David Howarth (MP for Cambridge),
In April 2008 the police in Cambridge decided to abolish the stop and account / encounter form. I am writing to you now as I have today received confirmation from Detective Superintendent Jeff Hill of Cambridgeshire police that in abolishing the stop and account form in Cambridge the police have decided to ignore PACE code A. The PACE codes lay down the procedures which the police must (in my opinion) follow during various interactions with the public, for example stop and account, stop and search, searching of premises, and when detaining and questioning people. Failure to follow these procedures will in my view damage the relationship between the police and the public which will reduce the police’s effectiveness in fighting crime as well as creating an unpleasant country in which to live where the police are not under democratic control.
I am quite frightened by my local police ignoring the PACE codes which ought to act as a safeguard to ensure they follow the law when they deal with the public.
If compliance with the PACE codes was to become voluntary, and police officers were to become free to ignore them at will, then an important part of the framework providing safeguards for the public during their interactions with the police would be lost. Personally I think it is already very obvious that following the PACE codes is not optional, and all police forces should abide by them. However following my experience with Cambridgeshire police it might be worth increasing the weight they carry by amending the PACE or Police Acts to explicitly state that the PACE codes must be complied with.
Professor Michael Zander QC, Emeritus Professor of Law at the LSE and described as an authority on PACE has discussed the problem of compliance with “codes of practice” being considered voluntary:
If this [considering compliance voluntary] were applied in the case of the PACE Codes it would be left to individual police officers of whatever rank to decide whether there were cogent reasons for not following the provisions of the Code. What are now regarded by everyone as rules that must be followed would become something less than rules which might or might not be followed. To say that this would be an unhelpful development is a considerable understatement. (Michael Zander’s Response to a Home Office Consultation on PACE – May 23 2007)
This “unhelpful development” has now occurred in Cambridgeshire, as evidenced by and admitted in the below email.
I support the abolition of the “Stop and Account” form, as well as wasting police time, I think it over-formalises trivial encounters with the police, creates unnecessary entries for people in force intelligence databases and generally winds people up. I disagree with the way in which it has been abolished in Cambridge. In London Boris Johnston wants to abolish the form, he is going about it the right way and lobbying the government for a change in “the law” (The PACE codes), in Cambridge the police have acted in contravention of the PACE codes which are approved by both houses of parliament. I find the police ignoring the will of parliament in this way very worrying, and am concerned that we could be standing at the top of a slippery slope.
Suggestions for Action:
- Reply to me letting me know if you;
- Agree it is vitally important that the police in the UK are under democratic control.
- Agree that the PACE codes are a vital part of the framework which ensures people are dealt with properly and legally by the police and should be followed by all police forces.
- Seek to bring in a law stating that the PACE codes must be complied with, making the status of the PACE codes clear.
- Write to Cambridgeshire Police, enclosing my email, expressing concern that they are ignoring PACE code A; suggesting that they prioritise maintaining good police-public relations.
- Write to the Home Office expressing concern that the PACE code A is being ignored by the police. I have written to the Home Office (public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk) twice, on the 20th of April, and 7th July on the subject of Stop and Account and have not received a reply.
- Write to the Cambridgeshire Police Authority asking them to investigate how this trial came about, expressing concern about the non-compliance with the PACE codes and asking them to ensure they are involved in interpreting the results of the trial and getting those results collated with those of the official Home Office trials so they are used to inform the national debate on the Stop and Account procedure.
I would prefer a reply by email.
Many thanks,
Richard Taylor.
20 responses to “Stop and Account – Compliance with PACE codes in Cambridge”
I wrote to Kevin Wilkins and Olive Main of the Police Authority with a very similar email to the above suggesting the Police Authority take the below action.
I have also written to Alan Travis, of the Guardian along with Michael Zander the law professor at the LSE who I quote above and who writes articles for the Guardian suggesting the subject might warrant some press coverage.
I also wrote to the Cambridge Evening News, Newsdesk, having already written to an individual reporter.
A report to the Police Authority meeting on 30 June 2008 from the Scrutiny and Audit Committee meeting held on Thursday 22nd May 2008 includes the section:
So a committee of the Police Authority did know about the trial before it commenced.
A review of all stops (Encounters) proportionality was tabled at that Scrutiny and Audit Committee meeting which included the statement:
David Howarth has replied:
I am happy that Mr Howarth has considered the current position. I agree with him that giving too much power to an individual minister would be undesirable, that was not my proposal.
I used my opportunity to speak at the August 2008 North Area Committee in Cambridge to raise these problems and obtained responses from Mr Wilkins (member of the Police Authority) and Inspector Hutchinson of Cambridgeshire Police. The details are available in my write up of the meeting.
Mr Howarth has sent me a further reply today; he forwarded me a response from the police he had obtained when he wrote to the Chief Constable and the Home Secretary asking for: “Information about the All Stops recording Trial”.
He noted he is still awaiting a response from the Home Secretary.
The police’s reply was written by Jeff Hill on the 28th of August 2008.
The new (to me) information contained within it is:
I wrote to Mr Wilkins of the Police Authority to keep him updated. I sent him the salient items of my latest correspondence and said:
I have made my letter from Mr Howarth available online via this link.
Mr Howarth has passed on to me a letter from Tony McNulty, Minister of State at the Home Office. The minister has told me he will be looking to amend PACE code A when Parliament returns, this will give proper authorisation for the formal trial abolition of the time consuming current encounter forms, and is what I have been lobbying for.
However it appears this will not give authorisation for the trial which is currently still on going in Cambridge where no stop and encounter receipts are given as a matter of course. This development should provide further leverage for the Police Authority to use to bring Cambridgeshire police back under democratic control.
I have made the letter from Tony McNulty available here.
The letter supplies some of the information I had previously requested from the Home Office.
Michael Zander has written me to say:
A Home Officer minister has passed an order permitting a variation to PACE Code A to enable a pilot, trialling the abolition of the stop and account form.
The list of forces in which this applies does not include Cambridgeshire, even though stop and account recording does not occur in Cambridgeshire.
The pilot areas are: “Leicestershire, Staffordshire, Surrey, West Midlands, Essex, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire, South Wales, West Yorkshire and Thames Valley”.
Quick question: Is the Cambridgeshire ‘trial’ still going on?
The situation as of April 2009 is outlined in the answer to a question I asked at the Police Authority.
Ok, so they think they might have an IT solution for the ‘problem’ they have at the moment of there being no record of stop and account being kept at all. And that solution may be reported upon in 6 months time.
That’ll be interesting.
And this Cambridge ‘trial’ will have run for about 18 mths?
Meanwhile, the HO will have brought forth their own solution. Nice timing.
(In the PDF of the PACE review, stop and account appears to be called ‘Stop’ or ‘Stop and Search’. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2008-pace-review/cons-2008-pace-review-pdf?view=Binary or, smaller, http://is.gd/w8bi Page 9 )
On reading that PDF, it appears that the person being stopped has to *ask* for a written receipt.
“The pilot also showed that those stopped or stopped and searched rarely requested a written record of the stop.”
Brian,
The quote refers to a trial electronic stop and account procedure run by the British Transport Police. That trial was run properly in that the PACE code was amended to permit it.
True, but a section further on also implies that written records are only handed out if requested.
It is not just Cambridgeshire who are picking and choosing which parts of PACE to apply. I have been told by more than one officer at Stevenage Police Station in Hertfordshire that the provisions in PACE Code C in relation to the detention and interview of suspects who claim to have a mental health issue are routinely ignored because the officers involved feel that they are being abused by suspects who claim a mental health issue.
The downside to this is of course that when a suspect is detained with a mental health issue the police do not follow the code which can lead to suspects being interviewed, accused, cautioned or charged and taken to trial because of evidence obtained by what is at best negligent and at worst utterly criminal behaviour.