Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:36 pm
Time: 8:36 pm
Results for stop and search (u.k.)
4 results foundAuthor: Equality and Human Rights Commission Title: Race Disproportionality in Stops and Searches under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Summary: The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Stop and think report looked at police use of stop and search using the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1994 (PACE). It highlighted that the police carry out a disproportionate number of stops and searches on black and Asian people compared to white people relative to the ethnic profile of the population. New government data shows that people who are black, Asian or of a mixed ethnicity are also disproportionately stopped and searched when the police use the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Section 60 of this Act gives the police the power to stop and search any pedestrians or vehicles for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments within a specified area and during a specified period of time. The Commission asked all 40 police forces in England to disclose the grounds for authorisations using this power from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2011. It asked for data on the number of authorisations made, the time, place and rationale for those authorisations, the number of stops and searches and effectiveness in terms of weapons found and arrests. The response to these questions showed that police forces do not have the data easily available. It found discrepancies between the data provided to the Commission and information published annually by the government. This suggests that police forces could improve their processes for recording and reporting the use of this power to Government. The Commission found evidence that people from some ethnicities are stopped significantly more often than other people. The Metropolitan, Merseyside, Lancashire, Greater Manchester, West Midlands and British Transport Police forces each carried out more than 2,000 Section 60 stops and searches in 2008-11. Of these six forces, Greater Manchester, West Midlands and the British Transport Police had the highest black/white and mixed/white disproportionality ratios. The West Midlands also had the highest Asian/white disproportionality ratio. Cumbria Police found the most weapons (26 during 2008-11) and Warwickshire found the most weapons on average per authorisation (5.25). The Metropolitan Police reported the most arrests for weapons (20 during August–September 2010 alone). Some of the authorisations were directed specifically at criminal activity involving particular minorities. However, the authorisations did not always say if or why a particular ethnic group was to be targeted. This lack of transparency makes it more difficult for the police to justify the disproportionate number of black, Asian and mixed ethnicity people they stop and search. Any activity that creates a disproportionate and unfavourable effect on any ethnic minority (or any other ground protected by the Equality Act 2010) must have a legitimate justification to be lawful. Improving the transparency of their decisions should protect the police from allegations of race discrimination if the reasons for stopping and searching people with a specific ethnic background is legitimate. It will help England’s police forces to meet their pledge to improve in this area. Details: Manchester, UK: Equality ahd Human Rights Commission, 2012. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing paper 5: Accessed July 9, 2012 at: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/ehrc_-_briefing_paper_no.5_-_s60_stop_and_search.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/ehrc_-_briefing_paper_no.5_-_s60_stop_and_search.pdf Shelf Number: 125511 Keywords: Police DiscretionRacial DiscriminationRacial Profiling in Law EnforcementStop and Search (U.K.) |
Author: Equality and Human Rights Commission (U.K.) Title: Stop and Think Again: Towards race equality in police PACE stop and search Summary: In March 2010 the Equality and Human Rights Commission published Stop and think which showed that the police in England and Wales conducted about a million stops and searches of members of the public every year, the great majority under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and similar laws requiring officers to have ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion’. The power has always been controversial, and when Stop and think was published, Asian people were stopped and searched about twice as often as white people, and black people about six times as often. Stop and think also identified geographical differences; for example, little race disproportionality in much of the north of England, and relatively high levels in some southern forces. There were also wide ranges year on year between some neighbouring similar forces, and also between comparable London boroughs. The report concluded that unless forces could convincingly evidence that their race inequalities were justified their practice would be unlawful and discriminatory. Following the report the Commission applied criteria, including extent of disproportionality and trends, to identify five forces for further inquiries. It found that their explanations were not firmly substantiated by evidence, nor could they define how much of their force’s disproportionality might stem from these factors. The Commission therefore initiated legal compliance action against two forces, Leicestershire and Thames Valley, which in each case was subsequently succeeded by a formal agreement detailing a programme of action over 18 months (spring 2011–autumn 2012). Dorset Police and the Metropolitan Police (initially in one borough) had arranged to implement the service’s own ‘Next Steps’ programme for securing best practice in stop and search, so the Commission decided to take no action so as to identify what impact on race disproportionality Next Steps might have without influencing the outcome. West Midlands Police drew together its own programme of measures and again the Commission agreed to scrutinise its progress rather than intervene. Leicestershire and Thames Valley’s agreed programmes included a revised policy, training for all officers, detailed statistical ethnic monitoring down to local level, scrutiny by senior management group meetings and a community reference group, and leadership by an ACPO rank officer. Each force appointed a middle-ranking officer to engage with local commanders regarding the race patterns in their areas, and extended monitoring down to the level of individual officers. The Commission engaged closely with the process and was impressed in both cases with the quality of delivery. The Commission engaged with Dorset and the Metropolitan Police after their short intensive programme with the national Next Steps team, to assess changes in practice and outcomes. The Next Steps programme focused on securing full recording (inter alia to eliminate distortions in race patterns), practice based on reliable intelligence not ‘hunch’, eliminating formal or tacit numerical performance targets encouraging mass usage, and fostering a clear understanding of what does and does not constitute ‘reasonable grounds’. West Midlands Police’s programme included a revision of stop and search policy, training for all officers, the creation of local scrutiny panels and clear action to eliminate performance targets encouraging prolific rather than carefully judged usage. They also pursued analyses to demonstrate the element of disproportionality that could be accounted for by skews towards areas recording high crime levels and towards young people. Outcomes The race disproportionality ratios were necessarily calculated on a different basis from the figures in Stop and think because (i) 2001 census figures were used as a base since they were broken down to local level, which more recent population estimates were not, and (ii) they were based on self-classification instead of officer perception, which became national practice for data after those used in Stop and think. Thames Valley zz From March 2011 to August 2012 Thames Valley Police’s black: white disproportionality fell from 3.5 to 3.2, and its Asian: white figure from 2.5 to 1.9. zz The overall number of stops and searches recorded in the same period fell from 5916 in the first quarter to 4758 in the sixth quarter. zz Meanwhile the downward direction in recorded crime in the force’s area continued uninterrupted. Leicestershire zz From April 2011 to October 2012 Leicestershire Constabulary’s black: white disproportionality began and ended at 4.2, and its Asian: white figure rose from 1.5 to 1.9. zz However, falls in disproportionality amongst the most prolific users at the end of the period suggested imminent falls in the overall figures, and this was subsequently confirmed (April– November 2012, 3.9 and 1.7). zz The overall number of stops and searches recorded in the same period also fell steeply from 4183 in the first quarter to 1660 in the sixth quarter, while the downward direction in recorded crime in the force’s area continued uninterrupted. In both force areas negative drug searches formed a large proportion of the total and appeared to be a major driver of race disproportionality. Dorset zz In summer 2011 Dorset Police’s disproportionality ratios remained unchanged at approximately 6.0 for the black: white figure and close to parity for the Asian: white one. The national Next Steps team assessed that this was justified – and exaggerated – by incoming non-resident drug dealers in Boscombe. zz In late 2012, however, the Commission calculated from Dorset’s raw data that black: white disproportionality had fallen from 5.5 in 2008-09 to 4.4 in 2009-10 and 3.9 in 2010-11, despite no reduction in Boscombe drug dealers. zz Overall usage also fell from 7048 to 6847 in this period. zz Both usage and disproportionality subsequently rose but not back to previous levels. The Commission assessed that Next Steps had been thoroughly implemented and underpinned with training and intensive scrutiny of local unequal race patterns. The Metropolitan Police zz By autumn 2012 race disproportionality in the London borough of Lewisham, which had implemented Next Steps, had increased. The explanation given was a new focus, following public consultation, on gang activity. zz The Commission, however, identified elements present in Dorset ‘Next Steps’ – training, and the challenging of localities/officers with more racially skewed patterns – that were not undertaken in Lewisham, and recommended that this be remedied in the next borough to implement Next Steps. zz Meanwhile, however, the Metropolitan Police introduced a force-wide programme called StopIt which did include elements of training and scrutiny. Annual black: white disproportionality fell from 4.0 to 3.7 from 2011/12 to 2012/13 and while the Asian: white figure rose it stood at parity when re-calculated on the new census population data. zz Usage also fell from around half a million in 2009/10 to around a quarter of a million in January–September 2012. West Midlands zz West Midlands Police took concerted action to discourage use of stop and search as a quantitative performance indicator, and in 2010/11 its usage fell to only 15,000, half the already modest total in 2007/08. zz Its action on disproportionality was, however, limited, for example training was repeatedly delayed, albeit on plausible grounds, and effort focused on justifying not challenging patterns. Race disproportionality did not significantly change over the period. Conclusions Overall the Commission concluded that where firm action had been taken to reduce race disproportionality, and/or overall usage of the power, it had succeeded, without prejudice to falling crime levels. Key steps taken to reduce disproportionality appeared to be: targets for reduction, and for reducing negative drug searches; training in ‘reasonable grounds’ for, and proportionate use of, the power; steps to ensure intelligence-led practice rather than practice based on ‘hunches’ or generalisations about groups; micro-monitoring to identify local or individual racially skewed patterns and challenging them; and senior level commitment and leadership. Details: London: Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2010 Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/raceinbritain/stop_and_think_again.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/raceinbritain/stop_and_think_again.pdf Shelf Number: 129038 Keywords: DiscriminationRacial DisparitiesRacial Profiling in Law EnforcementStop and Search (U.K.) |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary Title: Stop and Search Powers: Are the police using them effectively and fairly? Summary: The public expect the police to protect them from harm by using the powers granted to them by Parliament in an effective and fair manner. Arguably, some of the most intrusive and contentious powers are those of stop and search. For decades the inappropriate use of these powers, both real and perceived, has tarnished the relationship between constables and the communities they serve, and in doing so has brought into question the very legitimacy of the police service. Thirty years after the riots in Brixton, concerns about how the police use stop and search powers were again raised following the riots in England in August 2011. Over a million stop and search encounters have been recorded every year since 2006 but only 9% of these led to an arrest in 2011/12. Statistics also showed that members of black and minority ethnic groups were stopped and searched more than white people (compared to the resident population). Whilst there is strong public debate about the disproportionate use of the powers on certain groups, there is surprisingly little attention paid by either the police service or the public to how effective stop and search powers are in reducing or detecting crime. In a society where policing is based upon the principle of consent, the police service needs the support of the public in order to be effective. By using their powers fairly and in a way that is effective in keeping the public safe, the police can build community confidence and encourage people to be more socially responsible in helping to reduce crime and disorder. Her Majesty‘s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) is an independent inspectorate. It has a legal responsibility under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 to inspect forces in England and Wales, and to report on their efficiency and effectiveness. The objectives for this inspection were: to determine how effectively and fairly the police service is using the powers of stop and search in the fight against crime; to establish whether operational police officers know how to use stop and search powers tactically as part of evidence-based practice to fight crime; and to identify how the powers can be used in a way that builds the public‘s trust in the police, supporting the legitimacy of the service rather than eroding it. Details: London: HMIC, 2013. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2013 at: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/stop-and-search-powers-20130709.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/stop-and-search-powers-20130709.pdf Shelf Number: 129537 Keywords: DiscriminationPolice DiscretionPolice LegitimacyStop and Search (U.K.) |
Author: Adamson, Sue Title: Evaluation of the West Yorkshire Police Community Scrutiny Panels (Stop and Search): Final report Summary: - West Yorkshire Police introduced divisionally based Scrutiny Panels for Hate Incidents and Stop and Search early in 2005 with the aim of increasing transparency and accountability of police procedures and thereby promoting public confidence. This evaluation was tasked to specifically consider the Stop and Search element of the scrutiny panels. - West Yorkshire Police produced force guidelines for the Scrutiny Panels providing common minimum standards but divisions were expected to tailor implementation to local circumstances. There is therefore considerable variation in the structure and operating procedures of the panels. However few panels had formally defined their local arrangements. This omission may contribute to lack of clarity in the understanding of panel members about their role and police expectations of their commitment. - The size and composition of the panels varies considerably. Some panels are probably too small either in the listed pool of members or in attendance to be an effective public scrutiny. Although all panels include representatives from partner agencies and community members, the balance varies considerably and some panels are light on the latter. - All panel members include representatives of minority ethnic groups. Half of the survey respondents, excluding police officers, were white, one quarter Pakistani and smaller numbers from other ethnic groups. More men than women are involved with the panels and there have been particular difficulties in reaching women of Asian background. Few panels had succeeded in including young people. It is important that the panels are representative not only of the communities they serve but of those who are most likely to be the subjects of stop and search. - Few of the panels have provided formal training to panel members although some have introduced information packs which panel members can use for reference purposes. Ensuring that panel members can work from a knowledgebase is essential to the effectiveness of the panels. - All except one panel conform to the force guidelines for monthly meetings. Panels vary in the timing and location of meetings. Some always meet in the same place (frequently the police station), some alternate between different geographic locations within their divisions and others make efforts to meet on non-police premises. Some panels meet in the afternoon, some in the evening and others alternate. These variations have been introduced to maximise attendance at meetings. - Most panels comply with the force guidance that police representation should include an inspector although there are some where the rank is lower always or sometimes. On the other hand chief inspectors attend some panels. Senior police officer input is welcomed by panel members in signalling to members and police officers the value of the panel. - Most panels are chaired by police officers although for one there is a regular lay chair and for others a revolving chair. Panel members generally though the quality of the chairmanship was more important than whether or not the chair was a police officer. - Almost all the respondents to the survey thought that the meetings were open and transparent and all that members had the opportunity to have their say. - There was some variation in the way that stop and search forms were presented, notably in whether the panel members selected the forms for scrutiny and whether they were able to examine the forms themselves. It is important for transparency that this takes place. Some panels presented stop and search statistics while others did not. - Panels vary in their recording of their proceedings. All the panels submit a monitoring form to police headquarters after each meeting but in some panels this is not available to panel members. Some panels however produce formal minutes. Some panels formally feedback on unresolved issues raised at previous meetings but in others this is more adhoc. Feedback is essential for accountability. The monitoring form/minutes can provide a useful aide memoire in providing feedback. - Few panel members thought that the panel proceedings had shown irregularities in police conduct of stop and search. Those that were expressed included insufficient grounds for stop and search and the large numbers of cases where those stopped had refused their copy of the form. - Half the respondents to the survey and most of those interviewed identified issues in the recording of stop and search. These included incomplete recording, illegibility and counter signature of faulty forms by supervising officers. - The scrutiny panels have the potential to impact on community knowledge about stop and search, improve the transparency and accountability of the stop and search process, and raise public confidence in the police, particularly among ethnic minority communities. However these impacts are restricted by issues of representativeness of the community, superficiality of scrutiny because of an insufficient knowledgebase or time constraints and feedback to the community. - The scrutiny panels can have an effect on police performance of stop and search although again this is limited because the panel sees only a record. There is however evidence that the panels are improving recording of stop and search and can identify issues of supervision and training. The panels cannot address disproportionality in stop and search but can address the perception of that disproportionality among community members. - A number of good practice suggestions and performance indicators have been identified, Details: University of Hull, Department of Criminology and Sociological Studies, 2007. 116p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 16, 2015 at: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/14346/1/Cole_WYP_Stop_and_Search_Scrutiny_Panels_-_Full_Report.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/14346/1/Cole_WYP_Stop_and_Search_Scrutiny_Panels_-_Full_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134924 Keywords: Police AccountabilityPolice Discretion Police PerformancePolice-Citizen Interactions Stop and Search (U.K.) |