• Two Met officers appear at Westminster Magistrates Court today – one charged with misconduct in public office for abusing his position for sexual purposes and the other for misuse of computer systems. Neither of their names are published, unlike ordinary defendants.
• Even the Cumberland police are not immune: recently an officer was dismissed for running a pornographic Twitter account under a false name and not declaring it as an outside business interest.
• The Home Secretary over the weekend issued a series of Tweets which came close to contempt of court in relation to the Kaba prosecution. She seems oblivious of what happened to the press (two newspapers were fined) in relation to their reporting on Christopher Jefferies in the Joanna Yeates murder case (long before there were any charges) in 2011. She probably has a defence under the “discussion in good faith of public affairs” exception.
• Kaba was shot on 5 September 2022. A policeman was charged with murder on 20 September 2023 and the trial is set to start on 9 September 2024. By the standards of today’s criminal justice system that is fast. The UK’s largest ever fraud happened in September 2011 and the trial was held in September 2012. But since then delays in the criminal courts have got very much worse with cases routinely being delayed for three, four five years, even longer, after charge, let alone after the events in question.
• The individual in question is of course innocent until proven guilty. Difficult as this process will be for the individual, they are not being treated worse than other defendants.
• It is perfectly possible to appreciate the immense strain of such a job and the difficult split second judgments police marksmen must make while also being clear that when there is credible evidence that the line into a criminal action has been crossed the law must take its course. The Home Secretary and the police should understand this.
• However, the response of the armed response unit is to refuse to carry out its duties in relation to ordinary crime – other than in the case of threats to life and terrorist attacks. While individual officers are free to withdraw from such duties, the widespread reaction creates the impression that this unit (described in the recent Casey report as “a law to themselves“) thinks it an impertinence that police officers should be subject to the laws applying to everyone else.
• It is perhaps unsurprising that they have such an attitude. Since 1990, 1,871 people have died while in police custody or following contact with the police. Not one policeman has been successfully prosecuted for murder or manslaughter for any of these deaths.
• The reaction of the government is to understand their concerns. Were any other group or union to refuse to carry out duties because the law was being enforced against one of their number, would this government be equally understanding?
• The Met appears to be in disarray. About 1,000 police officers are suspended or on restricted duties. The Met Commissioner has said that he cannot guarantee to women that if they report a sexual assault to his force they won’t be dealing with a sexual predator. On 11 September he tried to ride two horses at once by acknowledging the problems with the Met while attacking the IOPC and CPS for their scrutiny of the police. This has not even helped him with his own officers.
• The Prime Minister is now promising that criminals must serve their full sentences. He is unwilling to explain to the public that there are two reasons why criminals are let out early: one is to give an incentive to prisoners to behave well and the second is that there is insufficient prison space for all those sent to prison if they were locked up for the entirety of their given sentences. Rather than be honest with the public or invest in enough decent prisons, he makes promises he cannot keep. Like the Home Secretary, he too has forgotten that earlier this month a German court refused to extradite to Britain a man wanted for serious charges committed over here because of concerns about British prison conditions.
• The Attorney-General issues a warning to the press about the reporting around Brand’s sex life. There have been no arrests, no interviews, no charges – no live investigation – just one report of a complaint in the UK. The contempt of court laws do not apply – unlike in the Kaba case. Criminal prosecutions and investigative reporting are different and necessary functions and subject to different legal regimes. The Attorney-General has no business – and no legal authority – to warn off newspapers reporting on matters in circumstances when the contempt of court laws do not apply. If she is so concerned about these laws, she would be better off speaking to the Home Secretary. Like many other aspects of the government’s actions these days, it is reactive, designed to be populist while lacking in thought or principle.

Here’s the thing. There is an issue with policemen being asked to make exceptionally difficult judgments and being let down by their bosses or judged unfairly in hindsight. There is an issue with criminals being sentenced to Potemkin sentences and the public feeling that crime is not taken seriously. There is an issue with people being judged by an excitable, inconsistent court of public opinion and denied proper process. But when bodies such as the police have – through constant misbehaviour, arrogance and a refusal for far too long to address these issues – lost trust, it is difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt. When politicians react in a panicked way or to make themselves look good, it is harder than it should be to attribute “good faith” to their pronouncements or even listen to them. That is the situation this government and the police have got themselves into.

The Tories like to claim that they are for law and order. But since being in government, every aspect of the criminal justice system has been run down, mismanaged and works less well than it used to, with some parts close to breaking point. Police forces have lost the trust of the public. Ministers charged with improving the situation show a disregard – bordering on contempt – for the rule of law. It is not as if we have got any order either – as the failure to deal with what has been described as a shoplifting epidemic shows. This and a lamentable combination of untrustworthiness, empty promises and ineffectiveness are among many reasons why this government does not deserve re-election.

Cyclefree