himself and Deputy Mayor Malthouse.

This policy again was evident last Thursday (14 July) when Deputy Mayor Malthouse appeared to keep secret from the MPA the fact that Sir Paul Stephenson had both a professional and private relationship with Neil Wallis, the former Deputy Editor of the News of the World.

Sir Paul’s resignation today (17 July) is a clear indication that at least one person – that is Sir Paul – is of the opinion that his job as the most senior police officer in the United Kingdom was completely compromised by his behaviour.

Having wrested power over the management of the Metropolitan Police from the MPA, and having admitted that they have private and privileged information about what has been going on during the News of the World scandal, Messrs Johnson and Malthouse will now have to publicly account for what they actually knew and to what extent the information that they withheld, whether for an hour, a week or a year, has suppressed proper public scrutiny of this matter.

A New Approach to Fighting Crime

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, launched  the governments new crime reduction policy on 2 March. A New Approach to Fighting Crime ".... is designed to give clear direction to the public, the police and their partners in four key ways.It sets out:

Theresa May - Home Secretary

• The case for change.

• The new approach to fighting crime.
  

• What the approach means for each of the key people   and organisations involved in the fight against crime.
  

• How it will work in practice.

The intention is to give the police "... just one clear objective: to cut crime." The policy places the police (and the emergent Police and Crime Commissioners) as the leaders of the fight against crime with an identified supporting role for Community Safety partners  in keeping communities safe.

Community Safety Fund - cut or control for CSPs?

The Home Office has informed local authorities and chief constables in England and Wales of details of individual local authority allocations from the Community Safety Fund. This new fund replaces the Home Office Area Based Grant funding).

For the financial year 2011/12, there is to be a funding reduction of 20% (using the funding of 2010-11 as the baseline) and there will be then be a further reduction of 40% for 2012/13 on the 2010/11 figure – so by the 1st April 2012 funding will have decreased by 60%.more>>>

These cuts, in themselves, have the potential to terminate the commissioned work of Community Safety Partnerships. To further complicate the picture the Home Office confirms that the 2012/13 Community Safety Fund allocation will be given to police and crime commissioners to commission community safety activity.

To trail this new wave of regional crime reduction commissioning, the funding for London boroughs is being handed to the Mayor of London for him to commission services; as the first effective police and crime commissioner. Effectively this will be overseen by the Deputy Mayor for Crime and Policing (Christopher Malthouse) - who currently also chairs the Metropolitan Police Authority on behalf of Mayor Johnson.

Link to Home Office Letter (pdf)

Link to Community Safety Fund Allocation chart (pdf)

What are the implications?

The Coalition's crime reduction policy is, like much else being developed by the government, experimental. This 'suck it and see' approach will mean that for the next couple of years the existence of community safety - as a partnership for crime reduction between local communities and the local authorities that serve them is at risk of ceasing to exist.

In developing this new approach, certain guidelines will have to be observed and that may mean that locally based community safety work will no longer be commissioned by locally based partnerships, but by elected regional policing and crime commissioners. It is impossible to be precise about what this will mean in practice but the London model which is currently under development will be a useful indicator of things to come.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Home Page>>