|
|
|
| NEWS > 05 December 2007 |
Other related articles:
Clarification needed as cities
The bagel bashing has begun and with it, attempts to avoid Colorado's new constitutionally mandated ethics rules.
Last week, legislative leaders banned free continental breakfasts provided by lobbyists at the Capitol. The ban was the first step in an effort to accommodate the state's recently passed constitutional amendment that restricts influence peddlers' gifts to politicians.
It's pretty certain that advocates for the developmentally disabled, who were set to host the first free breakfast, were not going to be able to buy votes for the price of a croissant and a cup... Read more
|
 Article sourced from
|
|
Times Online - UK
05 December 2007
This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.
|
|
No more brave policemen
This year two officers were on plain clothes patrol in Liverpool. One of them noticed a man acting suspiciously near a betting shop. He was walking nervously towards and away from its entrance. Eventually he pulled a mask over his head and ran inside. The officers ran to the door, looked through the window and saw him threatening the staff with a gun. They radioed for armed assistance but before back-up could arrive the robber turned to leave. The two officers burst through the door, bundled him to the floor, and arrested him. The gun was loaded with ammunition.
A few weeks later, I gave the two officers a chief constable's commendation in recognition of their bravery in successfully apprehending a dangerous criminal. But did I send out the right message by commending the valour of the officers? The conviction last month of the Metropolitan Police for breaching health and safety legislation in the Jean Charles de Menezes case — if it is an accurate reflection of how the law now stands — suggests not.
The landmark de Menezes prosecution shows the confusion about what the law and society expect of the police in emergencies. Before that case police officers were responsible for their actions to the courts under criminal law. Using more than reasonable force to prevent a crime or arrest an offender had always left us open to conviction for assault. If we are grossly negligent in discharging our duties then we can be prosecuted for manslaughter if the victim dies. With the advent of corporate manslaughter, the whole force can be open to that charge too.
Now the police in the course of their duties to the public have to consider the implications of health and safety law — regulations originally intended to keep people safe in the workplace. But the problem for the police is that our workplace is everywhere.
Health and safety law says that we should assess all known risks and then take reasonable precautions before taking action. But in many situations the police need to take swift action — putting those precautions in place would take too long. So long, in fact, that brave members of the public could step in and do our job for us because they do not have to worry about being prosecuted for breaking health and safety rules.
The police are required to do two, possibly contradictory, things. We have a duty to intervene to protect the public's life and limb but we are also commanded to minimise the risk to themselves. But it makes no sense that the public, whom we are paid
to serve and protect, are not limited by the legal duties placed on the police.
When Lords Stevens and Condon, former Met Commissioners, were unsuccessfully prosecuted under health and safety law for the death of Kulwant Sidhu, another dilemma came to light. PC Sidhu tragically fell to his death through the roof of a derelict factory while chasing a burglar. The defence tried to show that officers had to go on roofs to save lives and arrest offenders, even if the roof had and could not be properly surveyed.
One particular incident was used to make that case. A youth had fled a stolen car and officers chased him into a derelict warehouse. They couldn't find him but knew he hadn't left the building, which was now surrounded and had a police helicopter overhead. After 20 minutes the search narrowed to the roof. Eventually they found him dead under a skylight. He was the victim, it is believed, of postural asphyxiation, the result of hiding and panicking about being captured. The police could have done no more to save him. But what if they, mindful of the strictures of health and safety, had refused to go on the roof until a proper survey had taken place and specialist equipment brought in? There would have had to be an inquiry to find out if the boy's death was caused by the police refusing to check the roof.
There are no easy answers to holding the police and other emergency services to account. Of course the Police Service should do reasonable things to prevent injury to their staff, victims of crime, suspects and the general public. However, they are also expected to save lives, stop crime, arrest criminals and help people in emergencies. We expect them to be brave, not reasonable.
My definition of bravery is when individuals know there is a good chance they will be hurt or killed if they take a certain course of action and who, despite that risk, go on to take it. They take the risk, believing they may be hurt.
The criminal law and the law of negligence, together with the police misconduct process, are enough to hold the police service to account. We should not fall back on health and safety law just because we cannot make the criminal law stick. But if the Police Service is to be held to account under health and safety then the Law Commission should consider how we may be properly dealt with then we have competing statutory and moral duties.
There are two parts to any decision to prosecute in a criminal case. First, is there sufficient evidence? Secondly, is it in the public interest?
While it is right that an organisation is held to account for killing the wrong man, it was never in the public interest to prosecute the Met under health and safety law for the death of Mr de Menezes, if that prosecution left the police with unreasonable restriction in exercising their duty in the future.
If that conviction continues to stand, we may as well scrap bravery medals and commendations awarded by chief constables and the Crown. Otherwise we will be accused of giving medals only when there is a successful outcome. When officers are already placed in stressful situations and forced to make difficult decisions, they should not have to consider the risk to their employer as well as themselves.
For officers to turn to a bystander to ask them to intervene, and endanger their own lives, simply because it will be safer in the eyes of the law, would be unwise. But that is what we are faced with.
Bernard Hogan-Howe is Chief Constable of Merseyside
|
| |
 EiP Comments:
|
|---|
|
| |
* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
 |
Ethics in Policing, based in the UK, provide information and advice about the following:
Policing Research | Police News articles | Police Corruption | International Policing | Police Web Sites | Police Forum | Policing Ethics | Police Journals | Police Publications |
|
| |
|
