Patterns of Policing and Policing Patten
by Paddy Hillyard & Mike Tomlinson
From: Journal of Law and Society Vol.27. No.3. September 2000 (Blackwell Publishers)
Re-imaging policing
An historical and sociological analysis (11) was rejected for a forward-looking 'restorative' approach (12) in which an attempt has been made to articulate the principles on which a modern policing service should operate and the form it should take at the start of the twenty-first century.
The first principle was that: 'Policing should be a collective responsibility: a partnership for community safety.'(13) Instead of a state-led, hierarchical, militaristic, counter-insurgency force, the PCR imagines a police service run democratically in partnership with the local communities. At the same time, it argued that neighbourhood policing should be at the core of police work. This model of policing naturally has far-reaching structural and other implications. In practice, policing has to be decentralised to much smaller units, the management style has to be open and delegated, and every level of policing has to be democratically accountable to local neighbourhoods. At the same time, the form of policing has to be far less reactive and much more geared to problem-solving and crime prevention in conjunction with a range of other agencies.
The PCR argued that local policing involves a radical decentralisation of both staff and resources so that the entire police organisation supports the officer teams working with the public. Under this model, policing the interface between the public and the police becomes the main focus of activity, and the old hierarchical structure, with the headquarters dominating the whole organisation, has to be abolished. It therefore recommended that the district, comprising around fifty to sixty thousand people, becomes the focus of policing, with District Commanders having fully devolved authority over the deployment of personnel and budgets. In addition, each neighbourhood will have a dedicated policing team made up of officers who will serve between three and five years in the same neighbourhood. It proposed that they patrol on foot, display names on their uniforms, and have the power to determine their own local objectives in consultation with community representatives. They should be required to conduct crime and complaint-pattern analysis to provide an information-led problem-solving approach to policing(14).
The second principle was the policing should be informed by the protection and vindication of the human rights of all.(15) This principle led to a number of positive recommendations: a new oath acknowledging the importance of human rights, a comprehensive training programme which places human rights to the fore to be carried out in conjunction with existing educational establishments,(16) the closure of the holding centres,(17) and the introduction of human-rights-based performance indicators.
The third principle was that policing must be democratically accountable, politically, legally, and financially.(18) The PCR recommended that a Policing Board replaces PANI and has responsibility for adopting an annual policing plan, negotiating the budget, monitoring police performance, and co-ordinating work with other agencies involved in public safety and education. The proposed Board should comprise ten political representatives drawn from the Assembly using the d'Hondt system, and nine independent members appointed by the Secretary of State in consultation with the First Minister and the Deputy Minister. To clarify the relationship between the Chief Constable and the Board, the PCR recommended that the notion of 'operational independence' should be replaced by 'operational responsibility'. Thus while the Chief Constable is responsible for operational decisions, these should be subject to explanation, inquiry or review after the event. In addition, it argued that each District Council should have a District Policing Partnership Board (DPPB) as a standing committee, with a majority of elected members and a minority of independent members selected by the Council with the agreement of the Police Board. Belfast, would have four sub-groups, including West Belfast, because of its size.
The PCR further recommended that District Councils should have the power
to contribute towards the cost of extra policing and DPPBs could purchase
extra services from the police, other statutory agencies or from the private
sector. Security, according to this view, is public good not a commodity,
like a BMW, and should be available to everyone. The better off have always
been able purchase this good privately and as a result public safety a responsibility
of government has increasingly been distributed on the basis of class. The
proposal for DPPBs to buy-in extra policing could reduce the inequalities
in security provision and also provide an opportunity for the democratic
control of this public good rather than leaving it, as at the moment, to
the individual and the market.(19) |
