[MAC0042]

Written evidence submitted by Professor Ben Bowling[1] (MAC0042)

With the assistance of Sunny Dhillon[2] and Shruti Iyer[3]

Summary and Recommendations  

 

  1. The Lawrence Inquiry concluded that in failing to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin the police service was institutionally racist. The Inquiry concluded that ethnic minority communities were ‘over-policed and under-protected’ and lacked confidence and trust in the police. The evidence suggests that these conclusions remain accurate today.
  2. The Lawrence Inquiry recommended that the full force of anti-discrimination law should be brought to bear on the police. The resulting Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 was intended provide redress to complainants and placed a positive duty on the police to promote equality of service. Anti-discrimination law has failed to achieve its stated objectives and a fresh approach is required.
  3. In the wake of the Lawrence Inquiry police leaders promised to implement an anti-racist policing strategy. This promise was broken. To eliminate racial discrimination requires a self-critical and adaptable approach to policing a diverse community. Anti-racism should be integral to routine mechanisms of accountability to the public to whom the police provide services and who pay for their services through taxation. The police should re-state their commitment to anti-racist policing and act upon it as a matter of urgency. It should become the new normal.
  4. Stop and search is a clear example of racially discriminatory policing. The disproportionate use of stop and search against people from black and ethnic minority communities and the disturbing impact that it has on their lives has persisted since the Lawrence Inquiry. Today black people are 10 times more frequently searched under s1 PACE and 40 times more frequently searched without reasonable suspicion under section 60 CJPOA. The evidence reviewed in this document shows that the statistics are indicative of unlawful racial discrimination.
  5. The act of searching a person in public is coercive and intrusive. It comes with a significant cost to the police and to the public. It is time-consuming for all involved and is often experienced as embarrassing and humiliating. When a police officer has a genuine and reasonable belief that a person is in possession of unlawful items, it is clearly preferable to ask questions and conduct a search rather than to arrest them. However, a great many people are stopped without good reason. As former Prime Minister Teresa May said in 2014, ‘Nobody wins when stop and search is misapplied. It is a waste of police time. It is unfair, especially to young, black men. It is bad for public confidence in the police.’
  6. The unlawful use of stop and search infringes on the rights to freedom of movement, privacy, and respect for personal liberty. The practice is not an effective tool for controlling crime but undermines confidence and trust in policing. This practice is unacceptable and must stop.
  7. Stop and search powers under s.1 PACE should be restricted to situations where a constable has a genuine and reasonable belief that a person is in possession of unlawful items. Searches under s60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act were introduced specifically to find weapons and yet do not require suspicion in individual cases. Only 5% of all s60 stops result in arrest, most of which were for items other than weapons. The practice of searching people without a suspicion is unreasonable, discriminatory and damaging to community relations. Suspicionless search powers should be repealed.
  8. Police officers are rarely held to account for racial discrimination in the course of their duties. Substantiation rates are unacceptably low. All allegations of discrimination should be referred to an independent body for thorough investigation. The burden of proof should rest on the police to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment in cases where facts have been established from which it may be presumed that there was indirect or direct discrimination.
  9. The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) has been diluted since 2010 and it is now very difficult to bring a discrimination claim. The PSED is important as it places a positive duty on institutions to assess discrimination and act to remedy it. The overrepresentation of Black and minority ethnic people at every stage of the criminal justice system should be scrutinised under this duty as a legal obligation for the public sector. The PSED should be reinstated and strengthened, particularly to consider the racially discriminatory outcomes of police practice.
  10. The ubiquitous use of camera-phones and body worn video to document police practice is a post-Lawrence phenomenon that presents opportunities and risks. There is an urgent need for a policy to regulate the use of body worn video cameras and footage by police forces in the UK. At the same time, police officers must expect to be filmed and should not discourage members of the public from doing so or react adversely to being filmed. Citizen filming should be recognized as an important tool for transparency and police accountability. The right to film the police should be enshrined in law.

 

 


Introduction

 

[1]    As the Home Affairs Committee reflects on the Lawrence Inquiry 21 years on, this document considers the gains and gaps which remain in policing minority ethnic communities in the UK. It is structured in four parts:

  1. Conceptualizing the problem racism in policing and its manifest in allegations of police misconduct towards minority ethnic communities;
  2. The ineffective and disproportionate impact of stop and search and allegations of misconduct.
  3. A vision for anti-racist policing and reform of anti-discrimination law.
  4. The impact of video technology on policing.

Recommendations to achieve the outcomes envisioned by the Lawrence Inquiry are set out at the start of this document.

 

A persistent problem: institutional racism 

 

[2]    The Lawrence Inquiry was hailed as a watershed in British policing for its recognition of institutional racism: ‘The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate or professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin’.[4] This failure persists twenty-one years later.

 

[3]    Racism can operate at the individual or interpersonal level through prejudice, stereotyping and generalizations made about groups defined by their ‘race’ or ethnicity.[5] It can also operate at the cultural level through an occupational culture within the police force that routinely engages in discriminatory speech and behaviour, with stereotypes influencing police action. This is also influenced by broader cultural racism in the media and wider society. Institutional racism refers to discrimination resulting from policies and practices that have discriminatory outcomes irrespective of the intentions of policymakers and practitioners.

 

[4]    Macpherson’s definition was criticized for its ambiguity and for conflating individual and institutional racism.[6] While institutional racism is related to individual racist attitudes and behaviours it is not reducible to it. Bowling’s submission to the Lawrence Inquiry, put it thus: Institutional racism is the process by which people from ethnic minorities are systematically discriminated against, irrespective of the intent of the individuals who carry out the activities of the institution. Thus, policing can be discriminatory without this being acknowledged or recognised, and in the face of official policies geared to removal of discrimination. However, some discriminatory practices are the product of uncritical rather than unconscious racism. That is, practices with a racist outcome are not engaged in without the actor’s knowledge; rather, the actor has failed to consider the consequences of his or her actions for people from ethnic minorities’.[7]

 

[5]    It is important to understand institutional racism within the broader structures of society that create and reinforce disadvantage. Racial discrimination in policing is part of a continuum of structural racism that cam be found in employment, housing, education, social services and the media that collectively combine to influence institutional, cultural and individual racism in policing.

 

[6]    Police racism is also inextricable from wider social and economic inequality. People from Black, Asian and other minority ethnic communities face extensive economic inequality. They tend disproportionately to be working class, to live in urban areas, and the most disadvantaged of those areas, in overcrowded housing, employed on temporary, short-term or zero-hours contracts, underpaid or unemployed.[8] They are also overrepresented among the homeless population.[9]
 

[7]    Despite the acceptance of the Lawrence Inquiry finding of institutional racism by the British police service and government and the commitment to implement its recommendations, there is evidence that little has changed. The most significant gain has been in the increased employment of people from black, Asian and other ethnic minority communities. For reasons of space, however, the focus of this paper is on operational policing practice.

 

[8]    The disproportionate policing of Black and minority ethnic communities continues. Black people are nearly 10 times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than their white counterparts.[10] People from minority ethnic communities are also overrepresented in use of force rates[11] and in deaths following use of force or restraint by the police.[12] The problems of confidence, trust and accountability in policing remain acute.

 

[9]    The Lawrence Inquiry conclusion that people from ethnic minorities were over-policed and under-protected, that they lack confidence and trust in the police and that there was an overall failure to provide an appropriate and professional service to people of colour remains the case twenty-one years on. Addressing institutional racism, responding to well-founded allegations of misconduct and improving the quality of police-public encounters are critical for the long-term legitimacy of policing.[13]

 

Stop and Search

 

[10]    The police power to stop a person in a public place on foot or in a vehicle has long been a source of controversy in Britain, especially in relation to policing black, Asian and other ethnic minority communities.[14] It is well established that police-initiated contact – irrespective of age of ethnic origin – is associated with negative assessments of the police service.[15] Public confidence in the police is notably lower among ethnic minority communities. This is clearly related to the extent of police-initiated contact. Members of minority ethnic communities generally feel targeted rather than properly served by the police.[16]

 

a.       Stop and Search Powers[17] 

 

[11]    The Home Office statutory code of practice states that in law, the primary purpose of stop and search powers is to enable officers to allay or confirm suspicions about individuals without exercising their power of arrest.[18] It is therefore intended to be used as an investigative power for the purposes of crime detection in relation to an individual suspected of a specific offence at a specific time.[19]

 

[12]    In practice, however, stop and search is frequently used to for intelligence gathering, breaking up groups of young people or social control more generally.[20] The people most frequently stopped consider the practice to constitute harassment. Police officers also claim that stop and search has a general deterrent effect. It is suggested – explicitly or implicitly – that by deploying stop and search extensively on people irrespective of whether there are any grounds for suspecting wrongdoing, this will have the effect of making them ‘think twice’ about carrying unlawful items. The available research evidence does not support the claim that stop and search has a deterrent effect. The use of stop and search for this purpose has no basis in law. It infringes on the rights to freedom of movement, privacy, and respect for personal liberty.[21]

 

[13]    The act of searching a person in public is coercive and intrusive. It is an axiom of the British tradition of policing by consent that the onus lies with the police to justify the use of coercive powers, in general, and in specific cases. According to PACE Code A, force should only be used when other means to achieve the objective of confirming or allaying suspicions have been exhausted. PACE Code A also stipulates that all efforts should be made to ensure that encounters with members of the public are carried out with courtesy, consideration and respect for the person concerned, without being overbearing or oppressive and to minimise embarrassment.

 

[14]    Refusal to submit to a search, or even questioning the grounds for a search, can result in further coercive action from the police and criminal charges such as obstruction. Stop and search comes with a significant cost. It consumes the time of the police and of the person stopped. It intrudes upon the personal liberties of the individual stopped and is often experienced as embarrassing and humiliating.

 

[15]    There is evidence that the degree of physical force in the exercise of stop and search powers has grown over the past two decades. People who are stopped are now frequently placed in handcuffs during the search and threatened with weaponry such as expandable batons or tasers. Recent incidents have included the use of window breaking tools to remove people from vehicles for the purpose of a search. Many people are now genuinely frightened of what will happen to them in stop and search encounters with the police.

 

[16]    When there are good reasons to suspect that a person is in possession of unlawful items, it is preferable for a police officer to ask a person questions and if these do not allay suspicions, it seems appropriate that the officer should conduct a search for the items suspected without exercising their power of arrest. It is clear, however, that the grounds for suspicion frequently do not meet the reasonableness criterion with the effect that a great many people are stopped without good reason.

 

[17]    Stop and search on innocent people is a waste of police time and resources. It damages trust in the police among the person stopped, their family, friends and wider community. Fruitless and illegal searches are worse that useless. As former Prime Minister Teresa May said in 2014, ‘Nobody wins when stop and search is misapplied. It is a waste of police time. It is unfair, especially to young, black men. It is bad for public confidence in the police.’ [22] This conclusion remains true today.

 

[18]    The current use of stop and search is an inefficient means to identify wrongdoing. In the case of s.1 PACE, police are empowered to search when they have reasonable suspicion that a person is in possession of unlawful items (such a drugs, weapons or equipment of committing criminal offences). For decades, the arrests resulting from stop and search tended to be under ten per cent. Since 2010 there has been a reduction in the extent of the of s1 PACE searches resulting in an improvement of the arrest rate to around 17%.

 

[19]    Section 60 of the of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) 1994 was formulated in response to policing football matches and the anticipation of serious violence between rival fans. The Act permits a senior officer who reasonably believes an area is likely to experience serious violence to authorise officers to conduct searches in that area to prevent their occurrence.

 

[20]    s60 searches differ from section 1 PACE searches in that they do not require suspicion in individual cases. However, the purpose of stop and search under this law is specifically to find weapons. The most recent data shows that around 5 per cent of all section 60 stops result in arrest, most of which are for items other than weapons. This is a very low yield for such an intrusive power. If a police officer has grounds to suspect that a person is in possession of a weapon, they should use s.1 PACE.

 

[21]    The police power to detain a person on the street for the purpose of a search should be restricted to situations where a constable has a genuine and reasonable belief that a person is in possession of dangerous or unlawful items. Suspicionless searches are speculative intrusions into fundamental human rights and civil liberties that are frequently unreasonable, unfair, unlawful, discriminatory and damaging to community relations. [23] After many years of debate on this topic, it is now clear that s60 cannot be reformed. The time has come for it to be repealed. [24]

 

 

 

b.       Stop and Search: fairness and effectiveness

 

[22]    Home Office guidance requires that the power to stop and search must be used fairly, responsibly, with respect for people being searched and without unlawful discrimination. Police officers also have a duty eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, to advance equality of opportunity and to take steps to foster good community relations.[25]

 

[23]    Research conducted since the Lawrence Inquiry has consistently found that stop and search practices disproportionately affect Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities.[26] The most pronounced disparity remains between Black and White individuals. The intrinsic relationship between fairness and effectiveness means an unfair practice cannot be effective.[27] It is sometimes said that stop and search is satisfactory if it is conducted courteously. If a search is unjustified and unfair, however, the practice cannot truly be respectful. The unlawful use of police coercive and intrusive power is never acceptable however politely it is carried out.

 

[24]    Earlier research showed that that black people were almost twice as likely as white people to enter the criminal justice process as a result of being stopped and searched by the police. While 6 per cent of all arrests of White people result from stop and searches, this is true of 11 per cent of all arrests of Black people.[28] The role of stop and search in accelerating the flow of people from ethnic minorities into the criminal justice system requires further examination.

 

[25]    The most recent data available people of colour, taken as a whole, are 4.3 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people.[29] Under s1 PACE, black people are 9.7 times more likely to be stopped and searched than people who identify as white.[30] In the most recent statistics black people are 40 times more likely than white people to be searched without grounds for suspicion of wrongdoing under section 60 powers.[31]

 

[26]    To what extent is racial disproportionality in stop and search conclusive evidence of racial discrimination? In relation to the police power to stop and search, the term has been used to describe a disparity, or imbalance in the application of the power to different ethnic groups in comparison with a neutral criterion. In assessing the contention that the use of police stop/search powers unlawfully discriminates against black people, the question becomes: discriminated against as compared with whom? Studies to address this question have considered the use of four criteria for comparison: resident populations, ‘available populations’, crime statistics and stop and search ‘hit rates’.[32]

 

[27]    This question was considered in detail by Bowling and Phillips in an article in the Modern Law Review.[33] This research concluded that the most robust measure of disproportionality in the use of the police stop and search powers, and which relies on the fewest assumptions, is the per capita stop and search rate. Based on a geographical area like the Metropolitan Police, statistics based on resident populations provide an important indication of how often members of different ethnic communities are actually stopped or searched within that area. As Home Office researchers put it, per capita stop and search rates show clearly that being black means that you get stopped more often.[34] Bowling and Phillips concluded that ‘the statistics show that the use of the powers against black people is disproportionate and that this is an indication of unlawful racial discrimination.’[35]

 

[28]    In interpreting these statistics, the findings of a 1997 Home Office study remain relevant today. It concluded that the police contribute to the large ethnic differences in stop and search data because of their heightened suspiciousness of black people. This, suspiciousness, it found to be pervasive and deeply entrenched and increases the chances of black people coming to the attention of the police relative to other groups.[36]

 

[29]    Heightened suspicion is an element of stereotyping, the application of a generalised mental picture to all members of a group. This forms part of a psychological process which filters information about the world how it is interpreted and affects the way in which people behave.[37] In evidence to the Lawrence Inquiry, John Newing (then President of ACPO and Chief Constable of Derbyshire) captured the issue succinctly: police officers have a ‘distinct tendency for to stereotype people. That creates problems […] in the way officers deal with black people. Discrimination and unfairness are the result.’[38] There are good reasons to believe that Mr Newing’s admission remains pertinent to this day.

 

[30]    It seems clear that police officers continue to use skin colour as a criterion for the decision to carry out a searche and that this is based on stereotyping and over-generalisations about the involvement of black people in crime.[39]  This is contrary to PACE Codes of Practice which permit a search only when it is based on objective information relating to a specific suspect.[40] The research evidence is consistent with the contention that the racially disproportionate use of stop and search results from unlawful racial discrimination.[41]

 

[31]    There is wide variation across England and Wales in stop and search practices. There is widespread disparity in the extent to which the power is used. For example, the Metropolitan Police carry out nearly 4 times as many searches as the West Midlands Police (22 compared with 6 searches per 1,000 population). The extent of ethnic disproportionality also varies widely across the country. For example, n 2016/17 disproportionality ratios for all stop-searches varied from 1.7 in Durham to 20.4 in Dorset.[42]

 

[32]    Because it is a coercive and intrusive power that interferes with fundamental rights and freedoms, the onus is on the police and government to show that stop and search is an effective crime reduction tool and contributes to community safety. There is little evidence to support this claim.

 

[33]    Tiratelli et. al (2018) [43] analysed daily counts of recorded searches and susceptible crime to stop and search from 31 boroughs in London between April 2004 to November 2014.[44] The aim of the study was to test whether stop and search practices produced a deterrent effect in the week or month following where a borough had a larger presence stop and search. The analysis found that a weekly 10 per cent increase in stop in search led to 0.01 per cent decrease in non-domestic violent crime.[45] There was no statistically significant change in the trend in non-domestic violent crime between the period when section 60 searches were used extensively and the period before. The results showed very small and inconsistent effects on burglary, non-domestic violent crime and total crime. The only strong evidence was for effects on drug offences, where, a 10 per cent increase in rates of total stop and search per month decreased recorded drug offences by less than 2 per cent.[46]

 

[34]    Other UK based studies on the use of stop and search have shown that it has had little measurable impact in reducing knife crime or other violent offences.[47] Studies in New York have examined the effect of stop and search on crime and found small negative associations between deterring crime and the targeted use of searches, with most ranging between modest at best to null effects.[48] A major US study concluded that stop and frisk adds nothing to the crime control efforts of law enforcement.[49]

 

[35]    Stop and search increases the likelihood of adversarial encounters between police and public, has the potential to trigger public disorder and accelerates the disproportionate entry of young black males into the criminal justice system.[50]

 

c.       Best Use of Stop and Search (BUSS)

 

[36]    Policy makers have recognized the damage the arbitrary use of stop and search powers have had on legitimacy, as well as the disproportionate impact of its use on Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities. One of the major proposals to shift practices and improve data collection were the BUSS scheme, which has seen roadblocks to implementation.

 

[37]    Greater public scrutiny, particularly from HMICFRS in 2013[51] and Home Secretary in 2014[52] on the misuse of stop and search, led to the introduction of the voluntary Best Use of Stop and Search (BUSS) scheme. This scheme would be included in the annual police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy (PEEL) inspections by the HMICFRS. Between 2013/14 to 2014/15 this increased scrutiny also coincided with drops in reasonable suspicion searches by 46%.[53]

 

[38]    In 2014, the Home Office and College of Policing launched the BUSS scheme to achieve greater transparency and community involvement in the use of stop and search powers, and to support a more intelligence-led approach. The scheme provided guidance on data recording and publishing; lay observation policies to allow members of the public to accompany officers on patrol; a community complaints policy; reducing the powers under section 60; and monitoring the impact of stop and search on young people and black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities .

 

[39]    In 2015 the HMICFRS assessed compliance with the BUSS scheme and found only 11 of the 43 were complying with all five features of the scheme. From the 32 who were not complying, 19 were not incompliance with 1-2 of the features, and 13 were not compliant with 3 or more features.[54] HMICFRS revisited the 19 who were not in compliance a year later and found 4 remained in noncompliance.[55] Three were noncompliant on one feature and the remaining force was noncompliant on two features. 

 

[40]    The voluntary nature of the BUSS scheme slowed the uniform collection and publishing of stop and search data. Moreover, the BUSS scheme was dismissed as a hinderance to policing, rather than a principled approach to fair and effective policing. Under a pilot extended to all 43 police forces in England and Wales on 11 August 2019, police officers were permitted to return to the original standards for applying section 60 of the CJPOA.[56]

 

 

 

 

Dismantling Institutional Racism

 

a.       A Vision for Anti-Racist Policing

 

[41]    Twenty-one years ago, in the wake of the Lawrence Inquiry, Sir Paul Condon, then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service made a commitment to anti-racist policing.[57] Henceforth, the responsibility of the police would go further than avoiding the amplification of racism towards actively reducing and ultimately eliminating racism. The principle on which this was based is that the police have a specific role to contribute to the creation of a social order within which everyone has an equal right enjoy a range of fundamental freedoms, actively to protect the lives and property of all irrespective of ‘race’ and actively to protect minorities from discrimination.

 

[42]    This commitment drew on The Rotterdam Charter, a blueprint for policing multi-ethnic societies, drafted by a group of police officers, government officials and NGOs which declared that the police should be ‘gatekeepers of equality, integration and cohesion’. Noting that when using physical force, the police are an instrument for control and repression, the charter declared that the police must be active and reliable guardians of anti-discrimination law and have an important responsibility to take measures to combat racism and discrimination.[58]

 

[43]    Policing practices – such as the disproportionate and discriminatory use of stop and search – creates a reality of lived experience of racism rather than merely amplifying it. The way in which racialised identities are represented inside the police institution are inextricably linked to identity formation outside the institution.[59] Thus, the police service is both expressive and constitutive of racism.[60]

 

[44]    A vision for anti-racist policing begins with an ethical understanding of the responsibility for governmental institutions to act in ways consistent with the democratic principle of equity, and with the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). These require public authorities to examine all aspects of organisational policies and practices to assess whether the outcome of their action is to create or sustain patterns of discrimination. Where a pattern of discrimination is identified, there is an ethical responsibility to take action to change, curtail or end unlawful practices. 

 

[45]    To re-orient policing towards the values of human rights and equity, policing skills, competencies and ‘operational common sense’ must be examined rigorously. Where attitudes, behaviours and routine practices are found to be discriminatory in intent or outcome, they should be reformed or abandoned.

 

[46]    Police practice can be seen as the interaction between the police ‘habitus’ (the cultural knowledge or ‘operational common sense’) and ‘the field’ (the historical relationships between community and the police) and the. [61] Re-orienting policing to anti-racist practice requires changing and the institutionalised attitudes perceptions, values, strategies and schemas that comprise the habitus as well as the social and political context of policework that comprise field.

 

[47]    A commitment to anti-racist policing requires a reinvention of the notion of ‘police professionalism’ emphasising the values of quality of service to meet the needs of a diverse society. This includes genuine partnerships between the police and all sections of the community and the active involvement of people from diverse ethnic groups. Anti-racist policing must be appropriate, relevant and accessible. It must provide equality of service to everyone who calls the police for help, equality of liberty and equal protection to all sections of society.

 

[48]    Creating an anti-racist police service requires acknowledgement that there is a need to change ‘colour-blind’ services so as to recognise that the police serve a diverse society in which people have different experiences and expectations of the police. It must be recognised that many people from ethnic minority communities fear and distrust the police and that police must exhibit values such as lawfulness, courtesy and respect. These are basic expectations of the police that should be extended to all members of society.

 

[49]    Anti-racist police practice should become the new normal. It requires an iterative, self-critical and adaptable approach to how policing is delivered to a diverse community. Competence in policing a diverse society should be integral to recruitment, selection, training and a criterion for appraisal and promotion. To normalise anti-racist policing as a minimum standard for good policing it must also become part of routine mechanisms of accountability to the people to whom the police provide services and who pay for their services through taxation.

 

 

 

b.       Accountability for police misconduct

 

[50]    Police officers are rarely held to account for racial discrimination in the course of their duties and there remain underlying issues inherent to oversight over the police. [62] Far too frequently, senior officers move to denying the experiences of people who allege police misconduct rather than keeping an open mind and considering all the evidence. The result is a widening of the gulf between police and ethnic minority communities.

 

[51]    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) formed by the Policing and Crime Act 2017 was given greater latitude to investigate wrongdoing compared to its predecessors, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and Police Complaints Authority (PCA). Although it may be too early to judge its impact, early indications are that few complaints are satisfactorily resolved and the IOPC is experiencing many of the limitations of earlier complaints mechanisms. The nature of policing and its ‘low visibility’ means complaints frequently rely on testimony between complainants and police officers, with no independent evidence.[63].

 

[52]    The police continue to use force disproportionately against people from black and ethnic minority communities, and they are overrepresented in deaths following the use of force in police custody.[64] Data on the police use of force is poorly collected. The National Police Chiefs’ council introduced minimum recording requirements on the use of force, however, an HMICFRS report that year found only two complied with this requirement.[65] Early data emanating from PEEL investigations suggested that black individuals were more likely than their white counterparts to be involved in incidents where a greater degree of force was used by the police.[66]

 

[53]    Evidence of racial disproportionality and discrimination in policing is visible in the overrepresentation of Black and minority ethnic people in the National DNA Database. It was estimated in 2012 that 27% of the entire Black population has a record on the database.[67] There are also concerns about the recording of people from black communities on gang databases.[68] Joint Enterprise cases have also had a disproportionate impact on Black and minority ethnic people, and often relies on racialised stereotyping that underpins gang policing.[69]

 

[54]    Misconduct and abuse have significant effects on the legitimacy of police forces and limit the ability for officers to build relationships and foster cooperation necessary for crime investigation. Legitimacy and confidence are crucial to policing because the overwhelming majority of offences are solved as a result of information coming from the public.[70] The shortcomings in oversight in regard to police misconduct impact negatively on trust and confidence in the police. 

 

[55]    Indications of the effectiveness of internal disciplinary procedures is not promising. In a 2013 IPCC review of the Metropolitan Police Service, of a sample of 20 cases, only 1 complaint was upheld. It also found the standard of local investigations to be poor. In most cases, the investigating officer found that the officer’s denial of discrimination was enough to conclude that the allegation had no proof. The IPCC report notes that in many cases, it is the officer’s word against the complainant’s, and people do not have confidence or trust that a complaint of overt racism will be believed without independent evidence (such as video footage). Indirect racism is even harder to prove, and there was little evidence at the local level that racial discrimination was taken seriously in investigations.[71]

 

[56]    In 2014, the IPCC found that none of 170 discrimination complaints by the public against the West Yorkshire, West Midlands and Greater Manchester police were upheld. Figures released in October 2015 under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that the Metropolitan Police had received over 240 complaints of racial discrimination between March 2014 and February 2015; none were upheld. Several officers had multiple allegations against them; none resulted in any action.[72] There has been very little systematic research on complaints since these reviews and little evidence of effective action to tackle racism.

 

[57]    One of the more significant developments since the Lawrence Inquiry is the improvement in access to data about the activities of the various 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales.[73] This is predominately due to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, which required the publication of various datasets online. Datasets on policing from the Home Office have become a model for countries and police regimes across the world. The amount of data produced has also brought new questions to the forefront in assessing policing and accountability. Chief among them is how all of this data should be presented to the public to make informed decision-making and contribution to police governance and accountability.[74]

 

[58]    Since the Lawrence Inquiry, the steps taken by successive governments to reform policing have produced new agencies and mechanisms for transparency and accountability. Overall there has been a shift towards ‘downwards’ and citizen-oriented participation compared to hierarchical reporting and to ministers and officials.[75] However, this has not produced the desired effects of a police service that is more responsive to black, Asian and other ethnic minority communities.

 

 

C.               Anti-discrimination law

 

[59]    Until the year 2000, the British police service was exempt from anti-discrimination law in the exercise of its powers. This is an astonishing fact bearing in mind that the first such legislation – the Race Relations Act 1965 – had been passed some thirty-five years earlier and that there was no proper justification for this exemption.[76] It is also a matter of considerable concern given the long-standing allegations of racism in the police over that period. There is little doubt that legal impunity gave the police, in effect, licence to discriminate during the last decades of the twentieth century, causing lasting damage to the relationship between police and ethnic minority communities.[77]

 

[60]    One of the most important of the Lawrence Inquiry recommendations for law reform was that the full force of anti-discrimination law should apply to all individual police officers and chief constables. The result was the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. This brought all public services and functions within the scope of the Act; made Chief Officers of Police vicariously liable for discriminatory conduct by their officers; and placed a general duty on authorities to promote race equality.

 

[61]    Legal actions concerning allegations of racial discrimination by the police are often settled out of court. For example, Smith v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis[78] was a civil action against the police for racial discrimination, false imprisonment, trespass to property, and harassment arising from eighteen separate stops, none of which resulted in arrest or the discovery of prohibited items, that was settled out of court. Such settlements provide some comfort and redress for the people affected, but they do not necessarily lead to the kinds of organisational learning or institutional reform required.

 

[62]    Racial discrimination is often difficult to prove and is an additional burden on complainants, beyond proving a violation to liberty and privacy and proving a lack of reasonable suspicion. In the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the article 14 prohibition on discrimination on grounds of race is contingent on proving the violation of another Convention right (usually either article 5 or article 8). Similarly, in Roberts v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [79] the Supreme Court refused to take into evidence reports from the Equality and Human Rights Commission that warned of racial profiling. The appellant was limited to arguing that the power was not subject to sufficient safeguards, not that she had been racially discriminated against.[80]

 

[63]    In a wider context, government policy on immigration has exacerbated racist sentiment in operational policing. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 continues to permit racial discrimination in the functions of immigration, and the cultural narrative that immigrants are undesirable and disorderly feed into police perceptions of people of colour. For example, ‘Operation Nexus’, a collaboration between immigration enforcement and the police effectively legitimizes racial profiling by the police—when the police are asked to determine who may be a potential undocumented immigrant, the consequence is that racialized groups become suspect.[81]

 

[64]    The Public Sector Equality Duty enshrined in anti-discrimination law that imposes a positive duty to consider discriminatory outcomes in policy implementation has been diluted. Since 2010, the equality duty has been downgraded in importance and several government policies have not been assessed with a view to whether their outcomes could be racially discriminatory. Policies designed to control immigration, enforce counter-terrorism programs (such as PREVENT), or that have the effect of curtailing or denying citizenship rights (e.g. the Windrush scandal) have not been assessed in line with the public sector equality duty, despite their disproportionate impact on people from black and ethnic minority communities.[82]

 

[65]    The intention of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 was that applying anti-discrimination law to policing would provide redress to victims of discrimination and that it would also place a positive duty on the police to promote equality of service. Despite the symbolic importance of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 there is little evidence that it has made any great difference to racial discrimination within operational policing. It is clear, however, that the ‘full force’ of anti-discrimination law has not been brought to bear on the police, despite the promise of the Lawrence Inquiry. There have been few cases brought against the police under this Act, none that have been successful and no indications that this law has brought about the kinds of change anticipated by the Lawrence Inquiry.

 

[66]    A way forward may be found in the EU Race Equality Directive which reverses the burden of proof in allegations of racial discrimination. Under this directive, once plaintiffs have established facts from which it may be presumed that there has been indirect or direct discrimination it is for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment.[83] It would show a commitment to equality of service for this provision to be incorporated into UK law and applied to police operational practice.[84]

 

 

Impact of video technology

 

a.       Police Body Worn Video (BWV)

 

[67]    Body-worn video (BWV) devices were first piloted in the UK in 2005 and are now widely used across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The stated goal is for all officers on the front-line to be equipped with them going forward. The Home Office estimated that the number of BWV cameras in the UK had reached 60,000 by the end of 2017.

 

[68]    The government and police forces have repeatedly posited the cameras as an accountability tool. It was argued that the use of BWV would assuage fears around the extension of police powers to stop and search under section 60[85] and the police have also argued that they reduce the use of Tasers by officers.[86] On the other hand, they have also been frequently invoked as a surveillance tool to identify violent offenders—most recently by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in response to the Black Lives Matter protests.[87]

 

[69]    However, BWV cameras operate under a very loose and discretionary policy—there is nothing that legally governs their use and storage of data. The College of Policing has guidelines that apply to their use, but these have no binding effect and the Government has also left the formulation of rules around their use to individual police forces. If data is deemed relevant evidence, it could be stored indefinitely. This gives rise to serious privacy concerns.[88]

 

[70]    Recording does not require the consent of those being recorded in general, but officers are encouraged in the guidelines to open with a short statement at the beginning of the recording to notify those being recorded. Officers typically make context-specific decisions on when to record, though forces encourage its use in a number of incidents (including stops and searches, domestic violence cases, and use of force).

 

[71]    There is no existing protocol that governs how BWV footage can be mined with voice and facial recognition software—this is an urgent concern, as trials to do this have been underway for some time. The trial of facial recognition software with BWV was trialled in Leicestershire as early as 2014; it is reasonable to assume that these have only been expanded since.[89] It is necessary to obtain more information on how footage is being used for intelligence gathering purposes.

 

[72]    Given the overrepresentation of Black and minority ethnic people in existing databases, body worn cameras offer unprecedented capacity for intelligence gathering that could have disproportionate impacts on minority communities. The use of this technology must be subject to the public sector race equality duty to be assessed for potentially discriminatory implications.

 

[73]    It is unclear if BWV footage is beginning to replace notetaking and incident report-writing, but this does seem to be the direction of travel—the benefits of BWV technology have been touted as revolutionary in reducing paperwork time.[90] The Metropolitan Police’s guidelines on the use of BWV includes situations where ‘the user would have been expected or required to have completed a written record or report.’[91] Written reports continue to be important, as the meaning of video evidence is often not derivable on their own and those assessing it frequently depend on a narrative explanation to make sense of the footage.

 

[74]    BWV footage appears to lack independent audited to verify if it matches officer written reports. Internal access after recording appears to be limited to when there is a ‘legitimate policing need’ but it is unclear what situations are covered by this. It is also unclear to what extent BWV is used in the criminal justice system as evidence and what the outcomes of these cases are. A Freedom of Information request filed by Big Brother Watch in 2017 yielded the response that this data was not collected and assessed.[92]

 

[75]    There is a need for clear, legally enforceable protocol on the use of BWV to avoid its use either in the identification of individuals or in compiling ‘risk information’ about neighbourhoods. This too is likely to result in the overrepresentation of Black and minority ethnic communities as they are more likely to come in contact with the police. There is an urgent need for more empirical research on the use of BWV in British police forces and as evidence later in the criminal justice system, legislation on its use and independent auditing and monitoring of the footage collected and reviewed. There is also an urgent need for more clear and binding guidance on how footage is used by police forces and an assessment of BWV’s impact on policing practice.

 

 

b.       Citizen filming

 

[76]    Camera phones are now ubiquitous and enable members of the public to record still and moving images that can be shared instantly. Used properly, this technological development has the potential to increase transparency and accountability in policing. Citizens filming the police has emerged as an important tool to document instances of police misconduct in the UK and elsewhere in the world. Video evidence has sparked numerous campaigns for justice against the abuse of force against people of colour worldwide.

 

[77]    There are clearly benefits to public recording of police-public encounters. It seems clear that video film of police conduct can contribute to improving police practice and accountability. The right to film the police is an important evidence-gathering tool in the age of body-worn video and CCTV, and an accountability measure that is easily actionable by citizens. Citizen responses to evidence gathered by an observer or the victim of discrimination are sometimes at odds with what independent reviews of the conduct find, particularly where additional BWV evidence is introduced.[93]

 

[78]    In 2010, the Association of Police Officers issued a statement on filming the police. [94] This made it clear that there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place and that members of the public should not be prevented from doing so. The guidance stated the police ‘must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever. Unnecessarily restricting photography […] is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service. Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.’

 

[79]    While it is perfectly legal to film the police, it is possible that many citizens are unaware of their rights in this regard or how to take footage in an effective way that documents the events that transpired. It is also likely that while the police have no power prevent citizens from filming, some police officers have found this irritating, have sought to prevent filming with the result that encounters have become confrontational when filming has taken place. To make the best use of video evidence, the right to film the police should be placed on a statutory footing.

 

Conclusion

 

 

[80]    In the wake of the Lawrence Inquiry twenty-one years ago, leaders in the British police service made a commitment to anti-racist policing. It was widely accepted that the police should provide a professional service that is appropriate, accessible and relevant to a diverse society. It was accepted that this required a change from a ‘colour-blind’ approach to one that recognised that the police serve a diverse society in which people have different experiences. Many of the problems identified in the Lawrence Inquiry persist to this day. A commitment to anti-racist policing has not been honoured; it should be re-stated and acted upon as a matter of urgency.

 

[81]    The Lawrence inquiry observation that people from ethnic minorities were ‘over-policed and under-protected’ remains true today. There have been some areas of improvement; most significantly the proportion of black and ethnic minority officers has more than tripled from 2% to 7%. However, statistics on the use of force, stop and search, and deaths in police custody all point to disproportionate and discriminatory police practices. Since these practices are so well known today, they are clearly no longer the product of unconscious or unwitting racism; they are indications of persistent institutional racism.

 

[82]    The disproportionate use of stop and search against black and ethnic minority communities and the disturbing impact that it has on human lives has continued since the Lawrence Inquiry. In the most recent statistics, black people were nearly 10 times more frequently searched under s1 PACE and 40 times more frequently searched under s60 CJPOA. Policing agencies frequently claim that stop and search has a general deterrent effect. It is suggested – explicitly or implicitly – that some people, especially young people from black and ethnic minority communities, should be searched irrespective of whether there are any grounds for suspecting they are in possession of unlawful items. The use of stop and search in this way has no basis in law, and it infringes on the rights to freedom of movement, privacy, and respect for personal liberty. The available research evidence does not support the claim that this practice is an effective tool for controlling crime. On the contrary, there is evidence that it undermines confidence and trust in policing, particularly among black and ethnic minority communities.

 

[83]    The Lawrence Inquiry recommended that the unjustifiable police exemption from anti-discrimination law should end and that the full force of the Race Relations Act should be brought to bear on the police. In law, police officers have a duty eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, to advance equality of opportunity and to take steps to foster good community relations. Lamentably, this law has not eliminated discrimination from police practice. There have been few cases brought against the police under this Act, none that have been successful and no indications that this law has brought about the kinds of change anticipated by the Lawrence Inquiry.

 

[84]    The use of technology has transformed the visibility of policing since the Lawrence Inquiry. The first camera phones were introduced in 2000, a year after the Inquiry was published, and they are now used extensively to record policing in action. Most police officers now have body-worn-video (BWV) that can record encounters with the public and. Used properly, this technological development has the potential to increase police accountability. At present BWV cameras operate under a very loose and discretionary policy—there is nothing that legally governs their use and storage of data. Given the overrepresentation of black, Asian and minority ethnic people in existing databases, body worn cameras offer unprecedented capacity for intelligence gathering that could have disproportionate impacts on minority communities. The right to film the police is an important tool for accountability in the age of body-worn video and CCTV. It is likely that many citizens are unaware of their rights in this regard or how to take footage in an effective way that documents the events that transpired.

 

[85]    The recommendations set out in this submission are informed by decades of research on policing and a consideration of the most recent evidence on fairness, effectiveness and accountability. The recommendations call for a re-engagement with the promise that the legacy of the Lawrence Inquiry would be the creation of an anti-racist police service. We urge the government and the police and to affirm that everyone irrespective of the colour of their skin – can expect an appropriate and professional service that delivers equality and justice for all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

July 2020

 


[1] Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, King’s College London

[2] PhD candidate, King’s College London

[3] PhD candidate, Oxford University

[4] Sir William Macpherson of Cluny (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report (London: Home Office) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf  

[5] Bowling B., Reiner R. and Sheptycki, J. (2019) ‘A Fair Cop: Policing and Social Justice’ in The Politics of the Police, 5th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

[6] Phillips, C. (2011) ‘Institutional Racism and Ethnic Inequalities: An Expanded Multilevel Framework’ in Journal of Social Policy, 40(1), pp. 173–192.

[7] Bowling, B. (1998) ‘Violent Racism: victimisation, policing and social context. Memorandum submitted into the matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence’, paragraph 19, original emphasis.

[8] Khan, O. (2020) The Colour of Money: How Racial Inequalities Obstruct a Fair and Resilient Economy (London: Runnymede Trust). https://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/2020%20reports/The%20Colour%20of%20Money%20Report.pdf See also Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2020) ‘Overcrowded housing’ (Online). https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/housing/housing-conditions/overcrowded-households/latest

[9] See Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2020) ‘Live tables on homelessness’ (Online). https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-homelessness

[10] HM Inspector of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. (2020). ‘PEEL spotlight report: An overview of 2018/19 PEEL inspections.’ London: HMICFRS, at page 17. Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/peel-spotlight-report-diverging-under-pressure-2018-19-overview.pdf

[11] Home Office (2019) ‘Police use of force statistics, England and Wales: April 2018 to March 2019’ (Online). https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-use-of-force-statistics-england-and-wales-april-2018-to-march-2019

[12] INQUEST (2020) ‘BAME deaths in police custody’ (Online). https://www.inquest.org.uk/bame-deaths-in-police-custody

[13] Bradford, B. (2011). Convergence, not divergence?: Trends and trajectories in public contact and confidence in the police. The British Journal of Criminology, 51(1), at 195.

[14] Jefferson, T. (2012). Policing the riots: from Bristol and Brixton to Tottenham, via Toxteth, Handsworth, etc: Tony Jefferson tells the angry, ongoing story of rioting over the past 30 years. Criminal Justice Matters, 87(1), 8-9.

[15] Bradford, B., Stanko, E. A. and Jackson, J. (2009), ‘Using Research to Inform Policy: The

Role of Public Attitude Surveys in Understanding Public Confidence and Police Contact’, Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 3: 139–48.

[16] See Bowling, B., & Phillips, C. (2003). Policing ethnic minority communities; & Sharp, D., & Atherton, S. (2007). To serve and protect? The experiences of policing in the community of young people from black and other ethnic minority groups. The British Journal of Criminology, 47(5), 746-763.

[17] The police power to stop and search a person without a warrant in a public place is authorised under a number of legislative acts including: section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA), section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, section 47 of the Firearms Act, section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

[18] Home Office (2014) Revised code of practice for the exercise by police officers of statutory powers of stop and search, Home Office, December 2014

[19] Bowling, B., & Phillips, C. (2007). Disproportionate and discriminatory: Reviewing the evidence on police stop and search. The Modern Law Review, 70(6), at 938.

[20] M. Fitzgerald, Report into Stop and Search (London: Metropolitan Police Service, 1999). See also

S. Choongh, ‘Policing the Dross: A Social Disciplinary Model of Policing’ (1998) 38 British Journal

of Criminology 623-634.

[21] Bowling, B., & Phillips, C. (2007). Disproportionate and discriminatory: Reviewing the evidence on police stop and search. The Modern Law Review, 70(6), 936-961.

[22] https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/apr/30/theresa-may-reform-police-stop-and-search-powers

[23] Bowling, B., & Phillips, C. (2007). Disproportionate and discriminatory: Reviewing the evidence on police stop and search. The Modern Law Review, 70(6), 936-961.

[24] Bowling, B. and Marks. E. (2017) The Rise and Fall of Suspicionless Searches. King’s Law Journal. 28: 1 62-88

[25] Equality Act 2010, section 149.

[26] Miller, J. (2010). Stop and search in England: A reformed tactic or business as usual?. The British Journal of Criminology, 50(5), 954-974.

[27] Bowling, B. (2007). Fair and effective policing methods: Towards ‘good enough’ policing. Journal of Scandinavian studies in criminology and crime prevention, 8(S1), at 27.

[28] Home Office, Race and the Criminal Justice System: An overview to the complete statistics, 2003-2004 (London: Home Office, 2005) table 5.3.)

[29] HMICFRS. (2020). PEEL spotlight report: Diverging under pressure. At page 17. Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/peel-spotlight-report-diverging-under-pressure-2018-19-overview.pdf

[30] HMICFRS. (2020). PEEL spotlight report: Diverging under pressure. At page 17. Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/peel-spotlight-report-diverging-under-pressure-2018-19-overview.pdf

[31] Townsend, M. (2019). Black people ‘40 times more likely’ to be stopped and searched in UK. 4 May 2019. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/may/04/stop-and-search-new-row-racial-bias

[32] Bowling, B., & Phillips, C. (2007). Disproportionate and discriminatory: Reviewing the evidence on police stop and search. The Modern Law Review, 70(6), at 936.

[33] Bowling, B., & Phillips, C. (2007). Disproportionate and discriminatory: Reviewing the evidence on police stop and search. The Modern Law Review, 70(6), at 936.

[34] MVA and Joel Miller (2000) Profiling Populations Available for Stops and Searches. Police Research Series Paper 131. London: Home Office: 84

[35] Bowling, B., & Phillips, C. (2007). Disproportionate and discriminatory: Reviewing the evidence on police stop and search. The Modern Law Review, 70(6), at 936.

[36] FitzGerald, M. and Sibbitt, R. (1997) Ethnic Monitoring in Police Forces: a Beginning. Home Office Research Study 173. London: Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate: 66

[37] Wheeler, S. Christian; Petty, Richard E. (2001). ‘The effects of stereotype activiation on behaviour’ Psychological Bulletin 127 (6): 797–826; Devine, P. G. (1989), ‘Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, 5-18. Hall, S., Lewis, G. and McLaughlin, E. (1998) The Report on Racial Stereotyping. Milton Keynes: Open University: 9

[38] Macpherson, S. W. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, CM4262-I, London: The Stationary Office: 32

[39] Quinton, P., N. Bland, and J. Miller (2000), Police Stops,Decision-making and Practice. Police Research Series., London: Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit: 36

[40] PACE Code A, paragraph 2.2

[41] Bowling, B. and Phillips, C. (2007) Disproportionate and Discriminatory: Reviewing the Evidence on Stop and Search, Modern Law Review 70 (6) 936-961

[42] Shiner, M., Carr, Z., Delsol, R. and Eastwood, N. (2018). The Colour of Injustice: ‘Race’, drugs and law enforcement in England and Wales, London: StopWatch, at vi. Available at: http://www.stop-watch.org/uploads/documents/The_Colour_of_Injustice.pdf

[43] Tiratelli, M., Quinton, P., & Bradford, B. (2018). Does stop and search deter crime? Evidence from ten years of London-wide data. The British Journal of Criminology, 58(5)

[44] Susceptible crime was defined as recorded drugs offences, non-domestic violent crime, burglary, robbery and theft, vehicle crime and criminal damage. Susceptible crime provides a more appropriate window into analysing the effectiveness of stop and search because there are some crimes, such as cybercrime or fraud, that do not lend themselves to stop and search. Moreover, stop and search is only an intervention for certain kinds of crimes, usually involving materials for carrying out the crime itself.  Tiratelli et al at 1223

[45] Tiratelli et al at at 1223

[46] The authors suggested there were alternative explanations for the effect on drug offences. For instance, ‘higher rates of [stop and search] prompt people to change their behaviour to make it harder for officers to uncover drugs (e.g. being more cautious, by carrying smaller amounts and hiding them more carefully) or that people carrying drugs—especially hard drug users—are simply displaced to nearby areas that are less ‘hot’ in terms of police activityTiratelli et al at 1222

[47] Ward, L., Nicholas, S., and Willoughby, M. (2011) An Assessment of the Tackling Knives and Serious Youth Violence Action Programme (TKAP) – Phase II, London: Home Office; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-assessment-of-the-tackling-knives-andserious-youth-violence-action-programme-tkap-phase-ll; McCandless, R., Feist, A., Allan, J., and Morgan, N. (2016) Do Initiatives Involving Substantial Increases in Stop and Search Reduce Crime? Assessing the Impact of Operation BLUNT 2, London: Home Office; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/do-initiativesinvolving-substantial-increases-in-stop-and-search-reduce-crime-assessing-the-impact-of-operation-blunt-2; Miller J, Bland N, Quinton P (2000). The Impact of Stops and Searches on Crime and the Community. Police Research Series Paper 127. London: Home Office.  

[48] Tiratelli et al at 1218.

[49] Fagan, J. (2016), ‘Terry’s Original Sin’, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2016 at 79.

[50] The Lammy Review: An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System, The Rt Hon David Lammy MP, 2017, at 6. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/643001/lammy-review-final-report.pdf . See also: Bowling, B., & Phillips, C. (2007). Disproportionate and discriminatory: Reviewing the evidence on police stop and search. The Modern Law Review, 70(6), at 959.

[51] Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. (2013), Stop and Search Powers: Are the Police Using Them Effectively and Fairly? HMICFRS. Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/media/stop-and-search-powers-20130709.pdf 

[52] Home Secretary (2014), Stop and Search: Comprehensive Package of Reform for Police Stop and

Search Powers. Oral Statement to Parliament, 30 April 2014. Home Office. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/stop-and-search-comprehensive-package-of-reform-for-police-stop-and-search-powers

[53] Tiratelli et al at 1225.

[54] HMIC. (2016). PEEL: Police legitimacy 2015. Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/peel-police-legitimacy-2015.pdf 

[55] HMIC. (2017). https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/best-use-of-stop-and-search-scheme-19-forces-revisits.pdf

[56] Home Office News Team. (2019). Section 60 stop and search pilot extended. 12 August 2019. Home Office Available at: https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2019/08/12/section-60-stop-and-search-pilot-extended/

[57] Sir Paul Condon (1998) Working Together for an Anti-Racist Police Service. London: Metropolitan Police; Metropolitan Police (19980 Working Together Towards an Anti-Racist Police Service. Report of a Conference 18 December 1998. London: Metropolitan Police. Metropolitan Police (1999) Protect and Respect: The Met’s Diversity Strategy. London: Metropolitan Police.

[58] Rotterdam Charter. (1996) Policing for a multi-ethnic society. Rotterdam: Rotterdam Conference, at 10.

[59] Keith, M. (1993) Race, Riots and Policing, London: UCL

[60] Phillips, D. (1990) The Institutionalization of Racism in Housing  in Smith,S. and Mercer,J. (eds) New Perspectives on ‘Race’ and Housing in Britain.

[61] Chan, J. (1997) Changing Police Culture: Policing in a Multicultural Society Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[62] Bowling B.,Reiner R. and Sheptycki, J. (2019) The Politics of the Police, 5th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press), at 245; Dixon, B., & Smith, G. (1998). Laying Down the Law: The Police, the Courts and Legal Accountability. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 26(4), 419-435.

[63] Bowling B.,Reiner R. and Sheptycki, J. (2019) The Politics of the Police, 5th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press), at 245.

[64] Home Office (2019) ‘Police use of force statistics, England and Wales: April 2018 to March 2019’ (Online). https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-use-of-force-statistics-england-and-wales-april-2018-to-march-2019 See also INQUEST (2020) ‘BAME deaths in police custody’ (Online). https://www.inquest.org.uk/bame-deaths-in-police-custody

[65] HMICFRS. (2020). PEEL spotlight report: Diverging under pressure. At page 18. Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/peel-spotlight-report-diverging-under-pressure-2018-19-overview.pdf

[66] Id.ibid. at 18.

[67] See Skinner, D. (2013) “The NDNAD Has No Ability in Itself to be Discriminatory”: Ethnicity and the Governance of the UK National DNA Database’ in Sociology 47(5), pp. 976–992.

[68] See Williams, P. (2014) ‘The police, gangs and racism’, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (Online). https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/police-gangs-and-racism. See also Amnesty International (2020) Trapped in the Matrix: Secrecy, stigma and bias in the Met’s Gangs Database (Online). https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/reports/Trapped%20in%20the%20Matrix%20Amnesty%20report.pdf

[69] Williams, P. and Clarke B. (2016) ‘Dangerous associations: Joint enterprise, gangs and racism: An analysis of the processes of criminalization of Black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals’, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (Online).

[70] Bowling, Ben, and Janet Foster. "Policing and the police." The Oxford handbook of criminology 3 (2002): 980-1033.

[71] Independent Police Complaints Commission (2013), ‘Report on Metropolitan Police Service handling of complaints alleging race discrimination’ (London: IPCC). https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/research-learning/Report_on_Metropolitan_police_Service.pdf

[72] The Guardian (2015), ‘No racial discrimination complaints against Met police upheld’. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/12/no-racial-discrimination-complaints-upheld-met-police

See also data collected by London Against Police Violence here: https://londonagainstpoliceviolence.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/discrimination-complaints-mar14-feb15.pdf

[73] Murphy, P., Eckersley, P., & Ferry, L. (2017). Accountability and transparency: Police forces in England and Wales. Public policy and administration, 32(3), 197-213.

[74] Murphy, P., Eckersley, P., & Ferry, L. (2017). Accountability and transparency: Police forces in England and Wales. Public policy and administration, 32(3), 197-213.

[75] Murphy, P., Eckersley, P., & Ferry, L. (2017). Accountability and transparency: Police forces in England and Wales. Public policy and administration, 32(3), 197-213.

[76] Macpherson of Cluny, Sir William. (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by

Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. London: The Stationery Office, at para 46.32. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf

[77] Bowling, B. Iyer, S. and Solanke, I. (2015) Race, Law and the Police: Reflections on the Race Relations Act at 50. In N. El-Enany and E. Bruce-Jones (eds) Consent, Resistance and Justice: Race and Policing in England and Wales. London: Runnymede Trust.

[78] Central London County Court, Claim no 5CL107102. Settled through mediation, 5 April 2007.

[79] UKSC 79.

[80] Marks, E., 2016. Unjustified assumptions: The Supreme Court and Section 60. Stopwatch (Online). http://www.stop-watch.org/news-comment/story/unjustified-assumptions-the-supreme-court-and-section-60

[81] Alpa Parmar (2019) ‘Arresting (non)citizenship: The police migration nexus of nationality, race and criminalization’ in Theoretical Criminology, 24(16) pp. 1–22.

[82] Barbara Cohen (2019) ‘The Stephen Lawrence Report: 20 Years On’ (London: Runnymede Trust). https://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/StephenLawrence20briefing.pdf

[83] See Field, S. and Roberts, P. (2002) ‘Racism and police investigations: individual redress, public interests and collective change after the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000’ in Legal Studies, 22(4), pp. 493–526.

[84] Meer, N. (2017) ‘What will Happen to Race Equality Policy on the Brexit Archipelago? Multi-Level Governance, “Sunk Costs” and the “Mischief of Faction”’ in Journal of Social Policy, 46(4), pp. 657–674.

[85] Walker, P. (2019) ‘Police minister defends plans to extend stop-and-search’, The Guardian (Online). https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/aug/11/police-minister-rejects-claims-extending-stop-and-search-could-increase-tensions

[86] ‘Police body cameras “reduce the need to Taser”’, BBC, 27 March 2018 (Online). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-43541479

[87]‘Boris Johnson says BLM protests likely to 'end in deliberate and calculated violence' and warns culprits will be caught’, ÎTV, 12 June 2020 (Online). https://www.itv.com/news/2020-06-12/protective-shield-erected-around-cenotaph-and-winston-churchill-statue-ahead-of-protests-in-london/

[88] Magee T (2016) Met Police to store body camera data indefinitely in Microsoft cloud, Techworld,  December 1. Available at https://www.techworld.com/security/met-police-picks-microsoft-cloud-store-body-camera-video-evidence-indefinitely-3651105/ (accessed on 2 June 2018)

[89] BBC News (2014) Leicestershire Police trial facial recognition software. 15 July 2014. Available at https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-28307938

[90] Ben Bowling and Shruti Iyer, Automated policing: The case of body-worn video Bowling, B. & Iyer, S., 1 Jun 2019, In : International Journal of Law in Context.15, 2, p. 140-161 22 p.  

 

[91] Metropolitan Police Service(2017). ‘When will BWV be used?’, (Online). Available at: https://www.met.police.uk/bwv/whenused.html

[92] Big Brother Watch (2017) Smile, you’re on body worn camera, Part II – Police. London: Big Brother Watch. https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Smile-Youre-on-Body-Worn-Camera-Part-II-Police-II.pdf

[93] Dearden, L. (2020) ‘Police officer filmed repeatedly hitting black man in the head used ‘proportionate’ force, watchdog finds’, The Independent (Online). https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-attack-black-man-video-west-midlands-sandwell-assault-a9558506.html

[94] Association of Chief Police Officers (2010) Communication Advisory Group Guidance. London: ACPO