Sir Ronnie Flanagan's recent report on policing is sensible but could have shown more concern for the rights of suspects, argues Roger Smith

Sir Ronnie Flanagan has had a stellar career. He was the Royal Ulster Constabulary’s last Chief Constable and the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s first. Despite being head of the Northern Ireland force during its investigations into the Omagh bombing, an investigation for which he recently apologised on behalf of the force, he has risen to become Chief Inspector of Constabulary.

As with the man, so with his works – Sir Ronnie’s report on the future of policing is generally sensible. It is shrewdly aimed at over-intrusive politicians and over-bureaucratic managers, but his viewpoint betrays an occasional lack of consideration for the impact of changes on suspects.


The bulk of Sir Ronnie’s report is directed at the politicisation of policing policy, and the consequently political yardsticks by which the Home Office seeks to measure performance. There are now 140,000 police officers, a 10% rise over the past decade, while the overall police workforce has grown by a quarter. Sir Ronnie clearly thinks that now is the time to stop the phoney war on force numbers: ‘There has in the past been an unhelpful party political debate about police officer numbers, which has been taken as the sole measure of police success…’


Step up politicians such as Ken Livingstone: ‘The real problem that was inherited by the police force was the run-down of police numbers under policies supported by David Davis prior to 1997.’ David Davis, for his part, has showed no reluctance to get stuck into this debate, repeatedly stating that ‘Labour claims that police numbers are up’ – suggesting that there is some doubt about figures that are actually very clear.


But Sir Ronnie argues that it is time to debate what officers do rather than how many there are. He also values the contribution of non-police officers, such as the 14,000 Police Community Support Officers who show a considerably wider ethnic diversity than the main force.


Sir Ronnie’s main fire is reserved for the target culture that outrages most thinking police officers. He calls for a more ‘strategic “hands-off” approach’ from the Home Office. Performance management systems can be ‘overly rigid and fail to reflect local difference and can be overly bureaucratic to administer’, he says. He rails against performance indicators that ‘can become further unofficial targets’.


Sir Ronnie’s message is, essentially ‘set high-level goals and get off our backs’. The Home Office, Justice Ministry and the Attorney General’s department have been tyrannised by the need to reach the required figures of ‘offenders brought to justice’. This affects not just the police – it has a dramatic effect on the perception of criminal legal aid.


The purpose of lawyers is to ensure justice in the sense of a fair result to a prosecution. The government uses ‘justice’ to mean conviction or finding of guilt. As a result, cautions provide a hard-pressed police authority with a handy way of meeting Home Office targets. Their numbers have now increased to the extent that someone charged with a crime of violence is more likely to be cautioned than prosecuted.


Sir Ronnie wants less bureaucracy. His proposals for reducing the forms required to document ‘stop and account’ and ‘stop and search’ are sensible. He draws a distinction between the two, recommending minimal recording of ‘stop and account’ and less – but still some – recording for ‘stop and search’. In doing so, he draws a more sensitive balance than does David Davis. Mr Davis argues that there need be no written recording of ‘stop and search’. However, we know that ethnic minorities find ‘stop and search’ intrusive and aggravating. This goes all the way back to the ‘sus’ laws and beyond, when police could stop and search suspicious persons – who overwhelmingly happened to be black. By all means cut back on the form-filling, but Sir Ronnie creditably recognises the need for transparency on this issue.


Sir Ronnie is very much the policeman’s policeman. Thus he has a police officer’s view of the criminal justice system. For example, we now know that the supervision of telephone tapping and bugging appears to be just as loose in fact as it is in television series like ‘Spooks’.


So by all means let us have a further review – as he recommends – of its regulation. But, in the light of the carefree eavesdropping on solicitors and members of parliament that has now been revealed, we need stronger – not looser – rules about intrusive surveillance. Similarly, let us be a little cautious of substituting inconvenient and expensive court hearings with video conferences. A bail hearing is a judicial, not a bureaucratic, undertaking.


Sir Ronnie’s report requires some humility from politicians. But it also needs a bit more concern for the rights of suspects. If the politicians could reduce their hysteria about crime, we might get a better system. But don’t hold your breath.


Roger Smith is director of the law reform and human rights organisation Justice