Roy Bailey: The Сrisis in Policing:

Policing faces an unprecedented crisis. It is important for policy makers to understand fully why we have witnessed such a collapse in public confidence for an organisation that has traditionally enjoyed wide support. The significance of policing in Liberal Democracies like ours cannot be overstated. The ‘thin blue line’, as police officers like to see themselves, is a bulwark against anarchy and lawlessness. Good and effective policing is integral to the health and well-being of our communities. As a local councillor, most of the complaints I receive require the attention of the police. They are key partners in community problem solving. Sadly, those essential relationships between the police and their neighbourhoods have been eroded over the last 14 years, firstly by austerity cuts and then further by the dislocation caused by the Covid pandemic. Another factor has been largely driven by ideology and that is the debate about what are the police supposed to be doing. Are they simply ‘crime-fighters’, or is their role necessarily much wider than that, to include arguably non-police tasks, which help to generate public confidence? This will be covered later in this presentation.

I will first discuss the key challenges that have combined to create this dramatic drop in public confidence, together with a brief analysis of these issues and why they are important. To start, I will give a brief outline of recent reports highlighting cases of egregious police conduct and corrosive operational culture. 

That will be followed by an exploration of how the police are in danger of losing the trust, legitimacy and authority they need to regain and sustain public confidence. 

Next, will be an evaluation of the extent and impact of operational culture on policing delivery, including the repeated and damaging charges of institutional racism, misogyny and bigotry. This will also include a discussion about the impact of politics and populism. 

Following, will be a brief assessment of the current governance model and the extent to which politics interferes with operational policing and decision making. 

In the next session, I will return to the role of policing and why it is essential to have a clear working definition. Without those agreed guidelines, it is impossible to determine the correct background, experiences, qualifications, skills and attitude needed by aspiring candidates. This has implications for ‘professionalising’ the police. 

The final part of my presentation will be the case for a Royal Commission on Policing. For too long, the response to crises has been superficial and ineffectual. Ambulatory measures, or band aid, will no longer suffice. They simply perpetuate the problems and reinforce cynicism. We are past that. The only way to address the challenge is to undertake a robust and rigorous investigation into policing and its governance.

Reports highlighting egregious police behaviour

Recent events have shone a light on the toxic culture in operational policing. This was brought into sharp focus by Baroness Casey’s report on culture and standards of behaviour in the Metropolitan Police. Most alarming was her finding that the Met was institutionally racist. 

As if that were not warning enough, the HMICFRS report on misogyny, misconduct and vetting, painted a very sombre picture of British policing. Ruth Davison, the Chief Executive of Refuge, said this: 

“This report, which highlights a systemic culture of misogyny, sexism, and predatory behaviour towards women in policing in many forces, presents an overview of abhorrent behaviours and practices running deep within the police force across the county. Behaviours which are directly contributing to the lack of trust that women have in the police, which makes them less likely to report crimes committed against them and puts their lives at risk.

It is unconscionable for politicians, police leaders and police forces to do anything other than take radical action to overhaul the police recruitment and complaints processes and instruct root and branch reform. The police are supposed to be the first line of defence for women and girls, yet wholly inadequate practices are allowing the wrong people to join, and stay in, the force, and turning a blind eye when these officers commit crimes, or display behaviours which should have no place in the force.

Minoritised men and women have warned for decades that the police are institutionally racist, and now we know that they are also allowing a culture of violent misogyny to go unchecked and largely unpunished. Officers with misconduct allegations are able to rotate between forces and serious incidents are falling through cracks in the system.  

The time for words and commitments to review is over. Only radical reform and a zero-tolerance policy will go anyway to restoring trust in the police”

Even more disturbing, was the rape and murder of Sarah Everard by serving Met officer, Wayne Couzens. 

Wayne Couzens should never have been a police officer and three separate forces “could and should have” stopped him, a damning report by Lady Elish Angiolini has found. The 51-year-old former firearms officer’s history of alleged sexual offending and predilection for violent and extreme pornography dated back to 1995. Couzens allegedly sexually assaulted a child and attempted to kidnap a woman at knife-point in the years before he abducted, raped and murdered Sarah Everard on 3 March 2021.

Although shocking, none of the revelations in these reports comes as a surprise, as there have been many such claims over the years, including those in the 1981 Scarman Report, which highlighted the burning mistrust of the police by many of the black community in Brixton.

Taken together, these reports explain why public confidence in policing is eroding and why there is a powerful case for radical reform.

Rick Muir from the Police Foundation asserts, like many other authoritative commentators, that these reports expose the existence of a toxic culture in parts of policing. A significant minority of officers have been engaging in racist, misogynistic, or homophobic behaviour that has not been ‘called out’ by the majority. 

As Muir correctly identifies, vetting procedures are woefully inadequate to prevent wholly inappropriate and unsuitable candidates from being appointed. Clearly a major overhaul is urgently required.

Muir makes a powerful argument for change. There should be zero tolerance of racism, misogyny, homophobia and any other kind of prejudice in policing. The challenge now is do we bring about that change? Piecemeal or ambulatory measures will never of themselves be sufficient. The problem is far more urgent and serious for that to work. 

Trust, legitimacy and authority

It seems axiomatic to say that good policing is founded on trust, legitimacy and authority and that, without it, there can be no true public consent. While the notion of policing by consent may appear to be a central tenet to the British approach, recent evidence suggests otherwise, particularly in respect of the policing of minority groups, whose relationships with the police have been at best strained and at worst hostile. These tensions have been inflamed where those communities feel there has been racial bias and police misconduct. 

The introduction of community policing was an attempt to bolster the public image and legitimacy of the police. But it has not always enjoyed the success it was designed for, principally because it was undermined by the introduction of ‘crime fighting’ targets in the 1990s and a more ‘managerialist’, and populist, approach to policing, from both Labour and Conservative governments. There has, though, been a growing acknowledgement that good policing can only be realised where the police have been given popular legitimacy by the communities they police. Procedural justice theories provide a significant development for policing in that they are a route to build legitimacy.

Hough suggests that for the police to be more effective in their crime fighting role, they must first build trust with those they police, which is a prerequisite to establish their legitimacy. 

Procedural justice theory is an integral part of the wider body of theories of policing. In respect of policing, Hough argues that procedural justice theory provides one explanation of the processes by which police and other law enforcement agencies can secure both compliance and acceptance of the law, without having to resort to coercive force. It is a social-psychological theory about legitimacy, which offers real and practical benefits to the police.

Hough explores some basic ideas around police legitimacy, as seen through the eyes of those being policed. Policing styles have a significant bearing on building legitimacy. He suggests that procedural fairness is the best route for success is for the police. The more dignity and respect shown by the police, the greater their legitimacy will be acknowledged.

Hough asserts that good policing is central to effective policing. He bases his argument on the evidence from research studies into procedural fairness, which he acknowledges is largely quantitative. What seems clear from the evidence is that people value fairness and fair treatment. Hough acknowledges it is not the only method to ensure compliance, as other instrumental strategies, such as inducements, rewards and punishments, can be deployed.

The points of friction between the police and minority groups are examined and Hough highlights how trust in the police can be lost through unaddressed stereotyping and racial discrimination. 

It is a highly contentious issue, with no simple solutions. However, Hough does offer some very useful suggestions to help address these structural challenges, some of which will be new to those in the field. First, Hough calls for clear leadership and advocacy of procedural fairness principles by chief officers and BCU commanders. Second, he argues the police should ensure that internal styles of management are consistent with principles of organisational justice. Third, there should be training for front line staff and their supervisors. Fourth, staff should be equipped with more specific de-escalation skills to help with the handling of conflict and defiance. Finally, there should be effective community consultation in place.

Many other scholars have focused their attention on this aspect of policing. See ‘Just Authority? Trust in the Police in England and Wales’, 2012, Jackson, Bradford, Stanko and Hohl.

Politics, populism and operational culture

The celebrated scholar, Professor Robert Reiner, has written extensively about the sociology of policing for over three decades. His knowledge and authority in this field are second to none. His exploration of police culture, in which he drew upon the work of other leading academics, remains essential reading for all students of policing and law enforcement.

Reiner builds on earlier research by Skolnick (1966), which attempted to describe and define the ‘working personality’ of a police officer. However, as noted by Reiner, Skolnick’s work failed to draw out the political dimensions, an important component of police occupational culture. Reiner argues that politics is therefore a critical consideration in the analysis of policing.

Through research, we know that policing remains for many officers more than just a job: it is a vocation with a worthwhile purpose. There is a sense of mission, where the objective is the maintenance of a valued way of life and the protection of the weak against the predatory. 

However, it can manifest in a set of sub-values, in which cynicism, pessimism, suspicion, isolation and solidarity can all figure prominently. This engenders a feeling that the police are a beleaguered minority, which is about to be overrun. Only the police, in this interpretation, can comprehend the scale of the challenge. 

Reiner asserts that the police service was, and largely remains, an occupation drawn from the working class, including chief constables. Evidence suggests the police are conservative, both politically and morally. This may not be surprising, given the nature of their work, the hierarchical rank structure and their perceived mission. Reiner further notes that the police have frequently been pitted against organised the Labour Party and the Left.

In terms of political affiliation or support, studies conducted in the 1970s and 1990s suggest the police are overwhelmingly Conservative. One study found that 80% of police considered themselves Tory supporters. Worryingly, 18% of that group identified as far right. 

Reiner (2010) said,

‘The police became a Tory-leaning partisan political lobby. A ‘bobby lobby’ emerged, spearheaded by public interventions by prominent chief police officers and by the Police Federation’s embracing of the Conservative Party’s espousal of law and order as an electoral issue. This played a crucial role in Margaret Thatcher’s election victory in 1979.’

Despite this clear evidence of Conservative support, the police have consistently opined that policing should be politically neutral. It would be interesting to see whether these findings would be replicated in 2024, now that Police and Crime Commissioners are firmly established in the governance model. 

With the rise of populism and authoritarian regimes, there has been increasing concern about the impact on law enforcement. 

The Washington Post on 10th January, 2021 reported, that several serving police officers faced dismissal, suspension or other forms of discipline for their involvement in, or proximity to, the Capitol riot in Washington on January 6th, 2021. Sadly, this is not surprising, as there is evidence that white supremacist groups may have infiltrated American police forces across the US and is widespread (The Guardian Newspaper, 27th August,2020).  While nothing of that magnitude has occurred in the UK, there is little doubt, judging from some aspects of social media, that serving and former officers are not necessarily fully immune from aspects of alt right populism. The Independent Newspaper on 5th March, 2020, reported that a young London police officer had been arrested for belonging to a proscribed organisation associated with right wing terrorism. 

There are clearly worrying developments that should cause considerable anxiety to all liberal democracies and senior policing leaders.

PCCs are affiliated to political parties. There are few, if any, safeguards to ensure that candidates going forward for election have the skills, knowledge, authority and wisdom to undertake such an important role (Bailey, 2017). Democracy trumps all of that. More about the governance model later.

Brogden and Ellison (2012)  assert that State policing is, and always has been, partisan. Now, as then, it is those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale (the ‘Other’), who bear the brunt of police attention. They argue that policing has always been committed to the maintenance of a divisive social order. Summary justice for those on the margins of society continues unchecked. 

The last government failed to recognise, understand and deal with the growing incidence of poverty. New responses were required to deal with the dispossessed, rather than locking them out of sight. 

Crime, in the eyes of those on the right, is seen as those offences generally committed by the working classes. It is visible and problematic. However, little mention is made of white-collar crime or corruption, which can account for many millions of pounds. Neither was there any commentary about the crisis in our prisons, where resources are stretched to breaking point and recidivism seems to be more evident than rehabilitation. 

Government policy needs to act positively in a cohesive and coherent manner that understands and frees people from being marginalised, rather than create a continuous circle of certainty. 

Democratic governance of the police

The introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in 2012, together with a new governance model designed to hold the police to account, brought politics firmly into policing. Hitherto, the acknowledged convention was that operational policing and politics should be kept apart. The doctrine of operational independence appears to have been firmly endorsed by the recent Police Foundation Structural Review but it failed to mention a High Court judgement, which challenged this doctrine (see R v Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire Police, 2017).  This judgement, in making the PCC responsible for all operational policing activity, questions the tradition of constabulary independence.  This is clearly an issue that requires further testing in the courts (Loveday, 2018)

Interestingly, the recently published structural review of policing from the Police Foundation (see Section 12), appears to accept without too much challenge that Police and Crime Commissioners are performing well in their role of holding chief constables to account. The possibility of political interference is dismissed without question. However, PCCs wield enormous power and there is considerable evidence to suggest that the current governance model does not adequately provide the means or resources to hold them to account (Bailey, 2015 and 2017). The current batch of PCCs were elected in 2024 and almost all of them are active members of political parties. This is a marked change from the position in 2012, when nearly one third of PCCs claimed to be independent. Research has shown that where the PCC and Crime Panel share the same political affiliation, objectivity may be at risk. The outgoing Tory PCC from Devon and Cornwall made precisely this allegation and asserted strongly that politics should be removed from the equation (Bailey, 2017). Partisan politics would now appear to be the order of the day and this raises significant concerns around the need for, and delivery of, objective, evidence-based policing strategies.

There is no requirement for PCCs to have relevant skills, background or experience. Democracy and political agendas will always trump that. This can be problematic, given the only realistic way of removing them is by the ballot box every four years (Bailey, 2017). It is rather ironic that PCCs were introduced to hold chief constables to account but themselves have no effective scrutiny. There is only little acknowledgement in the Police Foundation Report that the current governance model may have some flaws around PCC accountability. Recommendation 45 suggests new legislation for the introduction of ‘recall referenda’, triggered by Police and Crime Panels with a two thirds majority, when PCCs no longer enjoy their confidence. There are just two grounds for this to occur and these are:

• Where the PCC has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment
• Where the PCC has been found to have breached the Nolan principles of public life

If these conditions are satisfied, the Police and Crime Panel may proceed with a recall referendum, where just 10% of the electorate are required to terminate the PCC’s employment. What the Police Foundation Report fails to consider is the extent to which politics may get in the way of reaching objective decisions, especially where the PCC and the Police and Crime Panel are from the same political party. Tribal political allegiance could pose a significant threat to objectivity (See above)

There is no in-depth analysis in the Police Foundation Report about the effectiveness of Police and Crime Panels in scrutinising their Commissioners. There is now considerable evidence that Panels have neither the resources, nor expertise, to fulfil their role. Most Panel members are local councillors, who lack the time, authority and continuity to be effective. Representatives on the Panel come from the relevant local councils. Their portfolios are determined at annual council meetings, and it is not always certain that those who are best suited will be allocated to the Panel. Independent Panel members, on the other hand, are recruited for their professional skills and expertise. They are generally more committed, have greater continuity and are less prone to political bias. However, independent members are always in a small minority on their Panels. It seems clear that much more thought needs to be given to the role, power and resources of Panels (Bailey, 2017). 

When the governance model was first introduced in 2012, Police and Crime Panels were an after-thought. They were never intended to circumscribe the power of PCCs. It is now time for urgent reform (Bailey, 2017).

The clash between policing and politics is perhaps illustrated best when looking at the Metropolitan Police and the dismissal of two of its commissioners. In 2008, Ian Blair resigned after declaring he no longer had the confidence of the London Mayor, Boris Johnson. At the time, there was a Labour government, with whom Johnson repeatedly clashed. This situation was repeated earlier this year (2022), when Cressida Dick resigned after announcing she no longer had the support of the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan. As with the first ‘dismissal’, the government and the Mayor were from different political parties and there were clearly marked differences in policing philosophy. These differences are almost tribal in nature and have assumed centre stage, at the expense of critical evaluation of policing delivery and effective democratic governance. Some have argued for a complete overhaul of the governance model (Bailey, 2017), involving the introduction of highly qualified and professional PCCs. Given the adversarial nature of British politics, that appears unlikely to happen.

The need for democratic oversight of policing remains essential, especially given the serious and deteriorating loss of trust by the public in the police service, a point noted in the recently published Strategic Review of Policing. The challenge is to develop a system that acknowledges politics without being governed by petty tribalism, so that real progress, in terms of policing reform, becomes a reality. A half-way measure might be to reintegrate police governance with local government, in a way not dissimilar to the London Assembly system. However, that will not take away the element of adversarial, partisan politics. Neither will it address the problem of equipping local councillors with the time, experience, expertise and commitment to their role on the Police and Crime Panel (Bailey, 2017). It seems clear that the role of independents needs to be expanded, as they bring greater professional experience, more robust commitment and are free from party whips (Bailey, 2017). It is disappointing that the Police Foundation has not explored further the importance of having independent PCCs and Crime Panel members. 

The police role – a need for clarity

One of the central problems in policing is the absence of a universally agreed working definition of the police role. It is of vital importance because it is a prerequisite to determining the skills, qualifications, experience and psychological attitudes required to be a police officer. 

On the one hand, there is a view that police should confine themselves largely to crime-fighting and leave other agencies to manage the myriad of non-police related tasks. This is a view largely articulated by those on the right of politics, as we witnessed with the last Tory government. The alternative view, largely supported by the progressive Left, is that, as Reiner notes below, the police provide a 24 x 7 social service, responding to increasing demands for assistance that are not strictly crime related. In so doing, the police won the trust and legitimacy with their residents, leading to better relationships and increasing crime detection rates. The austerity cuts to policing and other public sector agencies meant that the police were being asked to do a lot more with fewer officers, leading to a critical reduction in community policing. The consequence has been a preponderance of response policing, with very little time for the police to engage constructively with their communities. This has added to the growing alienation between the police and the public. This has become a significant issue, and it is to be hoped the new Labour government will invest heavily in the expansion of Neighbourhood policing.

There is, though,  common agreement about the fundamentals of the police role, which the Police Foundation notes as:

‘The purpose of the police service is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to keep the Queen’s peace; to protect, help and reassure the community; and to be seen to do this with integrity, common sense and sound judgement.’

There is considerable debate, however, among academics and police practitioners about what the police actually do. In the view of respected criminologists like Reiner, policing has never been primarily concerned about catching criminals. Indeed, he notes:

‘It raises false expectations about what the police can do about crime, condemns them to a quixotic quest beyond their capacity, and neglects what people in practice demand from the police. Its apparent obviousness derives largely from media representations, the main source of “information” about crime and policing for most people. Media stories (both news and fictional) focus overwhelmingly on successful police investigations of very serious violent crimes, especially murder, which form only a small part of the police workload. And the police are spectacularly less successful in clearing up crimes than media stories suggest: far fewer than 2% of crimes result in a conviction.’

It seems clear that the police role covers a variety and wide-ranging list of tasks and responsibilities, with crime-fighting being an important, though not exclusive, element. If the broader role of policing is to be accepted, then there must be an explicit acknowledgement that crime, crime prevention and community safety cannot be left to the police alone. There is a powerful argument for re-establishing the community safety partnerships introduced in the early 1990s, following the release of the Morgan Report in 1991. It promoted multi-agency approaches to crime and community safety, involving both public and private sector bodies, through shared resources, shared data, joint training, aligned boundaries and ambitious targets. I was seconded from the Thames Valley Police in 1991 to help set up the Thames Valley Safer Communities Partnership. I recruited many of the trustees, including James Marshall, the author of this seminal report. 

The initial enthusiasm and advocacy for this holistic approach was palpable. Sadly, for a variety of reasons, the Partnerships were no longer viable and most have fallen by the wayside. I would be a keen supporter for their reintroduction, but it will require strong support from government, both in terms of resources and philosophy.

The case for a Royal Commission 

Public confidence and trust in the police is at an all time low. We have seen the service haemorrhaging support in recent years, caused by relentless reports of shocking and unacceptable behaviour. The police themselves have been impacted by these constant allegations of egregious conduct, combined with a growing disrespect for their senior leaders. Morale in the police service has plummeted and experienced officers are leaving in record numbers, which is deeply worrying. Surveys conducted by the Police Federation consistently paint a picture of a service at crisis point. The report from the Police Foundation commented lengthily and authoritatively about the need for reform but its recommendations fall short of what is required.

Hitherto, the police service has responded to crises by dealing with them in isolation, rarely acknowledging the wider contributary factors. This is akin to applying band aid and there is little wonder the results have always been the same. What’s needed is a root and branch review of policing to include a rigorous assessment of the role and governance of the service. 

Once the agreed role of the police is firmly established, appropriate recruitment criteria can be developed. This is especially important. The key components should be:

• Educational qualifications – including the capacity to undertake higher level /degree courses
• Agreement on ‘professional’ status of the police and what that means for aspiring applicants
• Clear entry routes for candidates
• People skills – communication, empathy, listening, problem solving
• Psychological suitability – to rule out extreme views and capacity to learn. Rigorous attitude testing before being called for interview
• Ongoing training – similar to that received by other professional practitioners

The Commission should also consider the following:

• A full review of the rank structure to acknowledge the importance of increasing professionalisation
• A review of supervisory roles – responsibilities, oversight and training
• A commitment to community safety partnerships – to consider joint agency training, data sharing and shared long-term objectives
• Reform of the governance model – Consider the removal of party politics and upskilling and properly funding Police and Crime Panels

There is so much more a Royal Commission will need to do to ensure the widest ranging thoroughgoing review of policing. To secure the necessary reform, it’s the only option.

Concluding comments

• Policing has lost its way. Now widespread recognition that things need to change
• Traditional responses to crises haven’t touched the surface
• Major review and reform is required – hence the call for a Royal Commission
• The new government must grasp this challenge. It is not a quick fix and there are few attractive soundbites
• The composition of the Commission is important – must be representative and led by a Judge

Dr Roy Bailey