A Case Study of Custody Visiting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REGULATING POLICE DETENTION: A CASE STUDY OF CUSTODY VISITING by JOHN KENDALL A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Law School University of Birmingham December 2016 i University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT This thesis investigates the work of custody visiting in police stations. Custody visitors make what are supposed to be random and unannounced visits to custody blocks in all parts of England and Wales. They check on the welfare of detainees being held in police custody, and they report their findings to the local Police and Crime Commissioner. Custody visiting is an important component of the criminal justice system, but it has been almost completely ignored by police scholars, and is largely unknown among the general public. The thesis analyses the character of official policy about custody visiting since the first “lay visiting” schemes in the early 1980s, through to the operation, from 2002, of the current statutory scheme known as “Independent Custody Visiting”. Using observation and face-to-face interviews in a local case study, along with wider desk and archival research and elite interviews, and drawing on Steven Lukes’ concept of power, this thesis is an original, in-depth investigation of this phenomenon. It is the first rigorous assessment of custody visiting, and the first thorough evaluation of its independence and of its effectiveness as a regulator of police behaviour. ii DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to the memory of Michael Meacher MP iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My first debt of gratitude is to Michael Meacher. Without him, custody visiting might not have happened at all, but his contribution has been airbrushed away by the state. His ideas for how it should operate were far too radical: in so many ways, he was right. He was kind enough to give me his time and encouragement during a busy day at the House of Commons. I am very grateful to his family for allowing me to dedicate my work in his memory. There are so many people I have to thank for helping me with this work. First I think of those who enabled me to collect the data. Because I cannot identify the location of the case study, most of them have to remain anonymous. I would want to thank the Police and Crime Commissioner; the scheme administrator; the custody visitors; lawyers; people being detained in the custody blocks; and the police officers and civilian custody staff. All these people helped me by facilitating my access, providing interviews and allowing themselves to be observed. Two named interviewees I am able to thank personally are Jane Warwick and Katie Kempen; and also Marcia Rigg, for putting me in touch with Jane Warwick. I am grateful to the members and staff at what was then Dyfed-Powys police authority, and the police and custody staff in Newtown and Brecon police stations. The experience I gained there prompted me to embark on this study. Dr Layla Skinns gave me some initial advice. Professor Andrew Sanders then encouraged me to apply to the University of Birmingham to work on a PhD there, and Professor Richard Young and Dr Simon Pemberton were my supervisors. I owe both Richard and Simon a huge debt of gratitude, for their skilful management of this project, the insights they have shown me, their support and encouragement, their attention to detail as well as the big picture, and their infectious humour which has made the work such a pleasure. Other academic colleagues to thank are Professor Graeme Douglass, Dr Adrian Hunt and Professor Gary Thomas. I am also grateful to the University of Birmingham for access to its library and digital resources, and for grants which helped me to pay for travel, conference expenses and a digital recorder. Many of my relatives and friends have helped, encouraged and supported me in this project. Particular thanks are due to my nieces Natasha Kendall and Emma Kendall, and to my friend Sebastian Morgan-Clare. Above all I have to thank my wife Jenny. She has proof-read my very numerous drafts, been unfailingly supportive in letting this work be the first priority, made numerous sacrifices of her time, and put up with a monomaniac author, for the second time during our marriage. Having thanked so many people, I just need to say that the responsibility for the errors that remain is mine. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Dedication iii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents v Abbreviations vii Chapter One: Introduction 1 Overview of the research 2 Detention in police custody 6 The regulation of police behaviour in custody blocks 21 The link between custody visiting and the issue of deaths in custody 24 Conclusion 36 Chapter Two: The Conceptual Framework 40 Custody visiting as a type of regulation 41 Lukes’ theory of power and Packer’s models of criminal justice 50 Independence, neutrality and impartiality 57 Legitimacy 71 Accountability 76 Effectiveness 80 Conclusion 89 Chapter Three: Policy 92 Michael Meacher MP 92 The Brixton riots and the Scarman Report 98 The policy of the Home Office and of the police: the 1986 Circular 106 The Lambeth lay visitors 116 Policy in the 1990s: deaths in custody 120 Introduction of the statutory scheme 123 Operation of the statutory scheme 132 Conclusion 138 Chapter Four: Research Design and Ethical Considerations 143 Background and motivation 146 The case study approach 149 Research beyond the case study and literature review 155 Access 157 The fieldwork: data collection 159 Data analysis 174 Ethical considerations 176 Funding 179 Visitors 179 Other participants 181 My own safety and the safety of others 183 Conclusion 184 Chapter Five: The Influences on Visitors and their Attitudes to their Work 187 Socialisation 188 v Profile and background of the visitors 195 Who were allowed to be visitors? 197 Orientation and training 204 Probation and induction 211 Visitor team meetings 218 Visitors’ attitudes from interviews and observation on visits 223 Socialisation and the changes in visitors’ attitudes 240 Socialisation about deaths in custody 245 Conclusion 255 Chapter Six: The Effectiveness of Custody Visiting 258 The principal concept: effectiveness 258 The secondary concepts 261 The power dynamics of custody 263 Whether the visits took place, and the frequency and pattern of visiting 267 Arrangement of the visits 268 Arrival at the police station 271 Whether the police behaved differently towards detainees because they knew that custody visitors might arrive at any time, without notice, or because a visit was actually in progress 275 Admission to the custody block and access to the detainees 276 Checks visitors were not allowed to make 281 Whether the police and custody staff respect custody visiting 285 Whether visits caused police behaviour to be changed/aligned, either at the time or subsequently 287 Meeting detainees 287 Checks on other matters 306 Whether the reporting system caused police behaviour to be changed/aligned 307 Whether custody visiting enabled the public to know what was happening in custody blocks 312 United Nations standards and the requirement of expertise 316 Wider functions of custody visiting 321 Conclusion 331 Chapter Seven: Conclusions and Recommendations 337 Answers to the research questions 338 Where this research sits in the wider literature on police regulation 341 Limitations on this research and the scope for further research 346 Recommendations for reform 349 Final remarks 358 ILLUSTRATION A visit to a detainee 295 TABLES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Fieldwork table 167 Visitors’ attitudes table 241 Bibliography a-n vi ABBREVIATIONS PARTICIPANTS IN THE RESEARCH AD Scheme administrator C Civilian custody staff D Detainee L Lawyer M Custody Manager - Inspector S Custody Sergeant V Visitor GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS ABOUT CUSTODY VISITING 1986 Circular Home Office Circular 12/1986 Lay Visitors to Police Stations 1991 Circular Home Office Circular POL/90 1364/1/15 Lay Visitors to Police Stations: Metropolitan Police District Revised Guidelines 1992 Circular Home Office Circular 4/1992 Lay Visitors to Police Stations: Revised Guidance 2001 Circular Home Office Circular HOC 15/2001 Independent Custody Visiting 2003 Code of Practice Home Office Code of Practice on Independent Custody Visiting 2003 2010 Code of Practice Home Office Code of Practice on Independent Custody Visiting 2010 2013 Code of Practice Home Office Code of Practice on Independent Custody Visiting March 2013 OTHER ABBREVIATIONS ACPO Association of Chief Police Officers APA Association of Police Authorities CPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation ECHR European Convention on Human Rights HMIC Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary HMIP Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons ICV Independent Custody Visiting or Independent Custody Visitor ICVA Independent Custody Visiting Association IMB Independent Monitoring Board IPCC Independent Police Complaints Commission NPM National Preventive Mechanism OPCAT Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment PACE Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 PIC Person in Custody PCC Police and Crime Commissioner vii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Police custody blocks are some of the state’s secret places, hidden away from public view,1 and are very much the police’s territory. Public controversies about what happens in these secret places arise only when there is a death in custody. Into this setting, under a statutory scheme, come custody visitors.