Memorandum submitted by the Defence Police
Federation
INTRODUCTION
Prior to 1987 MDP jurisdiction was subject to
a geographical constraint. Full constabulary powers were applicable
when operating within Defence establishments. When outside the
wire constabulary powers was limited to within 15 miles of such
establishments when dealing with Crown property or persons subject
to service discipline.
The MoD Police Act, 1987, removed the uncertainties
caused by the 15-mile limit. Section 2 extended MDP powers when
outside establishments to deal with MoD civilians and those involved
in Defence contracts. It also empowered MDP officers to assist
Home Department Police Forces in the "vicinity" of Defence
establishments. This provision has been interpreted by the Courts
to be applicable to cases where a constable of the local police
force has requested the assistance of the MDP to deal with a particular
incident. It has not been extended to allow for standing or general
requests under which the MDP may take on the performance of agreed
policing duties in areas close to defence land, for example, mixed
housing estates.
The passage of time and changing nature of MoD
estate and its policing needs since 1987 have revealed weaknesses
and deficiencies in the Ministry of Defence Police Act. In the
past the Force has been deployed, in the most part, on static
duties at various locations throughout the MoD estate. Economies
in the interest of efficiencies have meant that the MoD community
must now be policed, not from large static units, but using smaller
more mobile Area Policing Teams moving from base to base and responding
to calls. Contact with the public has increased and with it the
likelihood of MDP happening across emergency situations or even
simply incidents where the presence of an on-duty officer would
serve the public interest.
Existing legislation clearly limits the extent
to which MDP have the powers and privileges of constables when
operating off MoD property and therefore their ability to carry
out their defence duties, and to act effectively in support of
the Home Department Police Forces. This we believe is a weakness
that needs correcting. Officers on the ground should be able to
determine with a reasonable degree of certainty whether they have
jurisdiction or not.
MDP, in common with other police forces, have
a common purpose to uphold the law fairly and firmly, to prevent
crime, to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law,
to protect the community and to be seen to do this with integrity,
common sense and sound judgement. There is a strong sense of professional
service within the police community to maintain this common purpose
both on and off duty. The Defence Police Federation's position
has always been that MDP officers should be afforded the protection
of the office of constable when required to act. The general public
has a natural and reasonable expectation that all police officers
particularly if in uniform will render assistance in emergency
situations regardless of where they occur. We have campaigned
for some years to have this position rectified and therefore welcome
proposals to enact legislation by way of the Armed Forces Bill.
THE WAY
FORWARD
We would like to make clear at the outset that
MDP officers are not looking for additional opportunities to place
themselves on duty when outside their normal patrol area. The
provisions which have been proposed will enable the Chief Constable
of another force to request assistance from MDP in relation to
a particular incident, investigation, or operation. This seems
eminently sensible and will allow MDP to be more effective in
terms of the Government's commitment to maximising police resources
and to providing a seamless service to the public at all times.
It is also proposed to extend jurisdiction to
allow MDP officers to deal with emergency situations when going
about their normal Defence duties where that action is necessary
to save life or to prevent or minimise injury. However, this clause
has been tightly circumscribed and does not provide jurisdiction
for a MoD Police officer to act in situations where a timely intervention
is required, but where the threat or use of violence are not evident.
Examples of such situations might be the use or trafficking of
drugs, theft and burglary. The latter being the example cited
by the Rt Hon Andrew MacKinlay during the second reading of the
Bill (901). Another example of a real situation that might cause
difficulties is as follows:
Whilst carrying out anti-terrorist patrols around
the exterior of an MoD establishment, MDP observed a vehicle exiting
a public house car park. The vehicle was being driven erratically
leading to the suspicion of the driver being under the influence
of alcohol. MDP contacted West Mercia police to report their suspicion.
Before the radio request was completed the vehicle was involved
in a serious road accident. The driver was given First Aid by
the MDP officers at the scene. The driver subsequently died in
hospital. The MDP officers did not attempt to stop the vehicle
because the vehicle was travelling on a public road outwith their
jurisdiction and the accident occurred prior to a request from
West Mercia police to deal with the situation.
The MDP officers dealt with this incident exactly
as they should have; they had no powers to stop the vehicle unless
requested to do so by the local force which would then offer the
MDP officers a degree of protection under section 2(2)(d) of the
MDP Act 1987. If the MDP officers had had the ability to act on
their own professional initiative right at the outset of this
incident by stopping the vehicle at a very early stage, the incident
may have not occurred or had a less serious outcome. Even if a
member of the public had approached the MDP officers prior to
the driver of the vehicle attempting to actually drive the car
and informed them that the driver was unfit through drink, there
would still have been a legal gap in the powers of the MDP officers
to act to prevent the offence without prior discussion with the
local force.
We have chosen this particular scenario because
even given the new powers that are being proposed here, the MDP
officer in this case will still have a difficult decision to make
before he/she acts (whether they can justify intervening of their
own volition to prevent harm). As currently drafted, the officer
must believe on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to act
in order to save life or in order to prevent or minimise personal
injury. We are concerned that there may be difficulties where
there is a risk of injury and disputes may arise as to the extent
to which that risk justified the officer considering it necessary
to act. It is our view that this power should not be this narrow,
and should be extended to include any situation that would normally
justify a 999 call for assistance, and where the MDP officer believes
that immediate action is necessary as there is insufficient time
to call the local police as this would severely frustrate the
purpose of the intervention.
Under existing arrangements MDP officers who
come across suspected offenders when off base, or are requested
by members of the public to assist, for example, at the scene
of a serious road traffic accident, have only the powers of a
private citizen. These powers are severely limited in their scope
and utility and were never designed to protect police officers
acting outwith their main role and jurisdiction and giving mutual
aid to other police forces.
A citizen can choose not to get involved and
indeed is frequently advised officially not to "have a go".
A constable does not have that luxury of turning a blind eye to
the incident. If the officer fails to act, he or she, could end
up facing disciplinary charges. On the other hand if the officer
does become involved and makes a mistake he or she could be subject
to investigation by the Police Complaints Authority.
The extension we have suggested would assist
to alleviate such difficulties.
The Bill also contains provisions that facilitate
the promulgation of Regulations in place of the current discipline
code. We welcome these proposals that will place MDP discipline
procedures formally on a statutory footing and will also allow
the alignment of MDP procedures with those applicable to Home
Department Forces.
However, with the Human Rights Act now in force
we would question whether the restrictive appeal rights in Schedule
5 Paragraph 4 would comply with the Act.
January 2001
| 
