Criminal Justice System: why the constant public angst?

Our CJS Angst?

There is a mass of misunderstanding about the workings of our Criminal Justice System (CJS), a confusion often fuelled by the emotive headlines produced by an often mischievous media machine. This generally results in those who work within that sector being, almost constantly, berated by a dissatisfied public. But is all this vilification actually warranted?

In the main, the majority of those who work at the coal-face of the public sector are there to provide you and I with a service. People like police officers, fire fighters, paramedics and nurses et al, even teachers generally all do what they do because they want to build a better society. Yes they get paid for what they do, many a lot less than they used to, thanks to this govt but in short, the majority take pride in providing a service to others and most are simply trying to make a difference.

It’s strange that we rarely (but rightly) see any verbal condemnation of those who volunteer to do similar work, such as the RNLI Lifeboat crews or our Mountain Rescue teams. The only major difference is the remuneration aspect so does that mean, we expect as a society that, no one should get paid for helping others? Perhaps that thought process is behind many of the politically motivated austerity measures of recent years i.e. public sector cuts are ok because we can fill the void left by them with volunteers. Perhaps politicians should carry out their role on a similar basis?

In general, the public tend to be mostly supportive of the work actually carried out by most of those mentioned above (excepting the politicians I would suspect). They understand the roles performed by each of them however; what they have difficulty getting their heads around is, how come performance so rarely matches expectation these days?

Any failure to meet (or exceed) public expectation, be it justifiable or otherwise, simply results in the tax payers standard retort - ”I pay your bloody wages!” Commenting upon the recent news that MP’s are to get an increase in money to pay their staff one respondent wrote…

“We’re all in this together.” Are we? Absolute hogwash. What is the collective name for a group of self-serving, money-grabbing, self-centred morons? I don’t know, but “A British Parliament” springs to mind. Another appalling decision by a group of people who have no idea what it is like in the real world.

In general, the disparity between performance and public expectation actually results from management failures within the sector. That and/or the political agenda being applied by those (often self-interested) individuals employed to manage these agencies on our behalf. The direction and administration of the organisations serving us is the problem, rarely the actual quality of work carried out by the practitioners.

Writing a guest blog for No Offence! Tessa Webb, Director Probation Chiefs Association, penned a brilliantly simple piece which goes someway towards explaining the issue. She equated our public sector to her car…

I just want it to work and if it doesn’t, I want the professional to ‘sort it out’ but I have little interest in what needs to be done, other than I hope it will not cost too much or take too long. A mechanic may wish to share with great pride their handiwork, but the reality is that I am only likely to get animated if it fails to work, after they have told me that they have fixed it, or I think it costs too much. But just think where would we all be if there were no car mechanics? Some jobs are simply essential and it is good to know there are people who will do them with skill and passion. Isn’t this the business that a ‘Big Society’ should recognise and engage with? As when it is effective everyone wins…(Tessa Webb)

There is no doubt that Tessa’s analogy was written from her own field of expertise within the sector however; similar can also be said in support of many public sector agencies, not least our police and the courts.

Despite so many of our public services currently being reduced at alarming levels, as a result of government austerity measures, the general condemnation continues, but why is this? Once again our media need to shoulder much of the blame, they the politicians and senior organisational leadership. All for whom it serves well to detract from the real issues involved here; self-protecting and self-motivated actions designed for self-protection. The actual concept of true public service rarely features in the overall scheme of things.

Because of this, I found it somewhat disconcerting to read the views of that well-known, but often controversial and predominantly left of centre,  journalist and TV presenter Janet Street-Porter. Writing in The Independent this week she said; The police must shape up, knuckle down, and change. Her article started by saying “the police service is stuck back in the days of Dixon of Dock Green!”  Janet went on to deride the police in general but in particular, she condemned the views of Paul McKeever, the chairman of the Police Federation.

Wouldn’t you think that a staff association, representing those who deliver the services that our communities are crying out for, must be in a better position to know what the public actually want? After all, they are the ones interacting with those people on a daily basis.

But again, Janet, like the rest of us, is being hood-winked and taken for a fool by our political masters; not hard when you take into account the ‘broken car’ analogy is it? Many of the current police reforms, already implemented and proposed for the future, have very little to do with delivering better policing services. They are more about placating public concerns and fears around the reduced levels of service we are already experiencing. A situation that is only set to worsen, despite all the “doing more with less” rhetoric.

What we’re suffering from now is actually the product of a myriad of previous failings, as opposed to any massive changes in role requirements per se. Yes there are some aspects of policing now that differ from those of twenty plus years ago however; the fundamentals of policing, the services that our communities probably need (arguably) more now than ever before, are broadly similar. Most of the current reforms are simply born out of the self-interest of senior police leaders and politicians; people who all have deep-seated and vested interest in disguising years of self-serving management failure.

Perhaps a good way of examining the whole issue, given that we’re looking at the legal world, would be from a more legal perspective? Within our civil law, attributing guilt is usually based upon ‘the balance of probability’ (onus probandi) however, some might even suggest that a ’beyond reasonable doubt’ burden of proof, as within our criminal law, would be even more appropriate.

To prove that someone was guilty of a crime, it must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) a prohibited act (actus reus) has taken place, (2) the intention or mental state (mens rea) of the ‘offender’ and (3) there was no legal excuse for committing the crime.

The choice of which definition you actually chose, when apportioning guilt to those responsible for the demise of our police (and other public services) is up to you.

Who the guilty party is in all this is debatable, be it the media, police senior leadership, our politicians, or indeed the Police Federation. But, despite all the mitigating circumstances being offered by the defence counsel for ACPO and the Government, someone IS guilty of what can only be described as; the criminal damage of  a once internationally respected system.

To my mind it’s not the rank and file police officers (or even their staff association) that are at fault or to blame. But, as a result of all the PR smokescreens and political spin constantly in play, only our society can be the ultimate judge!

Note: No Offence! is a Community Interest Company, not-for-profit, headed up by a Senior Management Team and Volunteers all with significant sector experience and specialisms. The organisation is focused on reducing waste and isolation in the Criminal Justice System within the Public Sector. It seeks to do this through facilitating and encouraging collaboration. There are currently more than 1500 members of No Offence! forum and that number is growing at a pace.

With Freedom Comes Responsibility…

Image via Wikipedia

As I gingerly type the first few words of this post, not confidently knowing where they will take me, I feel as if I may have bitten off a little more than I can comfortably chew. However, not being one to shirk a responsibility to protect the rights of others, or indeed my own rights; with a modicum of trepidation, I will endeavour to tread a path across the legal minefield of human rights, freedom of speech, and the right to anonymity – if there actually is one?

Recently via Twitter, I have become aware of Sophie Khan, a person who in her words is; “a solicitor-advocate specialising in Actions Against the Police at GT Stewart.” I have since found that Ms Khan is a regular contributor to TV, Radio and press media debate on legal issues, especially those involving ’alleged’ wrong-doing or abuse of power by the police. She also writes in The Guardian as well as maintaining her own personal blogs (see here).

Commenting in The Guardian last year (8th April 2011) on The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill she suggested it would “end accountability” of the police saying; “Without a dedicated regulatory body, the chance of transparent adjudication into complaints against the police will be lost.” She started with the following sentence…

Thankfully, last month’s anti-cuts march in central London did not lead to the kind of police brutality witnessed during earlier demonstrations…(guardian.co.uk)

More recently, the self-styled ‘Activist’ has been offering up her brand of legal and sociopolitical opinion, in a myriad of media outlets, this time on the police adoption and use of Taser. Again in The Guardian, Patrick Barkham wrote a piece entitled; If officers have a new toy, they like using it which went on to question their use by saying - “Tasers are part of the modern police’s arsenal. But how safe are they and why are the guidelines for their use so vague?”

Although the article was (in my opinion) relatively balanced, up pops Ms Khan again commenting upon Home Office approved ACPO guidance on the police use of Taser. The report says she is “representing a growing number of victims of Taser use” – could this have something to do with her opinion?

“There’s a loophole that has to be closed. It’s not rocket science to know that you should not Taser someone having an epileptic seizure, but this kind of common sense is missing from police guidance” (Sophie Khan)

If you have read this far, thankyou but I’m sure you’re wondering what point I wish to make. Before I start, I neither condone nor support any police officer who operates outside of the law or, uses excessive force when dealing with any suspected offender. I also believe our police service must be accountable in a transparent manner and, every police officer should be able to justify their actions and were necessary, in a court of law. And now onto my observations and reasons for this post.

Now I don’t know Ms Khan personally and if I did, I feel I would probably find her objectionable. I appreciate this is my opinion and one possibly not shared by others, indeed, I would be more than happy to be pleasantly surprised. However, after observing her interaction with others on Twitter over recent weeks, it’s probably wise that I don’t hold my breath in anticipation.

Ms Khan appears to have a tendency towards goading police officers (and those connected to the service), via social media, her blogs and mainstream media. For whatever reason, but probably to further her own agenda (and career), she seems to assume that all police officers are racists, all police officers are bullies and all police officers make a regular habit of abusing their authority and/or using excessive force. Not so! Just as it would be an incorrect assumption for me to say all defence solicitors are crooked and only do their job for the money, some may but the majority don’t.

Her almost constant anti-establishment and anti-police rhetoric may serve her well for attracting new clients however; it also has a negative impact upon our society and the concept of policing by consent. It borders upon encouraging civil disobedience and causes members of our society to kick against law and order. They believe they can do what they will because, Ms Khan and her like will save them from conviction of any ‘alledged’ offence.

It’s very similar to the methods employed by some elements of our media. Supposition of guilt, embroidery of fact with opinion, assumptions of wrong doing without evidence and emotive headlines with tenuous policing links, or accusations that we’re living in a ‘police state’, all serve to undermine the public’s support for, or trust in their police force.

I’m sure Ms Khan would counter my opinion and say, she is simply protecting the public, she is searching for greater accountability within the police service and/or, her raison d’être is solely to bring those to justice who do wrong. All well and good if that is her sole aim, I want the same thing however; is it right that her clients are presumed innocent until ‘proven’ guilty, yet she and others like her, constantly seek to reverse that rule of justice for police officers? Is it right that she should use the emotive words and phrases she does, subsequently attempting to hide from (or ignore) the resulting answers after lighting the blue touch-paper? I think not.

Now on to the subject of anonymity…

Ms Khan blogs for the Solicitors Journal and in her section of the site ‘On The Beat’ sub-titled ‘Sophie Khan talks law and disorder’ – she recently posted an item entitled; ‘Pushing the boundaries of freedom of expression.’

The question of whether we have a right to anonymity has once again been brought to the forefront of debates not just in the context of the protesting where many protestors, including the ‘Occupy’ movement, have been seen wearing the ‘V for Vendetta’ mask, but also in the forum of blogs and twitter accounts written by serving police officers…(Solicitors Journal – On the beat)

In summary of her post Ms Khan says; “I find it ironic that police officers have taken a lead in promoting the concept of anonymity and are reluctant to give up their right, when they are the first ones to ‘unmask the anonymous’ and lobby the government for more powers to deny others the same right.”

Firstly, any police desire to ‘unmask the anonymous’ often relates to those who are committing crime and obviously, seek to protect and hide their identity to escape punishment. E.g. rioting looters with face masks and hoodies etc. If someone smashed her car windows and stole her belongings but had their face covered whilst doing so, would she be as happy to challenge that call? Would she be happy if the police arrested a suspect, but were unable to identify him/her, simply because their face was concealed and not visible to the CCTV camera. The one she parked under in an attempt to gain additional security for her parked vehicle. I think not, unless of course she was that persons defence council and it was someone elses car.

Secondly, the anonymous police Bloggers and Tweeps she believes should be ‘unmasked’ are often trying to do the very same thing she purports to do i.e. expose failings within the police service. What better source of ‘evidence’ than one inside the organisation? The only problem is, unlike Ms Khan, they are more likely to suffer financial loss for their ‘openness’ and ‘honesty’ when sacked for some trumped-up discipline charge by an embarrased chief officer.

Oh that we could all be afforded the luxury of total openness, honesty and freedom of expression or opinion, without fear of judgement or retribution. We all have opinions and some are more able to express them than others. Mostly we are actually free to do so however; with that freedom also comes responsibility, to others and to our society in general. Please be careful how you use it.

Related articles

• You: Tasers: ‘If officers have a new toy, they like using it’ (guardian.co.uk)
• Leading article: Questionable use of Tasers (independent.co.uk)
• Ex-chief’s fears over Taser burns (bbc.co.uk)
• Amnesty criticises Met police’s Taser expansion plans (guardian.co.uk)