Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:09 pm
Time: 9:09 pm
Results for police discretion (u.k.)
2 results foundAuthor: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Title: Exercising Discretion: The Gateway to Justice. A study by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate on cautions, penalty notices for disorder and restorative justice Summary: In 2009, 38 per cent of the 1.29 million offences ‘solved’ by police were dealt with outside of the court system. We found that the use of out-of-court disposals has evolved in a piecemeal and largely uncontrolled way. An earlier public survey conducted on behalf of HMIC confirmed general public support for giving first-time offenders a second chance – which out-of-court options certainly offer; but this public support ebbs away when they are used for persistent offenders. Our work also suggested that victim satisfaction is high when offenders take part in RJ approaches. RJ, used appropriately, may also reduce re-offending. The substantial growth in the use of out-of-court disposals has created some disquiet among criminal justice professionals over inconsistencies in their use, in particular for persistent and more serious offending. We found wide variations in practice across police force areas in the proportion and types of offences handled out of court. In view of the growth and wide variations in practice, and the consequences for offenders and victims as well as for public confidence in the criminal justice system, we believe the time has come to formulate a national strategy to improve consistency in the use of out-of-court disposals across England and Wales, and we have made this our primary recommendation. We hope that such a strategy will draw on the good practice identified in this report, promote understanding and reduce excessive variations and inconsistencies. The strategy should be based on what works to improve victim satisfaction, reduce re-offending and provide value for money. It should take into account not only the nature of offending and offenders, but how best to achieve transparency and reassurance for the public. In making this recommendation, we are acutely aware of the challenge that a national strategy may increase the bureaucratic burdens of prosecutors and police officers. We do not believe that such increases are an automatic consequence of this recommendation. In contrast, there are more definite consequences to decisions about whether someone enters the formal criminal justice system or receives an out-of-court disposal: an individual’s chance of getting a job or travelling abroad can be affected, for instance, and there may be wider implications for public confidence. It is therefore imperative that the principles of openness and fairness are applied to the use of out-of-court disposals. This will necessarily rely on record-keeping, since confidence in a system of justice that is delivered outside the courtroom is dependent on the ability of police and prosecutors to publish information about their use, enabling the public to see how out-of-court disposals are managed locally. This record-keeping must be proportionate and can be based on existing systems. Details: London: HMIC and HMCPSI, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 11, 2011 at: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Joint%20Inspections/CJI_20110609.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Joint%20Inspections/CJI_20110609.pdf Shelf Number: 122023 Keywords: Penalty NoticesPolice Discretion (U.K.)Restorative JusticeSentencing |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office. Title: Police Powers of Stop and Search: Summary of Consultation Responses and Conclusions Summary: On 2 July 2013 the Home Secretary launched a consultation on the use of the powers of stop and search. These powers included the most common ones used by the police, covering offences from theft and drugs to serious violence and public disorder. The consultation aimed to gauge the views of the public, police, campaign groups and other organisations. These views were considered under the themes of: effectiveness; balancing public protection with the preservation of personal freedoms; reducing bureaucracy; and fairness. The consultation generated considerable interest and debate and attracted over 5,000 responses from a diverse demographic. It also made use of a number of different media to engage the public and encourage as many people as possible to make their views known. The Government has now analysed the responses which are summarised in this document. As a result of the analysis and on the basis of other evidence submitted to the consultation, the Government has developed a number of proposals which it will implement. In summary, these are: 1. Revise the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Code of Practice A to make clear what constitutes 'reasonable grounds for suspicion' - the legal basis upon which police officers carry out the vast majority of stops. The revised code will also emphasise that where officers are not using their powers properly they will be subject to formal performance or disciplinary proceedings. 2. Commission the College of Policing to review the national training of stop and search and work with Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners to develop robust training for probationers, existing officers, supervisors and police leaders. Training for frontline officers should include awareness of unconscious bias in decisions concerning the use of the powers. 3. The College of Policing will consider introducing a requirement that stop and search training should be subject to assessment and refreshed on a rolling basis. Failure to pass would mean that officers could not use the powers in the course of their duties. 4. Introduce an annual review of the use of stop and search powers which could form part of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary's (HMIC) new assessments for the public on the performance of forces. 5. Introduce a voluntary Best Use of Stop and Search scheme. Forces participating in the scheme will record the outcome of searches in more detail to show the link (or the lack of a link) between the object of the search and its outcome. This will allow the police to assess how well they are targeting their use of stop and search and using 'reasonable grounds for suspicion' in accordance with law. 6. To help achieve this additional transparency while saving as much police time as possible, the Home Office will work with Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners to explore the possibility of the quick and efficient recording of information on the use of stop and search via the new Emergency Services Network and promote the practice to all forces in England and Wales. 7. In order to improve public understanding of the police and feed into best practice, forces participating in the Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme will introduce lay observation policies, whereby members of the local community can apply to accompany police officers on patrol. 8. Under the Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme, participating forces will introduce a stop and search complaints 'community trigger' whereby the police must explain to local community scrutiny groups how the powers are being used where there is a large volume of complaints. 9. Forces participating in the voluntary scheme will make clear to their communities that they will respect the case law in Roberts by making authorisations under Section 60 where it is necessary rather than just expedient to do so. In addition, forces participating in the scheme will raise the level of authorisation to a senior officer and that officer must reasonably believe that violence will take place rather than may, as things stand now. All forces, including those not in the scheme, must ensure that Section 60 stop and search is applied in accordance with case law and only used if necessary. 10. Under the voluntary scheme, police forces will limit the duration of an initial authorisation to 15 hours. They will also communicate with the communities involved in advance (where practicable) and afterwards, so that the public is kept informed of the purpose and success of the operation. 11. PACE Code of Practice A requires police forces to make arrangements for public scrutiny of their use of stop and search. The Home Secretary will write to all Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners to tell them to adhere to the Code. If they do not do so, the Government will bring forward legislation to make this a statutory requirement. 12. Include stop and search data on police.uk. This will increase accountability and transparency and enable the general public to monitor the use of the powers. 13. Commission HMIC to review other stop powers, such as Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 - both the powers and their use - to make sure they are being used effectively and fairly. This will include an examination of the use of stop and search powers involving the removal of more than a person's outer clothing, including strip searches, to identify whether these searches are lawful, necessary and appropriate. Details: London: Home Office, 2014. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 14, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/307545/StopSearchConsultationResponse.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/307545/StopSearchConsultationResponse.pdf Shelf Number: 132452 Keywords: DiscriminationPolice Discretion (U.K.)Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement (U.K.)Stop and Search |