Featured Content

Are you Border Force or Immigration Enforcement, and are you a Designated Immigration Officer with PACE powers?

Hello troops, long time no post!  I'm back with another scenario I've encountered on numerous occasions and interested to learn if there's any process for the following: I'm white, but work with many BAME officers - it's a massively diverse organisation, but one that has presented a very unique challenge for me.  Over my years in front-line policing (immigrationing?) I've had the displeasure of witnessing my BAME colleagues called horric names, such as "traitor," "coconut," "choc ice" and many more. It's clearly affected them (anger, tears, etc) and has made me very angry - I've had to stand back and bite my lip 😡 So, to my question / scenario... An officer on my team is called a name (as above) or has another racist term thrown at them (the offender is of any race). I witness this as an on-duty Immigration Officer, so therefore only have immigration powers + any person (S. 24A PACE, etc). - Is an offence committed?  - Is the offence summary, indictable or either way?  - If Indict. / EW offence, is it reasonable for an IO to arrest, convey and present at custody... or would police need to attend?  - Have people been nicked for this before (attacks on police) and have prosecutions been successful?    I realise in this day and age officers are expected to take abuse on the chin, but I'm tired of "one rule for LEOs and another for MOPs" - if I can support my colleagues by taking action against abusers then it'll make me feel a lot less useless in these horrible situations.    As always many thanks for your help guys 😊

    Police Officer recruitment is changing In line with the national Police guidance, all entry routes for new Police Officers requires them to complete a degree apprenticeship or post-graduate diploma in professional policing practice. Both of these new entry routes offer the opportunity to specialise in core policing roles, such as conducting investigations and community policing, in the final year of the programmes. There are two new entry routes into becoming a Police Officer.  Deciding which option is best for you depends on whether or not you already have a degree. If you already have a degree then you can apply for the Police Constable Graduate Entry Scheme.  See below for more information.    If you do not have a degree then you should consider the Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship.  See below for more information. Police Constable Graduate Entry Scheme This programme is aimed at existing degree holders, in any subject area. It takes two years to complete a work based programme, supported by classroom based learning, jointly provided by Leeds Trinity University and West Yorkshire Police at the Learning and Development Centre, Carr Gate, Wakefield.    On successful application you will be a police officer and will spend two years as a probationer. The starting salary will be £24,176. On completion of the programme you will have achieved a graduate diploma in Professional Policing Practice from Leeds Trinity University. To apply you will need to: Be 18 years old or over.  There is no upper age limit Have an Honours degree in any subject (or overseas equivalent) or a Master's degree Have no criminal convictions (minor offences will be considered on an individual basis) Meet our attendance standard Be able to pass the job related fitness test Comply with the Force tattoo policy Pass the police vetting checks What to do next? Study all the information on this website - watch the videos recorded by our police officers and new recruits.    Then get down to the detail in the advice within the "Selection Process" pages and the PEQF Frequently Asked Questions.   Many applicants ask about vetting so we have published some vetting Frequently Asked Questions along with a video on the "Vetting FAQs" page.   Best of all, talk to police officers about the job, the inevitable lows - to the tremendous highs. Policing can be an amazing challenge! Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship This route is for those people who do not already have a degree. The three year degree programme will be made up of classroom based and ‘on the job’ learning at Leeds Trinity University and West Yorkshire Police Learning and Development Centre, Carr Gate, Wakefield.    Apprentices will be paid while they learn and the minimum starting salary will be £20,879.  On completion of the programme, you will have achieved a degree in Professional Policing Practice from Leeds Trinity University. To apply you will need to: Be 18 years old or over.  There is no upper age limit Have a Level 2 Qualification (or equivalent ie GCSE grade C or level 4 or above) Have a Level 3 Qualification (Equivalent to A level) or experience as a Special Constable or PCSO Have no criminal convictions (minor offences will be considered on an individual basis) Meet our attendance standard Be able to pass the job related fitness test Comply with the Force tattoo policy Pass the police vetting checks What to do next? Study all the information on this website - watch the videos recorded by our police officers and new recruits.    Then get down to the detail in the advice within the "Selection Process" pages and the PEQF Frequently Asked Questions.   Many applicants ask about vetting so we have published some vetting Frequently Asked Questions along with a video on the "Vetting FAQs" page.   Best of all, talk to police officers about the job, the inevitable lows - to the tremendous highs. Policing can be an amazing challenge!  

Looking at the mess the country is in and speaking with people in the retail trade and they say the shortages will be with us for some time, as the majority of people are not able to buy the basics, some are those in other quarters who are predicting that food shortages are going to be a catalyst for rioting, I have to say I agree as there is a really ugly and selfish mood out there at the moment. You only have to look at supermarkets which opened only for elderly or vulnerable people this morning but were rushed by people who didn't qualify who stripped the shelves of essentials within minutes! Time for action and not dithering from the government?

I've always thought that washing hands after going to the toilet for both no. ones and no. twos was a good idea and nowadays even more so. I have therefore been surprised twice recently when I've been in the toilet at work when one of my male colleagues had a poo and then left without washing his hands!  The same thing happened after another officer had a wee!  These are probably the same muppets  who have been stripping supermarket shelves of loo paper whilst opening chiding other people for doing the same thing.  I thought I worked with intelligent people who I'm beginning to doubt that assessment.  

A nice piece.   As I read it, it also highlights why those non-police clients, when interviewed under pace decline to comment.  Perhaps this might help some to appreciate why a comment interview is forthcoming.   I see it especially relevant to understanding the allegation that is being made and any disclosure that may be forthcoming / held back.   
 

The response to an invitation to attend an interview is likely to have significant implications for any later proceedings, our team of specialist barristers warn. Date - 3rd March 2020 By - Ben Summers When officers are under investigation and are asked to attend for interview, either by professional standards or the IOPC, they might be forgiven for thinking: “I haven't done anything wrong, so why wouldn't I answer questions?”.  However, that response may be looking at the issue from the wrong-end of the telescope.  The better response may be: “I haven't done anything wrong, so why would I answer questions?”. The officer’s dilemma An interview often provides the first opportunity for an officer to give an exculpatory account; as such, it is important to get that account right if investigators are to be persuaded that their suspicions are ill-founded.  On the other hand, interviews are also a rich source for those constructing a case against an officer: the account given may not fit with other evidence, it may conflict with other accounts given by the officer, or simply not make objective sense. It follows that the decision as to how to respond to an invitation to attend an interview is likely to have significant implications for the investigation and any later proceedings. Officers are generally faced with a three-fold choice: (1) to answer all questions asked, (2) to give a prepared statement but otherwise answer to questions, or (3) to answer no questions at all (or where attendance is voluntary, to choose not to attend).  Answering some questions but not answering others is the worst of all combinations. Although it is very easy to look back at decision making around an interview many months or years later, and a judgement made as to the quality of the decision, but it is (obviously) very difficult to know which of the three options is right at the time.  Often this is because the detail of the allegation, and the defence's understanding of it, changes over time.  What seems at an early stage to be the main theme of the allegation may fall away as further evidence is gathered on both, or a minor aspect may take on increased significance over the lifetime of the case. More importantly, officers under investigation (who are already under a significant degree of stress) who are doing their best to recollect events will, in the majority of cases, give accounts which they believe to be true and accurate.  However, experience shows that such honest accounts can often turn out not to be accurate.  Not only are perception and memory both fragile, by the time of interview officers' recollections will often have been influenced by intervening events such as reading the papers to prepare the case. Any inaccuracies in interview will likely be viewed by investigators and later presented by 'prosecutors' either as a 'web of lies', or the truth which is now being abandoned, depending upon which version better suits their case theory. Additionally, experience suggests that whenever an account is given (whether by a witness or by the subject of an investigation) it will be given in a slightly different ways: the sequence of events may change slightly, matters may be omitted or recalled differently, or language may change.  Again, any such variations may be used by investigators and prosecutors as examples of a 'shifting' account.  For that reason it is, as a rule of thumb, always better to limit the number of accounts an officer gives. Experience suggests that in considering how to respond to an interview, the guiding principle should always be: what is it necessary to say at this stage?  If it is clear that the investigation will inevitably result in proceedings, the balance to be struck is between saying enough to avoid any inference from silence as against providing material that assists investigators / prosecutors.  Representations (i.e. arguments to the effect that proceedings are not necessary, as opposed to the account which only the officer can give) are better left to legal representatives to make by way of correspondence, rather than the officer in interview. Avoiding inferences Inferences from silence can arise in both the criminal and disciplinary context. In criminal proceedings, as officers will know, section 34 of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1992 allows a tribunal of fact (magistrates or a jury) to draw a ‘proper’ inference/s from a failure by an interviewee to mention when questioned a fact relied on his / her defence.  Such ‘proper’ inferences include the fabrication of the defence or facts in response to disclosure of the case (i.e. fitting the account to the facts), seeking to avoid the facts being tested / investigated, or avoiding self-incrimination.  The common theme, is that all such inferences act to support the case against the accused, but cannot without other evidence form the basis for a finding of guilt. In misconduct proceedings, under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (and their predecessors) Regulation 41(12) allows ‘proper inferences’ to be drawn if there is evidence that the officer failed to mention any fact relied on his/her case at the misconduct proceedings, being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time, s/he could reasonably have been expected to mention when questioned by investigators or submitting a response to the allegations.  It should be noted that the drawing of a ‘proper’ inference/s is not dependent upon the officer giving evidence: the inference can be triggered by anything ‘relied upon in the officers defence’ which appears to cover not only what is in the Regulation 31 response (the old Regulation 22), but propositions put to witnesses, submissions made to the Panel or another defence assertions. A prepared statement may avoid such inferences provided it sets out the facts which are later relied upon; there is no inference simply from not answering questions.  The obvious difficulty is mentioning facts at this early stage which are subsequently relied upon or asserting matters of fact which are then different in evidence. Misconduct versus criminal interviews Officers may be subject to simultaneous criminal and disciplinary allegations; sometimes they can be separate, but often the latter allegations arise from the conduct which is the subject of the criminal allegations.  In these circumstances the officer is likely to be interviewed under both regimes.  Such interviews should be conducted separately, with the (more serious) criminal allegations being the subject of the first interview.  The officer may then be invited in a separate second disciplinary interview to adopt the answers given in the criminal interview of the purposes of disciplinary proceedings. The general rule is that a misconduct interview cannot be used in criminal proceedings: the protections which apply in criminal proceedings do not apply in the misconduct setting and therefore a misconduct interview will be inadmissible in the same way that answers to other non-PACE questioning is inadmissible.  In the other direction, there is no statutory or regulatory bar to a criminal interview being used in the disciplinary context, hence the invitation for an officer to adopt earlier answers. The problem however is that whilst criminal and misconduct allegations may be based on the same conduct and/or events, the issues in each are often entirely different.  Facts and matters that may be relevant to alleged breaches of the standards of professional behaviour, may be wholly irrelevant to the issue of criminal liability and vice versa.  It is impossible to identify all categories of matters which are relevant for discipline and irrelevant for criminal proceedings, but matters going to broader discipline allegations might include training, local / working practices, resourcing levels, and non-policing interactions between colleagues. The result is that those advising officers need to be careful to ensure that the relief of having got through a criminal interview does not cloud thinking about matters that might need to be raised in the context of the standards of professional behaviour.  Equally, a strategy which makes sense for one set of proceedings may not work in the other, and therefore different approaches to the two jurisdictions may be necessary. Duty to cooperate Advisers should also be aware that the new Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (in force from 1 February) amend the definition of the professional standard of ‘Duties & Responsibilities’ to include a duty to cooperate with investigations in the following terms: “Police officers have a responsibility to give appropriate cooperation during investigations, inquiries and formal proceedings, participating openly and professionally in line with the expectations of a police officer when identified as a witness”. However, the updated Home Office Guidance ‘Conduct, Efficiency and Effectiveness’ (published 5 February 2020) states that ‘a clear caveat must be placed on the duty that it applies specifically to where the officer’s status is that of witness and does not apply in the same manner where the status of the officer is that of subject to investigation and where the right to remain silent must be upheld.’ (at §2.25 emphasis added).  The College of Policing ‘Code of Ethics’ has yet to be updated to reflect the new duty. Conclusion The take away from the above is that interviews are difficult to navigate and there are competing (and sometimes, conflicting) considerations.  As so often with investigations: always take legal advice! Ben Summers 3 Raymond Buildings is recognised as the leading specialist set of barristers nationally in representing police officers in misconduct, criminal and inquest proceedings, and police forces and officers in associated judicial reviews and public inquiries. Further details are at 3rblaw.com. Any opinions expressed in articles in The Brief are those of the individual author. View On Police Oracle

I don't want to sound like an old relic, but I can't believe how poorly so many cops handle arrests these days. 

In my time with a force that uses BWV, I have seen some of the most shocking displays from officers when carrying out arrests. No patience,  no tolerance threshold, no attempts to appeal or calm someone down or attempt to get them to co-operate. Instead I see cops barging in like bulls in china shop and actually be the aggressors, often deploying PAVA and strikes on someone for simply offering passive resistance.

Surely I can't be the only one that feels a great degree of pride for managing to bring in a suspect with VAP markers single-crewed, with all smiles and chatting away as if we are the best of pals. I have actually had people, twice my size, be aggressive towards me and make me reach for my baton or PAVA, but I have still managed to calm them down and in the end, even apologise to me for their behaviour.

Now all I see is bullies in a uniform that will use the excuse of power to use force to put someone in a headlock and throw them to the ground, whilst handcuffed, simply for refusing to walk... I'm sorry, but I find that utterly disgusting. These people have no business being cops and all they do is make the public hate and distrust us even more, leading to decent cops being at a greater risk of being assaulted.

I have raised my concerns with my supervision each time I have had to prepare a case file and witnessed these on BWV and every time I get the same response  along the lines of "it does seem excessive, but if the suspect complains, it's for the arresting cop to justify at court, we won't challenge their perception of the situation or discipline them"...

Hey guys, just wondering about the above question.

When I started my career in 2014 with Police Scotland and up until 2018 when I transferred to an English force (that shall remain un-named), it was up to us, the cops, Just this week...

A senior Metropolitan Police officer charged over possession of child abuse image.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/20/female-scotland-yard-officer-charged-over-child-abuse-image

There seems to be a lot of these stories coming out at the moment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49459332 A top police chief has urged the most senior officers in England, Scotland and Wales to come together to find ways to make frontline policing safer. Martin Hewitt, the chair of the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC), called an urgent meeting for all chief constables to discuss officer safety. "If we can't protect our people, how can we protect the public?" he said. It comes after recent violent attacks on officers and the death of PC Andrew Harper while investigating a burglary. The summit, which will be held in early September, will be the first time the chief constables have ever come together outside of their usual quarterly meetings. The top officers will share lessons from the recent attacks on their frontline officers as part of a discussion "to see if there is anything more we can do to tangibly improve their safety", Mr Hewitt said. The Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, has also been asked to give its input. Image copyrightPA MEDIA Image captionAll frontline officers in one force have been offered Tasers after violence against emergency services Although Mr Hewitt said it was important not to have "knee-jerk" reactions to events, he added: "The recent brutal attacks on officers and the tragic death of PC Andrew Harper remind us all that, even with the right training and equipment, police officers can be vulnerable to the most violent aggressors." "Levels of violence are an increasing concern across the country and attacks on our officers have gone up," he said in a statement. "It is the responsibility of each chief constable to do all they can to keep their officers as safe as possible," he added. Should all frontline police officers use Tasers? Police force to arm all officers with Tasers Man charged with murder of newlywed PC Harper Earlier this week, Northamptonshire Police announced it would be the first force in the country to arm all of its frontline officers with Tasers. Days later it was joined by a second force, Durham Constabulary, which said every frontline officer who wanted one would undergo training to use the stun guns. Some studies have linked the increased use or presence of Tasers with an increase in hostility between police and the public. Ch Con Giles York - vice chair of the NPCC - told BBC Breakfast: "There is always a balance to be struck around how we equip our officers and still maintain that British piece of policing that is policing by consent." Earlier this month, a police officer was stabbed in Leyton, east London, and two officers in Merseyside were attacked in separate incidents. Could we finally see some common sense and an actually discussion on equipping police properly?! 

Work With Offenders looks behind the decline in prosecutions with only three out of every 200 accused ending up in court.



 



 

West Midlands to teach frontline response to life-threatening incidents.

Survey comes out in favour of cap that fits the 'safer, practical and comfortable' approach for wearers.

Passing out parade: Officers will still wear helmets for ceremonial duties 

Tried to search the forum high and low and we appear to have officers in all areas but I can't find anything that suggests we have any dog handlers?


 

Campaign groups call for reform of 'digital strip searches' amid claims policy is unlawful.

 

Colleagues,

I have about 12 months service as a Constable with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. In the PSNI, when you pass out from the training college, everyone is sent to response. No one likes being in response for reasons why I will go on to outline in a moment. The coveted roles, available only to Con's outside of probation are the Neighbourhood teams, road policing teams, various crime/pro active teams, investigative departments, Firearms etc.

One of the most stressful things about working response is the investigation of the crimes you pick up, all the way to court. I don't know what your experience in response has been like, but I go from emergency call to emergency call. In between times, I am supposed to conduct my enquires, process them at custody interview suspects, prepare the file for the public prosecution service and go to court. This is what I signed up too. It's been very stressful however I thought that was the only way to do things. 

I've had the benefit of working alongside Con's who where formerly attached to Merseyside and the Met. They've advised me that in their previous forces, they arrested suspects, wrote up a statement and notebook entry then passed the investigation on to dedicated case progression/investigative teams to follow up. I couldn't believe this. It makes so much sense. Rather than a half baked investigation from a Constable who his running pillar to post they have a team of people 9-5 dedicated to investigative follow ups.

In short, I'm wondering is this standard throughout GB police forces? Do you carry out your own investigations from start to finish or what mechanisms do you have in your force to complete investigations?

A Met Police officer has admitted buying buying pornography at the family home of a dead child while he waited for the undertaker to turn up - and charging it to the grieving relatives.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7262107/Police-officer-admits-buying-PORNOGRAPHY-waiting-undertakers-home-dead-child.html

PM to use final leadership days to give public sector £2bn pay rise.

Following arrest, officer said: I am not like one those people who touch children. They make me sick.

Campaigners demand 'more cops in cars' as numbers drop by more than a quarter.

PC sentenced to 28 months for misconduct in public office offences.

Sentenced: Merseyside PC Ben Murphy

Date - 16th July 2019
By - Nick Hudson - Police Oracle

4 Comments





 

An officer who handed out his own softer version of justice to speeding female offenders found the courts showed no leniency in his sentencing yesterday.

PC Ben Murphy was jailed for 28 months after admitting 10 offences of misconduct in public office and one of sending an inappropriate message.

The charges related to allegations the roads policing officer stopped cars exceeding the speed limit and then issued tickets for lesser offences, getting in touch with female suspects afterwards.

The constable, who resigned from the Merseyside force in May, was officially dismissed at a fast-track hearing held in Liverpool at the beginning of this month for breaches of the standards of professional behaviour connected to his criminal conviction.

Merseyside Chief Superintendent Peter Costello said: "It is vital that we as a police force maintain the public’s trust and confidence and ensure that officers and staff throughout the force realise the importance of maintaining standards and working with honesty and integrity.

"We cannot afford to have officers and staff working for us who do not uphold the highest levels of professionalism, honesty and integrity and will always be robust in dealing with officers, or staff, whose conduct is unacceptable.

"The majority of people who work for Merseyside Police do a really good job day in, day out, and joined the force to serve our communities with compassion and integrity.

“Sadly the actions of Ben Murphy have the propensity to seriously undermine the good work of the majority.

"The public quite rightly have high expectations of police officers and we are committed to meeting those expectations by demanding high standards of professionalism, honesty and integrity.

View On Police Oracle

Forces to 'work together' with bodies mirroring police trailblazers in Scotland and London.

The government have issued a statement on the judgment of the public service pension issue;

The government is committed to providing public service pensions that are fair for public sector workers and for taxpayers. This is why we brought forward reforms in 2015, based on the recommendations of the Hutton report, to ensure that these pensions are sustainable in the future.

The courts have considered cases regarding the implementation of the 2015 reforms. On 27 June 2019 the Supreme Court denied the government permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment that transitional provisions introduced to the reformed judges and firefighters pension schemes in 2015 gave rise to unlawful age discrimination. The government respects the Court’s decision and will engage fully with the Employment Tribunal to agree how the discrimination will be remedied.

The ruling relates to the ‘transitional protection’ offered to some members when the reformed schemes were introduced. In order to ensure people close to retirement age were treated fairly, the government agreed to ‘transitional protection’, which broadly permitted those members who were closest to retirement at the time new pension schemes were introduced to remain members of their respective old schemes. The court has found that those too far away from retirement age to qualify for ‘transitional protection’ have been unfairly discriminated against. As ‘transitional protection’ was offered to members of all the main ...

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2019-07-15/HCWS1725/

 

PC faces career end after being found guilty of perverting the course of justice.