Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty Sadly, these tidying-up exercises always seem to lead to more, rather than less police power. This follows an announcement just a few weeks ago about real concerns about the arbitrary use and discriminatory use of police power. Hardly the time, I think, to be saying we need even wider police powers.
'Discriminatory' The suggestion is that there might be powers of arrest for dropping litter. I don't know whether this extends to parking offences, but clearly I think it's disproportionate to have powers of arrest for offences that are not even imprisonable. Also whenever it seems the statute book contains a broader police power, what ends up happening is that this is used in an arbitrary and racially discriminatory manner. That's the evidence that comes from stop and search statistics, that's the evidence that came from the BBC's own very worrying Secret Policemen documentary. I don't mean to be alarmist, it's just that I don't think it's good enough to pass in excess of 320 criminal justice and police statutes in 10 years, with more criminal offences and wider police powers, and to wring one's hands when the predictable statistics on race discrimination are published. 'Risks' If you're going to give the police new powers, you must recognise that the broader the power, the greater the risk of arbitrary and discriminatory use. Clearly if powers are truly needed, then Parliament should debate them and perhaps pass them but I have yet to hear from any serious voice in policing in this country that the problem that the police face is that they don't have the power to arrest people for dropping litter. |  | Home Office minister Hazel Blears All the things in the consultation paper have actually been discussed with senior police officers. At the moment we've got a whole range of different offences and some carry the power of arrest, some don't. The constable's got to decide which bit of the law applies. What we're saying here is that, in future, all offences will be arrestable but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will be arrested, because there will be a necessity test. There'll be a power for every offence, that makes it very clear, both for the police service and the victim and for the alleged offender, that every offence is arrestable. But then we'll have a necessity test. The constable has to decide, "In these circumstances, is it necessary for me to arrest? Is this person going to run away? Do I need to identify them? Have they given me a false name and address?'" And they will have to pass that necessity test. Open to challenge That's much more sensible than the position we've got at the moment, where some offences are arrestable, some are not, the constable isn't sure and if you've got that necessity test, if the constable goes beyond it, clearly that would be unlawful and they'll be open to challenge. I think it will make the law much more simple. Let's be straight about this, most offences of dropping litter will be dealt with by a fixed penalty notice, because we've brought that in, which makes the matter dealt with there and then with an on the spot fine - a very simple thing to do. But at the moment a constable could come upon an offence, he might not be sure, or she might not be sure, whether it's arrestable or not. In future that will be very clear. At the moment, if an offence is arrestable, the constable doesn't have to show that it was necessary to arrest them, that they were going to run away or they needed to get their identity, they can just do it there and then and that's very arbitrary power, if we're talking about arbitrary power. |
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
