Policing the U.K.

July 7, 2005: The wreckage of a double-decker bus that was ripped apart by an explosion in Russell Square in Central London. - MAX NASH/AP

The July 7 blasts in London have prompted Tony Blair to bring about changes on the criminal justice front that could pave the way for more efficient policing.

IT is a bleak Good Friday morning in London. Contrary to weather office predictions, the sun is hardly out. It is drizzling all the time, frustrating plans for a brisk walk round Hyde Park with grandchildren. And this is supposed to be spring. Except for the odd chrysanthemum blooming in the neighbourhood, there are hardly signs of spring, with the temperature still struggling to reach the teens. Difficult to imagine that at the same time, cricketers from this country - which is still freezing at night - are sweating it out thousands of miles away in the ovens that India's cricket grounds are. Can they not do something about the weather in both places?

While Tony Blair & company cannot do anything about the miserable English weather, they seem hell bent on bringing about a few changes on the criminal justice front that could pave the way for more efficient policing. At least this is what they claim. The Conservatives oppose them tooth and nail. Home Secretary Charles Clarke told the country a few days ago that the government was determined to reorganise the police forces in England and Wales - Scotland is always a law unto itself - so as to make them better equipped to meet 21st century challenges. The plan is to amalgamate the really small ones with the nearby large forces, thereby reducing the total to just about 20. (The exact number could be a few less or more, and will be decided only after current negotiations come to an end later this year.)

Starting with more than a hundred forces at the beginning of the 20th century, the 1964 Police Act pruned the number to 49 in 1966. Six years later, it came down to the present 43 (including the Metropolitan Police, and the City of London force which polices the financial district).

For some time there has been a feeling that a few forces were far too small and a standing joke to make any impact at all, and that their merger with larger neighbouring ones could contribute both to economy and effectiveness. The Inspector of Constabulary (attached to the Home Office) made a brutally frank assessment last year on how the police forces were performing in terms of crime prevention and investigation, promoting safety within the community and judicious use of their resources. According to this study, 7 per cent of the forces were excellent, 44 per cent good and 40 per cent fair. Nine per cent, that is, nearly four forces, performed rather poorly. This has encouraged the Blair government to think in terms of major reforms. The July 7 blasts in London strengthened its resolve further.

The government is sold to the idea despite bitter opposition from some of the Local Police Authorities (to whom a Chief Constable is accountable) of affected forces and a few Police Chiefs, past and present. One force, namely, Cleveland, is expected to take the matter to court for a judicial review. According to critics, cultural differences would militate against fruitful merger, and there could be implications also for crime prevention that a small and sleek force would be better equipped to handle. There was the further fear that the concept of local policing, a distinctive feature of British policing, could suffer erosion at the hands of large forces with limited resources. One more apprehension is that support services such as human resources development, information system and finance would find themselves depleted.

It is expected that the legislation to bring about the reorganisation will be pushed through Parliament later this year. Ultimately, it will be implemented in the field in April 2008. Only time will tell whether this radical change to the face of the British Police is a move in the right direction or not.

Another major development in the United Kingdom (U.K.) is the creation on April 3 this year of a Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), as a follow-up to the SOCA Act 2005. The new outfit will bring under its fold the National Crime Squad (NCS), the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and the Intelligence sections of HM Customs and Excise and Immigration Departments. The National Hi-Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU) set up with fanfare a few years ago to deal with computer-related crime, will also be subsumed into the new arrangement.

SOCA is widely regarded as a response to the July 7 incidents and the belief that the police in the country was not equipped to deal with the kind of terrorism, which that occurrence highlighted. Called the U.K.'s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), it has a wide charter. It is dedicated to the prevention and detection of organised crime, especially drug trafficking and immigration rackets. Investigation of major frauds will be another preoccupation. SOCA will start looking into Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), hitherto the concern of NCIS, which is also the country's Financial Intelligence Unit. SARs are circulated among law enforcement and taxation agencies so as to focus on transactions that were prima facie shady. Significantly, these reports lead to many investigations of large-scale fraud and drug deals. The NCIS received more than 200,000 SARS last year. It looks as if SOCA will draw its sinew from such reports.

SOCA will have a 4,200-strong staff and a 400 million budget. Interestingly, it will not be a police agency, but will have all the powers of one. It is designated a `non-departmental public body' run by an 11-member board, six of whom will be non-executive. Although both the Chairman and Director-General (who is responsible for day-to-day functions) are appointed by the Home Secretary, the Board will enjoy operational autonomy from the Home Office. The first appointees respectively are Sir Stephen Lander and Bill Hughes, former chiefs of MI 5 (the internal intelligence organisation for the whole country) and the National Crime Squad (NCS).

SOCA's Director-General is competent to invest his staff with the powers of a Police Constable, Customs Officer or Immigration Officer. They can, therefore, perform surveillance over suspects and lawfully resort to telephone tapping. They may also initiate plea, bargaining for witnesses so as to collect the best possible evidence against accused persons. SOCA is also expected to implement a foolproof witness protection programme.

With about 40 offices all over the U.K., SOCA may also have its presence in select foreign stations, especially in the United States (U.S.) where it will closely liaise with the FBI and Drug Enforcement Authority (DEA). I will not be surprised if SOCA sets up shop in Delhi, of course, with the Indian government's approval. The FBI has a small unit in its Embassy in New Delhi. There is no reason why we should deny the U.K. a similar facility. I believe it would strengthen all our efforts to hit at organised crime that eventually promotes and finances terrorism.

There are sceptics in the U.K. who believe that SOCA will never succeed in rooting out organised crime or deter the hardened terrorist. While this may be difficult to accept so early in the day, what should cause concern, however, is the winding up of the Hi-Tech Crime Unit, which had built up quite a reputation for its professionalism during its short life. The average cyber crime victim will hereafter have to turn to the local police station for help, and the latter, as presently organised, may not be equipped to handle the really sophisticated computer attacks or online fraud. It will be interesting to watch how the SOCA bosses will respond to the genuine need of many, at a time when the volume of cyber crime is expected to mount.

The SOCA experiment is expected to provide some grist to the mill of those in India who have been highlighting the Central Bureau of Investigation's inadequacies on the economic and organised crime fronts. There was an abortive move on the part of the Vajpayee government a few years ago to set up a Federal Crime Investigation Agency (FCIA), which no State would however buy. Creating a SOCA in India would, therefore, be a difficult proposition, unless the government steers clear of visualising it as a police force. But then the basic question is whether we need a SOCA, apart from the CBI? This will be an unresolved debate. We could possibly wait for the outcome of the SOCA experiment in the U.K.

Yet another development is the coming into force of the Terrorism Act 2006. This is again a reaction to last year's terrorist attack on London's transport system, although the Home Secretary's stand is that such legislation was on the anvil even prior to the incident. The Blair government has found itself ill-equipped to neutralise tendentious preachers, who glorify terrorism in the name of religion. If they happen to be British nationals, the task becomes all the more difficult, as externment of such persons is not possible.

Even those whose tenancy in the country is legally tenuous, court procedures are a rigmarole involving several years of tortuous proceedings. This is why the new legislation introduces several new offences in the statute book. These would take care of acts preparatory to terrorism and those who encourage them. Also illegal would be the distribution or circulation of terrorist publications or training a person to resort to terrorism.

The Bill, when introduced in the House of Commons, evoked the bitterest attack from the Opposition. A provision that infuriated many was the one empowering police to hold suspects for 90 days, something that the police had been demanding for quite a while. Sensing the fury, the government gave in, agreeing ultimately to a 28-day detention by the police of any terrorist suspect whom they would like to question in custody. Of course, any detention beyond two days will have to be with the approval of the competent judicial authority. It is almost certain that as the number of such detentions mounts, human rights activists are going to create hell for the police and government. Our own experience with Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) has been far from edifying.

Now, a snippet from what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has to say on the crime scene in London. He is quite happy that crime has shown a decline. What he is worried about, however, is the rise in muggings of those below 17 aimed at stealing their cell phones. While parents give such phones to their wards for their protection, what is happening is just the opposite. Cell phones are a valuable property that attracts many street criminals. This is why a proud display of such phones in public, either to speak or just to show off, is an invitation to disaster. I hope parents in India would counsel their children. Phone manufactures still do not play ball with the police in the matter of providing a device that will disable a phone the moment a victim reports the theft. Some have fallen in line, and many have not. This is the lament of the Met Chief. Will those in India act quickly and discipline manufacturers, although I know most phones are made abroad.

Finally, another change is that Peter Neyroud has moved out of Thames Valley Police (with its headquarters near Oxford), one of the many innovations in that large agency. He now heads the National Police Improvement Agency, another new creation that aims at major reforms. More about this in a future column, after a detailed conversation with Peter on what he visualises his charter to be.