JOINT
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY
STOPWATCH, RUNNYMEDE,
EQUANOMICS UK AND
CENTRE FOR
LOCAL POLICY
STUDIES
1. Following a collective submission from Equanomics
UK and partner organisations to the Home Affairs Committee inquiry
into equalities, we are pleased to submit this additional written
evidence on stop and search.[73]
This evidence has also been submitted in partnership with Stopwatch,[74]
an action group focusing on disproportionality in stop and search.
2. This follow-up evidence has been submitted
following questions from committee member Rt Hon Alun Michael
MP in the session of 22 April 2011. These questions focused on
best practice and steps forward regarding stop and search, and
we agreed to submit follow up evidence on these issues.
3. The examples of good practice we have provided
focus on how to improve accountability and monitoring, as well
as ways to encourage stronger community relations.
4. The existing evidence on how to reduce disproportionality
is complex and would be difficult to outline in this short submission.
If the Committee would like to look into this issue in further
detail, we would be happy to meet or provide a further briefing
outlining these details.
OVERVIEW OF
CONCERNS RELATING
TO STOP
AND SEARCH
5. On 7 March 2011, revisions to the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) Code of Practice A came into force,
after being passed in parliament on 2 February 2011. These reflect
changes to section 1-7 of the Crime and Security Act 2010 and
section 117 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
6. In relation to stop and search, the changes
are as follows:
— Removal
of the recording of stop and account: The amendments remove the
requirement for the police to record all "stops" or
"stop and accounts". Previously, police officers were
required to make a record when they stop a person in a public
place to ask them to account for themselves. This will make it
impossible to determine if stop powers are being used proportionately
and remove local community scrutiny of stop practices.
— Reduction
of information on a stop and search form: Police will no longer
be required to record the following information on stop and search
forms: The name of the person stopped; whether any injury or damage
was caused as a result of the search; and whether anything was
found as a consequence of the search. These changes will make
it impossible to measure: a) repeat stops and harassment; b) the
effectiveness of stop and search; and c) any misuse of force.
— Reductions
in bureaucracy: The changes have been made on the basis of cutting
bureaucracy and officer time. The time savings made from the proposals
amount to just minutes per month per police officer. Real savings
could be made from conducting less but more effective stop and
searches and reducing disproportionate stop and searches.
— Lack
of public consultation: The draft amendments document was not
made publicly available on the Home Office website and the timeframe
for responses was limited to three weeks rather than the usual
12 week consultation period. These changes represent a significant
change and should have been widely consulted with the public.
7. Minority ethnic people remain over-surveilled
and under protected by our criminal justice system. Black people
are stopped and searched by the police at a rate seven times higher
than the rate for white people and Asians are stopped and searched
at more than twice the rate of whites. However, nationally less
than 10% of stop and searches lead to arrest.
8. In addition, we believe that there is a lack
of adequate safeguards for section 60: Section 60 is an exceptional
stop and search power for use where there is a threat of serious
violence that does not require reasonable suspicion. It has high-levels
of disproportionality and a consistently low arrest rate of between
1-4% nationally. Section 60 lacks adequate safeguards and has
not been afforded the scrutiny and rule-tightening that has been
focused on section 44 terrorism stop and searches.
9. Even more disturbing is the evidence that
this exceptional power is being used disproportionately against
minority communities. The latest data shows that the rate of section
60 stop and search for black people is 26.6 times the rate for
white people, and for Asian people it is 6.3 times the rate for
whites.[75]
Between 2005-06 and 2008-07 the number of stop and searches on
black people has increased by more than 650%.
GOOD PRACTICE
FOR RECORDING
STOP AND
SEARCH AND
EMPOWERING COMMUNITY
THROUGH STOP
AND SEARCH
SCRUTINY PANELS
10. Research shows that internal police safeguards
are a necessary but insufficient basis for effective regulation
of stop and search.[76]
External scrutiny acts to remind the police that they are accountable
to the public and to focus their attention on community experiences
and local priorities. There are innovative forms of external monitoring
being developed which empower local communities to monitor the
use of stop and search and serve to improve trust and confidence
at a local level.
11. In most police forces quantitative stop data
is reviewed by Police Authorities and most have some form of community
monitoring groups. Good practice highlights the usefulness of
both quantitative and qualitative indicators, with statistical
information being scrutinised alongside detailed records of individual
stops and other sources of information, such as complaints, feedback
from community organisations and satisfaction surveys.
12. Below, we provide three short cases studies
from the West Yorkshire Police, Suffolk Constabulary and a Youth-Arts
Centre in the London Borough of Lewisham, which highlight what
is possible.
(a) West Yorkshire Police
13. The West Yorkshire Police were the first
force in the country to develop scrutiny panels that examine both
the investigation of hate crime and the use of stop and search
in each district. Panels meet monthly and consist of 10 to 20
members from other public agencies and local communities and at
least one officer of Chief Inspector rank. Each panel meeting
examines at least ten stop and search forms; five of ethnic minorities
and five selected from all available forms. Forms are randomly
selected by community members in advance with all personal information
removed. The officers who conducted the stops are asked to supply
a photocopy of their pocket book or supplemental report giving
fuller information about the circumstances around each interaction.
Panel members examine the data, ask questions, determine whether
the forms have been completed correctly, and whether the grounds
for the stop were adequate and in line with PACE.
14. West Yorkshire Police has recently introduced
an electronic stop and search system, which allows stops to be
recorded on a "Blackberry" mobile device. This creates
real time data on stop and search and allows it to be actively
compared to local crime maps. This system has just been rolled
out and scrutiny panels are in the process of working out what
data they need for effective monitoring and how best for this
to be displayed. The panels are also given data based on local
community satisfaction surveys, which feeds into their scrutiny.
The scrutiny panels are organised by the police, which means they
are embedded within institutional structures and thus more likely
to feed into operational decision-making. There is clear evidence
of police commitment to the panels and willingness to respond
to problems raised.
(b) Suffolk Constabulary
15. In 2008, the Suffolk Constabulary formed
a stop and search reference panel. This resulted from research
conducted by the Ipswich and Suffolk Council for Racial Equality,
which found that in Suffolk black people were stopped at a rate
nine times greater than the rate for white people; higher than
the national average, and in some rural parts of the county this
increased to rates as high as 22:1.[77]
16. This research led to the development of a
stop and search scrutiny panel organised by the Equality Council,
so sits outside the police. The group scrutinises district-wide
performance, looking at all stops and searches of people from
BME backgrounds. Forms are reviewed in advance of each monthly
meeting by the Equality Council and a number are brought forward
to the police for discussion at the meeting. The Police provide
information on the stops to the group which is then discussed.
The panel also discusses stop search complaints brought to their
attention via third party reporting, monitors the impact of the
use of stop and search in the community and contribute to the
forces' stop and search policy, procedures and training.
17. The Suffolk scrutiny panel has wide community
participation. The independence of the Equality Council promotes
transparency and meaningful scrutiny, while also encouraging trust
and diverse community participation. Meetings are challenging
and a real opportunity to hold officers accountable for their
actions as the community members have a good understanding of
the law and context surrounding stop and search practice. The
police are currently exploring how to share quantitative stop
and search data with the group and feed discussions into operational
decision-making.
(c) Youth-Arts Centre in Lewisham
18. Research has shown that the quality of the
encounter is crucial to public satisfaction with stop and search.[78]
Second Wave is a London-based youth arts project that organises
training workshops on stop and search with young people and the
Lewisham Police and Territorial Support Group (TSG). Workshops
are planned by young people with the support of a tutor and involve
six to eight youth participants and six to eight police participants.
The police attend out of uniform, as a way of establishing a sense
of equality and an atmosphere where honest discussion can take
place. Workshops are designed by the young people and include
a balance of drama-based games, trust exercises, and role-play
scenarios exploring street encounters combined with in-depth discussion
of police-youth interactions. Recent workshops examined issues
such as ownership of public space, perceptions of young people,
and identity in relation to the recording of ethnicity on stop
forms.
19. The police officers involved in these workshops
have developed a deeper understanding of young peoples' experiences
and developed professional skills to improve the quality of the
interaction. One senior officer notes: "The workshop process
has challenged our thinking and approach. We now have greater
insight into young people's expectations … The work has not
only fostered a more open, transparent and accountable approach
to addressing crime and community safety issues, but has significantly
developed officers' communication skills and ability to relate
to young people...TSG4 officers continue to show enthusiasm to
learn and to accept criticism. This has engendered trust in young
people."
20. Equally so, the young people who have been
involved in the process have developed a greater understanding
of stop and search powers and policing in general. They have gone
on to be involved in local government bodies, through the Lewisham
Police Consultative Group and other forums and are participating
in an outreach programme to expand the workshops to local schools.
April 2011
73 This evidence has been submitted by Stopwatch, Runnymede,
Equanomics UK and the Centre for Local Policy Studies Back
74
www.stop-watch.org Back
75
Ministry of Justice, 2010, accompanying table S3.05a 0809. Population
data taken from previous year: Ministry of Justice, 2008, Statistics
on Race and the Criminal Justice System-2006-07. (London: Ministry
of Justice). Back
76
Delsol, R and Shiner, M, 2006, "Regulating Stop ad Search:
A Challenge for Police and Community Relations in England and
Wales," Critical Criminology, Vol. 14: 241-63. Back
77
Ipswich and Suffolk Council for Racial Equality, 2008, Stop and
Search in Ipswich, Suffolk: ISCRE. Back
78
1990 Trust, 2004, Stop and Search: The Views and Experiences of
Black Communities on Complaining to the Police, London: Metropolitan
Police Authority: Havis, S and Best, D, 2004, Stop and Search
Complaints, 2000-2001, London: Police Complaints Authority. Back
| 
