DOCSLIB.ORG

SCHENGEN EVALUATION PHS Forskning 2020: 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SCHENGEN EVALUATION PHS Forskning 2020: 1 STEIN ULRICH - MARTIN NØKLEBERG - HELENE O. I. GUNDHUS SCHENGEN EVALUATION SchengenNemporiatur evaluation simusa is qui a mechanism omnimendi for STEIN ULRICH - MARTIN NØKLEBERG - HELENE O. I. GUNDHUS assessingquiae pa the verrorro compliance molupta with tusapisti Schengen rulesomnienis and regulations et litiunt byestet all participatingommolor countries.eperatio etThis eos report as cuscite provides mporit a brief SCHENGEN EVALUATION introductionut autet ad to maximil the origin et andquostisitas framework of ateSchengen aut hillese evaluation. diataquias Since dolori the first – AN EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE mechanismcomnis molleceseque was set upaut inharci 1998 aut all Schengenipis dolorrum countries quatas have remporibusbeen evaluated THE EXAMPLE OF NORWAY moreaut than ium once.doluptur audam etur ma Thecomnihit study looks fuga. at Itatur, Schengen ommolup evaluation tati- as istan hita educational ex eum voluptur experience. secupta The -aim wastion to analysecullabo. if evaluationXimolla quaectatur, has improved theeiumenet quality of erro service, mi,.Ihicias raised sequis the level et of professionalismoptatin velestem and libusant improved ullaborae educa - tionalvolendae activities consequ in the idempor police ehenisor border guardmaximusdant service of parit,a Schengen ide solorio state. min- Thecipi study tisciatur uses sin Norway cust adas euman example quo andtoribus argues qui that aut Schengen arcipid istotateevaluation es has hadsamenda a very positiveapid moloria effect spicien on how imu -the policesant in quiandic Norway temcarry rest out asSchengen etur externalsimilla bordercepremod control, quassitatur conduct alitpolice cooperationlatiis ut minci within vol the framework of Schengen and use Schengen-related information systems and other technol- ogy in border management. The findings are based on documentation, interviews and a survey among police officers. PolitihøgskolenPolitihøgskolen SlemdalsveienSlemdalsveien 5 5 PostboksPostboks 5027, 5027, Majorstuen Majorstuen 03010301 Oslo Oslo Tlf:Tlf: 23 2319 9919 9900 00 www.phs.nowww.phs.no PHSPHS Forskning Forskning 2020: 2020: 1 1 PHS Forskning 2020: 1 STEIN ULRICH - MARTIN NØKLEBERG - HELENE O. I. GUNDHUS SCHENGEN EVALUATION – AN EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE THE EXAMPLE OF NORWAY © Politihøgskolen, Oslo 2020 PHS Forskning 2020: 1 ISBN 978-82-7808-150-1 (trykt utgave) ISBN 978-82-7808-151-8 (elektronisk utgave) ISSN 0807-1721 Det må ikke kopieres fra denne boka i strid med åndsverkloven og fotografiloven eller i strid med avtaler om kopiering inngått med Kopinor, interesseorgan for rettighetshavere til åndsverk. Alle henvendelser kan rettes til: Politihøgskolen Slemdalsveien 5 Postboks 2109, Vika 0125 Oslo Tlf: 23 19 99 00 phs.no Illustrasjon omslag: Shutterstock / Andvord Grafisk Grafisk produksjon: Andvord Grafisk CONTENTS FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................. vii ABOUT THE AUTHORS ............................................................................................................... xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ xiii List of illustrations ............................................................................................................ xix List of tables ........................................................................................................................ xix List of figures ...................................................................................................................... xix 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and scope of the study ........................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Hypotheses ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1.3 Sovereignty and SAC status ..................................................................... 4 1.2 Focus reader groups .................................................................................................. 5 1.3 The Norwegian Police – an overview .................................................................. 6 2 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Documentation ............................................................................................................. 11 2.1.1 Documentation of follow-up to recommendations ........................ 12 2.1.2 Documentation of formal training programmes – Norwegian Police University College and guidelines for police districts and special agencies .................................................................................. 14 2.1.3 Documentation of new/improved methods ....................................... 14 2.2 Experience of participants .................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Identification of relevant groups of participants ............................. 15 2.2.2 Interviews of key actors ............................................................................ 15 2.2.3 Survey ............................................................................................................... 16 2.2.3.1 Questionnaire ............................................................................... 17 2.2.3.2 Analytical procedures ................................................................ 19 2.3 Participation in Schengen evaluation ............................................................... 21 2.4 Literature ....................................................................................................................... 22 2.5 Problems of methodology ..................................................................................... 22 2.6 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 23 iii 3 THE ORIGIN AND FRAMEWORK OF SCHENGEN EVALUATION ................................ 25 3.1 Schengen cooperation – a brief overview ...................................................... 25 3.1.1 The Schengen Agreement 1985 ............................................................. 25 3.1.2 The Schengen Implementing Convention 1990 ............................... 26 3.1.3 Schengen acquis and Schengen ‘soft law’ ....................................... 27 3.1.4 The Amsterdam Treaty 1997/99 – Schengen becomes EU ......... 28 3.1.5 Evolution of the Schengen Area ............................................................ 28 3.2 Schengen evaluation – a brief history ............................................................. 31 3.2.1 Origin and legal basis .................................................................................. 31 3.2.1.1 Executive Committee Decision 1998 .................................. 32 3.2.1.2 Evolution of rules and regulations ....................................... 32 3.2.1.2.1 Schengen Manual and Catalogues ................. 32 3.2.1.2.2 Schengen Borders Code 2006 ......................... 33 3.2.2 Schengen Evaluation Working Party (SCH-EVAL) ........................... 33 3.2.2.1 Evaluation scope/areas and procedures ......................... 33 3.2.2.2 Role of the Council – Conclusions/ Recommendations .. 35 3.2.2.3 Member States’ responses/follow-up .............................. 35 3.3 Main trends in Schengen evaluation 1998 – 2013 ...................................... 36 3.3.1 Evaluation teams (Leading experts and evaluators) ................... 38 3.3.2 Evaluation visits ........................................................................................... 39 3.3.3 Reporting and follow-up .......................................................................... 40 3.3.4 Conclusions: Effects on professionalism and learning ............... 40 3.4 Schengen Evaluation Regulation 2013 – new mechanism ........................ 41 3.4.1 Main features of the Regulation ............................................................ 42 3.4.1.1 Focus on action plans and follow-up ................................ 48 3.4.2 Role of the Commission and the Schengen Committee ............. 49 3.4.3 Role of the Council Working Party and Member States ................ 51 3.4.4 Role of the Council ........................................................................................ 51 3.4.5 New procedures in practice – from 2015 ........................................... 52 3.4.5.1 Expected effects on professionalism and learning .... 53 3.4.6 Evaluation of the new mechanism ...................................................... 54 3.5 Summing up: Nature of Schengen evaluation ............................................. 58 3.6 Norwegian Schengen evaluators ...................................................................... 60 3.7 Norwegian delegates to Schengen fora .......................................................... 61 iv 4 SCHENGEN EVALUATION OF NORWAY ......................................................................... 63 4.1 Evaluation 2000 – 2001 ......................................................................................... 64 4.1.1 Preparations ................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research at the Norwegian Police University College
    Research at the Norwegian Police University College Slemdalsveien 5 Postboks 2109, Vika 0125 Oslo Tlf: 23 19 99 00 [email protected] www.phs.no 2018 © Politihøgskolen, Oslo 2019 Translation: Kirsti Spaven Layout: Eileen Schreiner Berglie Print: Staples Research at the Norwegian Police University College 2018 2016 and 2017 were reco- funded by the EU. In addition, active groups. One of the aims of rd years for the Norwegian there were twelve projects fun- these groups is to strengthen the Police University College ded by other external sources, academic environment at the (PHS) in terms of the and ten projects funded by PHS college across the various depart- number of publications with a collaborating partner. ments and locations. The groups and publication points These numbers show an increase are working on topics covering achieved. In 2018, however, the in the number of projects with different professional challenges number of published articles in external funding. for the police: organisation and professional journals was halved, This year’s introductory article management, education and trai- and the number of publication “Research into police reform and ning, and research methods. STRATEGI 2017-2021 points subsequently reduced. On the elephants in the room” uses as Relevant research and know- the other hand there was a doub- its starting point the book Politire- ledge development is vital for the ling in the number of monographs former: Idealer, realiteter, reto- Norwegian police and the judicia- from 2017 to 2018, so colleagues rikk og praksis (concerning the ry. This is of particular importan- have been actively participating ideals, the reality, the rhetoric and ce during the current times of 2017 was the first year in the new strategic period 2017-2021.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL REPORT 2 014 COPY LAYOUT PRINT PHOTOS the Norwegian Newmarketing AS PJ-Trykk, Oslo Lars A
    ANNUAL REPORT 2 014 COPY LAYOUT PRINT PHOTOS The Norwegian Newmarketing AS PJ-trykk, Oslo Lars A. Lien Bureau for the Marte Garmann Investigation of Ruben Skarsvåg Police Affairs Anders Nordmeland Getty Images Politiforum iStock Photo Politihøgskolen A police officer should view control and investigation of his activities as a natural part of his professional engagement. CONTENTS FOREWORD Foreword 3 access by the accused. In its work on able for the first time to meet all of the the case, the Bureau has been criticised first-year students at the Police University 10 years since the Bureau was established 4 by lawyers and the media for imposing College. The Bureau held lectures for such radical measures. It has been students in Stavern, Oslo, Kongsvinger Approval of Overtime 10 pointed out that the Bureau uses “police and Bodø. In our view, it is important that methods”. The Bureau is an investigation police employees from the basic course Custody/Incidents involving Persons in Police Custody 11 agency, not a supervisory body. It is the onwards are aware of society’s need for Police Methodology and Methodological Development 14 responsibility of the Bureau to investigate control of the police’s use of its powers. and, when there are grounds for so doing, A police officer should view control Notification of Complaints 15 to prosecute employees of the police and investigation of his/her activities and prosecuting authority. In questions as a natural part of his/her professional “The police do not answer my enquiries” 16 regarding law enforcement, we act within engagement. the framework of the legislation adopted Misuse of Police Records 17 by the politicians and under the control The Bureau wishes to commemorate of the courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    2011 annual report 2011 Contents Foreword 3 Organization and Staffing 4-5 Deprivation of Position by Court Judgment 6-7 Documenting Decisions in Criminal Cases 8-9 Police Corruption in Norway 10-11 The Conduct of Police Employees 12-13 The Use of Police Signature in Private Contexts 14-15 Incidents during Detention 16-17 Statistics 18-21 Decisions to Prosecute in 2011 22-25 Emergency Turn-Outs in 2011 26-27 Administrative Assessments in 2011 28-31 Court cases in 2011 32-35 Meetings and Lectures in 2011 36-37 The Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation of Police Affairs 38 Articles from Previous Annual Reports 39 annual report Copy Print Photo / Norwegian Bureau for the / PJ-trykk, Oslo / Frank Holm, Alelier Klingwall Investigation of Police Affairs / Cornelius Poppe, Berit Roald, ScanpiX Illustrations / Politiforum Design / layout / Harald Nygård / Getty Images / Newmarketing AS / Geir Hansen Foreword The purpose of the Annual Reports from the Bureau is, in addition to presenting statistical data, to point to opportunities for learning through experience. This year’s report focuses, among other things, on police detention. he Bureau has forwarded 220 cases that decisions regarding measures taken dur- the Bureau was maintained by the Director of to administrative assessment since its ing detention are not sufficiently documented. Public Prosecution. Testablishment on 1 January 2005. Typi- cally these cases have not resulted in punitive Despite the fact that the number of cases is One of the objectives of creating of the Bureau reactions, but the investigation has revealed a relatively small compared to the number of was to strengthen the public’s confidence in need for an improvement of routines.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Policy Report 2008
    Annual Policy Report 2008 produced by the European Migration Network March 2011 The purpose of EMN Annual Policy Reports is to provide an overview into the most significant political and legislative (including EU) developments, as well as public debates, in the area of asylum and migration, with the focus on third-country nationals rather than EU nationals. This EMN Synthesis Report summarises the main findings of National Reports produced by twenty-three of the EMN National Contact Points (EMN NCPs) from Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The EMN Synthesis Report, as well as the twenty-three National Reports upon which the synthesis is based, may be downloaded from http://emn.intrasoft- intl.com/Downloads/prepareShowFiles.do;?entryTitle=02. Annual Policy Report 2008 Several of the National Reports are also available in the Member States‟ national language, as well as in English. EMN Synthesis Report – Annual Policy Report 2008 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Methodology followed ........................................................................................ 7 2. POLITICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS ........................................ 9 2.1 General political developments ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Border Management Reform in Transition Democracies
    Border Management Reform in Transition Democracies Editors Aditya Batara G Beni Sukadis Contributors Pierre Aepli Colonel Rudito A.A. Banyu Perwita, PhD Zoltán Nagy Lieutenant-Colonel János Hegedűs First Edition, June 2007 Layout Front Cover Lebanese-Israeli Borders Downloaded from: www.michaelcotten.com Printed by Copyright DCAF & LESPERSSI, 2007 The Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces FOREWORD Suripto, SH Vice Chairman of 3rd Commission, Indonesian House of Representatives And Chariman of Lesperssi Founder Board Border issues have been one of the largest areas of concern for Indonesia. Since becoming a sovereign state 61 years ago, Indonesia is still facing a series of territorial border problems. Up until today, Indonesia has reached agreements with its neighbouring countries related to demarcation and state border delineation. However, the lack of an unequivocal authority for border management has left serious implications for the state’s sovereignty and its citizen’s security. The Indonesian border of today, is still having to deal with border crime, which includes the violation of the territorial border, smuggling and terrorist infiltration, illegal fishing, illegal logging and Human Rights violations. These kinds of violations have also made a serious impact on the state’s sovereignty and citizen’s security. As of today, Indonesia still has an ‘un-settled’ sea territory, with regard to the rights of sovereignty (Additional Zone, Economic Exclusive Zone, and continent plate). This frequently provokes conflict between the authorised sea-territory officer on patrol and foreign ships or fishermen from neighbouring countries. One of the principal border problems is the Sipadan-Ligitan dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia, which started in 1969.
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Aspects of Cooperation Between the State Border Guard of Latvia and Federal Security Service Border Guard Service of Russian Federation
    PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE STATE BORDER GUARD OF LATVIA AND FEDERAL SECURITY SERVICE BORDER GUARD SERVICE OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION Jekaterina Kuprijanova1, Juris Livdāns2 Iluta Arbidāne3 1 State Border Guard, Latvia, e-mail: [email protected] 2State Border Guard, Latvia, e-mail: [email protected] 3 Rezekne Academy of Technologies, Latvia, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. One of the main State Border Guard priorities is to maintain and develop the state border guarding system, according to the European Union external borders requirements, by fulfilling the conditions of the Schengen acquis. Schengen acquis provides that international cooperation in the field of border security can have multilateral, bilateral and local dimensions. In this context, an agreements concluded with bordering countries on cooperation in the field of border management is an effective tool to strengthen border security (EU Schengen Catalogue, 2002). In research as methodology are used scientific literature in the field of international law, treaties and agreements, the law of the Republic of Latvia, the State border guard of the internal regulations and the State border guard of unpublished materials. The Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation cooperate in the field of development and implementation of coherent measures for the border control. Cooperation with RF is executed based on treaties and agreements concluded, as well, maintaining contacts between competent representatives of both countries at various management levels. The extensive cooperation between neighbouring countries on maintenance of security at the border results in the elucidation of the incidents occurring at the state border and other relevant issues, at the same time providing stability and security at the common border.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL REPORT 2 015 COPY LAYOUT PHOTOS the Norwegian Bureau Newmarketing AS Lars A
    ANNUAL REPORT 2 015 COPY LAYOUT PHOTOS The Norwegian Bureau Newmarketing AS Lars A. Lien for the Investigation of Tore Letvik, Juristkontakt Police Affairs PRINT Politiforum PJ-trykk, Oslo iStock Photo Police Inspectorate of Kosova Thomas Haugersveen, Politiforum CONTENTS Foreword 3 The 10th Anniversary of the Bureau 4 Police Ethics 6 Investigation of Police Shootings 8 Accidental Shootings 10 Misuse of Police Records 12 Dealing with Requests for Assistance 14 International Cooperation in 2015 16 Necessary for or Considerably Facilitating Performance of Duty 18 New Provisions concerning Offences Committed in the course of Official Duty 20 Statistics 2015 22 Decisions to Prosecute 2015 26 Court Cases 2015 32 Emergency Turn-outs 2015 34 Administrative Assessments 2015 36 The Bureau’s Organisation and Staffing 38 Who Works at the Bureau – The Director of the Bureau 40 241 651 Who Works at the Bureau? – The Investigation Divisions 42 Trykksak Articles from Previous Annual Reports 46 Both the police and society at large undergo continual change. It is important for the Bureau to maintain a level of professionalism that enables assignments to be dealt with thoroughly and efficiently and as independently as possible. FOREWORD n several of its annual reports, the days, but the average processing time in Bureau has drawn attention to ques- 2015 was 204 days. The increase from 2014 I tions concerning deprivation of to 2015 was expected, and was brought liberty and the use of police custody. This about by the need to delay investigations was also a major topic when the Bureau and other processing in a number of commemorated 10 years of operation in cases owing to work on the above case May 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Responses to Political Mass Shootings in the United States and Norway
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Sociology & Criminal Justice Theses & Dissertations Sociology & Criminal Justice Summer 2016 What Can State Talk Tell Us About Punitiveness? A Comparison of Responses to Political Mass Shootings in The United States and Norway Kimberlee G. Waggoner Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/sociology_criminaljustice_etds Part of the Criminology Commons, Scandinavian Studies Commons, and the Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons Recommended Citation Waggoner, Kimberlee G.. "What Can State Talk Tell Us About Punitiveness? A Comparison of Responses to Political Mass Shootings in The United States and Norway" (2016). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Dissertation, Sociology & Criminal Justice, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/6e42-3262 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/sociology_criminaljustice_etds/10 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology & Criminal Justice at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology & Criminal Justice Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT CAN STATE TALK TELL US ABOUT PUNITIVENESS? A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO POLITICAL MASS SHOOTINGS IN THE UNITED STATES AND NORWAY by Kimberlee G. Waggoner B.S. May 2009, Northern Arizona University M.S. May 2011, Northern Arizona University A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY August 2016 Approved by: Randolph Myers (Director) Mona J.E. Danner (Member) Tim Goddard (Member) ABSTRACT WHAT CAN STATE TALK TELL US ABOUT PUNITIVENESS? A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO POLITICAL MASS SHOOTINGS IN THE UNITED STATES AND NORWAY Kimberlee G.
    [Show full text]
  • Anniversary Publication
    Ten Years of Europol 1999-2009 TEN YEARS OF EUROPOL, 1999-2009 Europol Corporate Communications P.O. Box 90850 2509 LW The Hague The Netherlands www.europol.europa.eu © European Police OfÞ ce, 2009 All rights reserved. Reproduction in any form or by any means is allowed only with the prior permission of Europol Editor: Agnieszka Biegaj Text: Andy Brown Photographs: Europol (Zoran Lesic, Bo Pallavicini, Max Schmits, Marcin Skowronek, Europol archives); EU Member States’ Law Enforcement Authorities; European Commission; European Council; Participants of the Europol Photo Competition 2009: Kristian Berlin, Devid Camerlynck, Janusz Gajdas, Jean-François Guiot, Lasse Iversen, Robert Kralj, Tomasz Kurczynski, Antte Lauhamaa, Florin Lazau, Andrzej Mitura, Peter Pobeska, Pawel Ostaszewski, Jorgen Steen, Georges Vandezande Special thanks to all the photographers, EU Member States’ Law Enforcement Authorities and Europol Liaison Bureaux for their contributions 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 7 I. Birth of an Idea, 1991-1998 11 1. Ideas behind Europol: Tackling International Crime 11 2. Maastricht Treaty: the ‘Founding Article’ 12 3. First Step: the Europol Drugs Unit 12 4. The Hague: a Fitting Location 13 5. Formal Status: the Europol Convention 14 6. European Union: New Members and a New Treaty 15 II. The First Years, 1999-2004 21 1. Facing the Challenges: Stabilisation and Consolidation 21 2. Changing Priorities, Flexible Organisation 24 3. Information Exchange and Intelligence Analysis: Core Business 27 4. The Hague Programme: Positioning Europol at the Centre of EU Law Enforcement Cooperation 34 5. Casting the Net Wider: Cooperation Agreements with Third States and Organisations 36 6. Europol’s Most Important Asset: the Staff and the ELO Network 37 III.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Common Manual for Immigration Liaison Officers (Ilos) Posted Abroad by the Member States of the European Union
    COUNCIL OF Brussels, 25 April 2006 THE EUROPEAN UNION 8418/06 LIMITE CIREFI 16 COMIX 368 NOTE from : General Secretariat to : CIREFI No. prev. doc.: 14759/05 CIREFI 31 COMIX 781 Subject : Draft Common Manual for Immigration Liaison Officers (ILOs) posted abroad by the Member States of the European Union Delegations will find attached the above-mentioned draft Common Manual. ______________ 8418/06 EB/cr 1 DG H I LIMITE EN DRAFT Common Manual For Immigration Liaison Officers posted abroad by the Member States of the European Union 2006 8418/06 EB/cr 2 DG H I LIMITE EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................5 2. Purpose, Nature And Scope of the Manual.......................................................................5 3. General Part.......................................................................................................................5 3.1 Organisations and persons concerned by this Manual ...............................................5 3.2 ILOs tasks and best practices .....................................................................................6 3.2.1. Constitution of cooperation networks between ILOs through networking activities....................................................................................6 3.2.2. Establish and maintain direct contacts with the competent authorities/ representatives of international organisations in the host country/ ILOs of third countries and commercial
    [Show full text]
  • Response of the Norwegian Government to the Report of The
    CPT/Inf (2006) 34 Response of the Norwegian Government to the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Norway from 3 to 10 October 2005 The Norwegian Government has requested the publication of this response. The report of the CPT on its October 2005 visit to Norway is set out in document CPT/Inf (2006) 14. Strasbourg, 4 October 2006 - 3 - Response of the Norwegian authorities to the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Norway from 3 to 10 October 2005 The Norwegian authorities are pleased to note that the CPT found the cooperation of the Norwegian authorities with the delegation to be exemplary in all respects. We welcome the fact that the delegation felt they received excellent co-operation from the directors and staff of the establishments visited, and that it was evident that these establishments had been notified of the Committee’s visit and were properly informed of its mandate and powers. A. Police establishments General remarks by the Director of Public Prosecutions The Director of Public Prosecutions is pleased to note that the CPT has not found reason for substantial criticism in any area within the prosecution authority’s scope of responsibility. The Director will follow up on the CPT’s recommendations by issuing a revised circular on custody on remand, in which all of the points of concern raised in the report will be addressed, by the end of 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Organisational Stressors and Mental Wellbeing Within Police Officers: a Systematic Review Amrit Purba1 and Evangelia Demou2*
    Purba and Demou BMC Public Health (2019) 19:1286 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7609-0 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access The relationship between organisational stressors and mental wellbeing within police officers: a systematic review Amrit Purba1 and Evangelia Demou2* Abstract Background: Occupational stressors in police work increase the risk for officer mental health morbidities. Officers’ poor mental wellbeing is harmful to the individual, can affect professionalism, organisational effectiveness, and public safety. While the impact of operational stressors on officers’ mental wellbeing is well documented, no review has systematically investigated organisational stressor impacts. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review to assess the relationship between organisational stressors and police officer mental wellbeing. Methods: Systematic review conducted following PRISMA and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Literature search was undertaken from 1990 to May 2017 on four databases (EBSCOHOST Medline/SocINDEX/PsycINFO/OVID Embase) and grey literature. Included articles were critically appraised and assessed for risk of bias. Narrative and evidence syntheses were performed by specific mental health outcomes. Results: In total, 3571 results were returned, and 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. All included studies were published in English between 1995 and 2016, had cross-sectional study designs, spanned across four continents and covered 15,150 officers. Strong evidence of significant associations was identified for organisational stressors and the outcomes of: occupational stress, psychiatric symptoms/psychological distress, emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment. The organisational stressors most often demonstrating consistently significant associations with mental health outcomes included lack of support, demand, job pressure, administrative/ organisational pressure and long working-hours. Conclusions: This review is the first to systematically examine organisational stressors and mental health in police officers.
    [Show full text]