Home Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Paul Veltman [LSP 02]

Submission/Summary

1. A basic qualification in UK law should be seen as mandatory professional development for certain senior police roles, especially those working in the areas of quality assurance and professional standards.

2. The UK Policing infrastructure becomes vulnerable to “reputational risk” when power and capability are not in alignment, and senior police officers act in ignorance of the law.

3. This risk is magnified in a force which has a high ratio of junior to senior staff, as the requirements for sound operational decision making and management guidance to junior staff become proportionately higher.

4. In one case, a serving Constable was well aware that his conduct directly contravened the Police Regulations, while the Professional Standards Department could see no problem with his conduct when a complaint was lodged. It was left to the complainant to explain how the Police Regulations were to be applied in what was seen to be, by most observers, a very simple matter, ie knowing the difference between words such as lawful and legal.

5. To borrow from Juvenal, Quis educet custodes?

Information on Submitter

1. This submission is made in a private capacity.

2. The Professional Standards Department of the force concerned have read this submission to the Home Affairs Committee in advance, and have chosen not to comment.

Recommendations

1. That the proposed College of Policing make basic legal education a mandatory element of a senior police officer’s professional development.

2. That the standard of legal education be higher still for staff working in critical guardianship roles which define the parameters of corporate integrity and responsibility, such as force Professional Standards Departments.

Paul Veltman

October 2012