Written submission from Nick Glynn, Open Society Foundations (MPR0059)
Questions on stop and search and the Gangs Violence Matrix
Progress since the Macpherson Report – twenty years on
1. It has now been 20 years since the Macpherson report was published. Can you tell us what has been the biggest positive impact it has had, and also your biggest disappointment?
What needs to happen now?
The biggest risk now, 20 years on from the Stephen Lawrence enquiry report is backsliding. Whilst some progress has been made, politicians have short memories and they easily forget the lessons of the last two decades. We know that structural racism still exists within policing, the criminal justice system more broadly and within all of our big institutions. Declarations by Met Police Commisioners that ‘institutional racism’ has been eradicated is good evidence of its existence and persistence. If we take our eye of the ball, and allow the gains made to be rolled back, we risk further alienating those most affected by structural racism and by the disproportionate use of police powers on other minorities and ‘unpopular’ groups. There will be dire consequences if that continues – we know this to be the case, as history shows us this (Brixton uprisings, Tottenham riots, English riots of 2011, the lack of diversity in policing despite many ‘efforts’, the total lack of ethnic diversity at the top of polciing. This is not an exhaustive list).
The use of stop and search
2. Do you think that police stop and search procedures are
(a) effective. Stop and search is not the answer to solving crime, reducing crime, or preventing crime. Its effectiveness is limited to a restricted number of crimes and even then, it is only effective in a limited way. Stop searching young people because they smell of cannabis does not stop people using cannabis; it doesn’t stop people carrying cannabis; it doesn’t prevent the supply chain; it doesn’t result in very much cannabis being found. And yet the vast majority of stop search is carried out to find drugs. Whilst there is a need for a wholesale review of drug law policy, in the meantime, there has to be a recognition that stop search might feel right, it might appear to the public that the police are ‘doing something’, but it has a very limited effect on crime. This is similarly true of violent crime, although stop search can be an effective tool when used in a time limited, small geographic location, as a way of preventing the escalation of a situation. We know from the College of Policing ten year study into the Metropolitan Police’s use of Section 60, that big increases in the use of stop search have a miniscule effect on the levels of knife crime. However, the negative impact of stop searching thousands of innocent people, the majority of whom are young, from an ethnic minority, and who may be living or frequenting places where there is social deprivation, is significant. We should not expect young people to be willing participants in the criminal justice system, to provide intelligence and information, to be witnesses, police officers, jurors, magistrates and judges if they are being prevented from going about their normal daily business because of ineffective, intimidating and sometimes abusive use of stop and search by the police.
and (b) necessary to identify and deter crime?
Stop and search powers are necessary, and I have consistently said that the police need stop and search powers as one of the tools they need to do their job effectively. However, there is an overreliance on the use of the stop search, there is a myth that it is a ‘cure all’ power, and a misconception as to its effectiveness. Confimration bias is prevalent in relation to stop and search. Officer tend to only remember the occasions where s/he found something during a stop search, and forget all of the occasions where /she didn’t find anything, or is convinced that s/he was still correct and that the person was ‘lucky’ that nothing was found on that occasion. Policing doesn’t take evidence based practice very seriously, and where academic studies demonstrate that stop and search is not as effective as they think, this is dismissed as being ill informed or disconnected from the reality of policing. A shift to evidence based practice being valued is long overdue. Police leaders and politicians will too readily praise stop and search and declare an increase in its use as a solution, despite the evidence, because they know this is popular with frontline officers and makes easy headlines in the papers and social media. This simplistic and lazy approach to stop and search is a further demonstration of their lack of understanding of it, its impact and its limitations. The fact that politicians and senior police officers themselves are rarely directly affected by stop search – it is not them, their family, friends or colleagues getting stopped – is a further demonstration of how implicit bias and structural racism persists unchecked.
3. Home Office data shows that the numbers of stops and searches that lead to arrests are few (less than 20%). Should stop and search procedures be reformed and if so what needs to change?
I don’t think stop search itself needs reforming in order to improve arrest rates. The problem here is the (I have to say, lazy) use of arrest rates as a measure of effectiveness. When I joined policing in the 1980s, before the digital revolution, arrest rates were an effective and simple measure of effectiveness, but we have had far more sophisticated means to measure impact and activity since then. How many of the arrests lead to a charge, to prosecution and to conviction is the real question to be asked, and this nuanced approach to the figures is what is needed. The data is there, police forces and the courts have the information, what is needed is a change to how the figures are reported to show the real impact, rather than headline grabbing arrest rates.
4. The College of Policing wrote to the Committee that it had “played an important role in improving the manner in which stops are conducted [..]” [College of Policing (MPR0050)] It cited its Stop and Search guidance (Authorised Professional Practice) and training for officers on how to conduct Stop and Search fairly. What is your view of the College of Policing’s work on improving how stop and search is used?
What more could the College of Policing do to improve the use of stop and search?
I led much of the work on stop and search at the College of Policing, and the College has done a significant amount to raise the bar in relation to stop search. The development of the first ever national stop search training was a significant achievement, as was the creation of APP on stop and search. The College has provided the resources for police forces to use and to improve how they use stop and search, and indeed some forces have welcomed and embraced this in its entirety. However, it is not universal, and some forces, the Met included, have been slow to embrace the training and the guidance. In some forces there is a reluctance to accept guidance that has not been developed by the force itself, thinking that they know better (when they clearly do not), and this reticence hinders real progress. The big users of stop and search are the forces who need the biggest challenges about their culture and practice around stop and search, and indeed that change in approach needs to come from the top, rather than preaching the status quo of ‘just do more and more stop search’ to the troops. That approach is damaging and ineffective.
Types of stop and search powers
5. The police have a variety of stop and search powers available to them under different legislative powers. Two of the most used powers are: Section 1 (of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) to stop and search where they have “reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find stolen or prohibited goods” and Section 23 (of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971) to stop and search individuals whom the police have “reasonable grounds” to suspect are in “possession of a controlled drug”. To what extent do you think that BAME communities are negatively impacted by these different types of powers and legislation?
Black and minority ethnic people are clearly disproportionately affected by the use of all stop search powers. The data consistently shows this, over decades, and people’s personal testimony confirms this. When you add the impact of Sec 163 traffic stops, the picture is even worse. The causes are complex, but we know some of them. Overt racism and discrimination is a factor. Implicit bias is a factor. Drug law policy is a factor. Performance targets are a factor (and they are being reintroduced as we speak). A lack of leadership is a factor. The media/public thirst for ‘action’ is a factor. The media portrayal of who commits which crimes is a factor (the misconception that black people use drugs more for instance, as evidence in the “Numbers in Black & White study carried out by Release). This all adds up to mean that Black and minority ethnic people feel, and indeed are, unfairly targeted by the police for attention. This is particularly true of drugs, where a stop search for drugs, even where none are found, can result in an intelligence marker that sticks with the person for years, impacting their prospects and life chances.
6. In March 2019, as a response to increases in knife crime, the Home Secretary enhanced police powers to carry out stop and search under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Do you think that the Home Secretary’s expansion of the use of this legislative power is justified?
This question is factually incorrect, because the powers under section 60 have not changed since their enactment. The Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme, which I developed whilst at the College of Policing in conjunction with the Home Office, introduced voluntary arrangements which improved how stop and search was used. The increase in authority levels, the shorter duration and the provision being limited to where violence ‘will’ rather than ‘may’ occur were all a recognition that Section 60 had been widely abused by the police service for years. The BUSSS arrangements were necessary to reign back the abuse of Section 60 by the police, and to increase accountability. These provisions were successful in managing a power that requires no reasonable suspicion for officers on the ground. The removal of the BUSSS provisions by the Home Secretary in March 2019 was a retrograde step and a mistake. I know that officers are now using the power without the knowledge of its impact on communities, without knowing that it is ineffective and even without knowing what the legal power is under Section 60. However, it made good headlines for the Home Secretary and some police leaders. This is a failure of political and police leadership, and flies in the face of the evidence that shows that Section 60, nor stop search powers in general, are not the solution to knife crime. Lazy headlines about doing more stop and search will not solve knife crime.
Wider use of police stop powers
7. In her 2014 speech as former Home Secretary, Theresa May recognised that the wider use of police stop powers such as road traffic stops also needs to come under more exacting scrutiny. How much progress has been made on this in the last five years?
Very little progress has been made on Sec 163 road traffic stops since 2014. The facilities already exist to allow the police to record traffic stops in a simple way using Airwave radios or other devices carried by officers. Officers can easily record date, location, registration number, officer ID and minimal details relating to the person stopped (age range, officer perceived ethnicity, reason for stop) without any need to ask the person for any information or elongating the encounter, and indeed some of the information can be recorded automatically without the ned for officer input. The failure to address this demonstrates a further lack of police leadership and willingness to address the reality of ‘driving whilst black’, and the structural racism that persists within policing. Excuses about more forms, additional bureaucracy and workload are simply that, excuses. The failure to systematically record traffic stops is a huge gap in the accountability and transparency of UK policing and this must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
8. The Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme was set up in 2014 by the Home Office and the College of Policing. It enables all forces in England and Wales to record their use of stop and search, and in particular to record whether officers found what they were looking for in each search. Has police recording of stop and search outcomes improved as a result?
Recording has improved and the sharing of police stops data online leads the field in policing in Europe. There is a need for continual improvement of this facility and better use of the data in respect of what happens post arrest in terms of criminal justice outcomes. A more joined up approach with the MoJ will assist this.
Disproportionality in the use of stop and search
9. The latest Home Office figures show that Black people are nine and a half times more likely than White people to be stopped and searched by the police [under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000]. Why, in your view, does this disproportionality exist?
How do the police explain this disproportionality? What is the human impact of this disproportionality on BAME communities, and in particular on young Black people? Do you feel this disproportionality is justified?
Please see above.
10. The Home Secretary said recently: “if you’re black you’re more likely to be a homicide victim than any other ethnic group”, adding: “If Stop and Search mean[s] that lives can be saved from the communities most affected, then of course it’s a very good thing”. Do you agree with him that stop and search is a good thing?
This statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the value and impact of stop and search. As above, the evidence clearly shows that stop and search is not the solution to preventing homicide. It has a very limited impact on crime, but a clearly detrimental impact on how people who are stopped view the police, the criminal justice system and society as a whole. Stop and search has a limited value, and overstating its value is misleading to police officers, the public and to victims.
To what extent does stop and search influence young people’s views of, and relationships with, the police?
See above.
Is it possible to increase levels of stop and search while also improving police relations with BAME communities – in particular with BAME young people?
No. Doing stop and search will not make relations with the police better, and academic studies back this up. When done for the right reasons, professionally and in limited circumstances, stop and search can help to maintain the level of trust in policing, but no more. When we, as black people, already feel viewed with suspicion by the police, increasing the use of stop and search simply exacerbates this phenomenon.
11. Are reforms to stop and search needed? If so, what should those reforms be?
The provisions within the Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme should be reintroduced, and improved. Senior officers and politicians should stop overstating the value of stop and search and invest in other policing approaches. There has to be a recognition that the complexity of crime cannot be solved by the use of a simple power, that we know is close to ‘neutral’ in terms of its impact on crime.
If we want to make real progress around stop and search and the prevention of serious crime in general, we have to change our approach to the policing of drugs. Prohibition has failed, and will continue to fail. It encourages organised crime and the serious offences related to those organisation to flourish, and is responsible for much of the misery in our cities towns and villages. Drugs are more available now than they have ever been and no amount of stop and search will impact on drug supply. We must learn lessons from other countries, and explore decriminalisation of drugs, and invest in health and education for those who may be problematic users of drugs. Criminalising people for using drugs causes long term harm. The War on Drugs policy has failed – we need a new approach.
12. How effective are body-worn cameras in changing how the police conduct stop and search procedures?
Has their use helped to improve the confidence of minority ethnic communities that the procedure is being carried out fairly?
I think BWC has had a limited impact due to the lack of transparency around their use, and reticence in sharing BWC footage. BWC are only one side of the equation, in that the filming of interactions by members of the public also has significant value. The research into the use of BWC is to be welcomed and should be continued and expanded and practice should be led by the evidence, rather than a thirst for more equipment or the commercial interests of Axon Taser.
What impact are body-worn cameras having on the disproportionality in stop and search?
Very little.
13. On 7 February 2019 it was reported that spit hoods would be provided to all front line police in London as part of their equipment. What evidence is there of a requirement for this equipment in frontline policing?
What evidence is there for the psychological impact of being placed in a spit hood during stop and search? What is the public perception of police use of such equipment during stop and search? How is the police use of spit hoods monitored and reviewed?
14. The College of Policing ‘stop and search’ APP states that “officers should not routinely handcuff people in order to carry out a stop and search. They must judge each case on its merits in line with conflict management principles and be able to justify any use of force, including the use of handcuffs. Any force used should be proportionate to the aim of preventing crime.” What is your assessment of the use of handcuffs as part of police stop and search powers?
To what extent do you think that the College of Policing stop and search guidance is adhered to, specifically in relation to handcuffing people? How is the use of handcuffing during stop and search experienced by young Black people? How is the police use of handcuffing during stop and search monitored and reviewed?
I was responsible for ensuring that the provision regarding not routinely handcuffing people being stop searched was included in the APP guidance on stop and search. This is a particular issue in the Met Police, where there is a culture of handcuffing everyone during a stop and search, but this also occurs in other police force areas. Whilst concerns around officer safety are very important, and handcuffs should be used where there is sufficient risk, this use of force occurs where there is little or no risk to the officer or anyone else. Implicit bias around the ‘danger’ inherent in black people exacerbates the use of handcuffs, and other uses of force including Taser, against black people. Officers must be held to account for every use of force, and the casual use of handcuffs during stop searches must be challenged. I do not feel as though this challenge or monitoring is taking place at present.
15. A recent report by StopWatch found that there were “striking differences” between police forces in both their overall use of stop and search and their rates of disproportionality. Why is there is so much variance in police forces’ use of stop and search procedures?
I think the main issue is culture. The high per capita use of stop and search by the Metropolitan Police and others goes largely unchecked and should be challenged. It is not sufficient to simply say ‘it’s London’, or Liverpool. Overreliance on stop and search is I believe evidence of a lack of investment in other ways to combat crime, and shows a lack of leadership and a failure to take an evidence based approach to crime and policing. Research into race disproportionality is scarce, and it seems to me that this is due to a failure to recognise the negative impact of stop search because it doesn’t affect many of those who advocate for its wider use.
Scrutiny of stop and search
16. How effective are stop and search Community Monitoring Groups in improving the quality and targeting of stop and searches?
What more needs to be done to improve community scrutiny in the police’s use of stop and search powers?
There needs to be more transparency around these groups, some of which are used by the police as a way of seeking endorsement for their actions, rather than genuine scrutiny of policy and practice. There is very little publicly available in relation to monitoring groups unless you are intimately involved with the subject. The West Midlands Police and others outside London have good examples of how community scrutiny can be more effective.
17. As highlighted in the Lammy Review, West Yorkshire Police have adopted a number of tactics to improve stop and search processes, such as holding scrutiny panels for the public. How are the lessons learned from such changes in practice shared between forces?
Do force efforts to improve stop and search processes clearly reduce disproportionality or are they simply adding process and bureaucracy?
They don’t reduce disproportionality, they tend to reduce overall use of stop and search because they advocate for more lawful and proportionate use of stop search powers, recognising the limitations of the powers. They don’t add unnecessary bureaucracy, we have to recognise that some bureaucracy is necessary when dealing with intrusive and confrontational powers.
What should the Government do to foster police innovation and improvements in the stop and search process?
The police should lower the expecatations around stop search, and recognise its limitations; the police should invest in independent research that might tell them things they don’t want to hear; the police should be willing to accept findings and implement changes as a result, and do this on a long term basis.
18. In 2013, the findings of an HMIC (now HMICFRS) inspection on police stop and search powers reported that of the 8,783 stop and search records it examined, “27% did not include sufficient grounds to justify the lawful use of the power”. Is this acceptable if we are policing by consent?
Was sufficient follow-up action taken by Chief Constables and the College of Policing following this report?
There was improvement and good follow up by forces and the College, although this was not done willingly by some forces. HMICFRS has forced forces to make changes, evidenced by the reticence with which some have implemented BUSSS, the APP and training products. Lessons can be learned from good practice in forces outside the capital such as the Reasonable Grounds Panel in Northamptonshire (study by M. Shiner forthcoming).
Is there a need to improve accountability by Chief Constables and the College of Policing for how they respond to HMICFRS recommendations? If so, what measures are needed?
The follow up process to HMICFRS inspections and to the implementation of recommendations should be binding on forces and the College, otherwise forces will pick and choose. HMICFRS has made good progress in holding forces and the College to account, but this needs to continue. Taking their eye off the stop search ball would be a mistake. If attention moves away from stop and search, forces, policy and practice will backslide.
Unconscious bias
19. How effective do you think unconscious bias (UB) training is for police forces in raising awareness of, and reducing any bias in, stop and search?
What further steps need to be taken to address unconscious bias?
Implementation of the training has been patchy, and all forces should be held to account as to how they have implemented specific elements of the CoP training products.
Nick Glynn LLB (Hons), MSt (Cantab)
Senior Program Officer, Better Policing
Open Society Initiative for Europe
July 2019