DOCSLIB.ORG

Immunity of State Officials

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Immunity of State Officials All England Law Reports 10 January 2007 HL Jones v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 113 a Jones v Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and another (Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and others intervening) b Mitchell and others v Al-Dali and others [2006] UKHL 26 HLJones v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia c HOUSE OF LORDS LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL, LORD HOFFMANN, LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY, LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE AND LORD CARSWELL 24–27 APRIL, 14 JUNE 2006 d Constitutional law – Foreign sovereign state – Immunity from suit – Right to a fair trial – Civil claims against foreign state and state officials for damages for torture in foreign state – Whether foreign state immune from suit – Whether state officials immune from suit – Whether immunity from suit breach of right to a fair trial – State Immunity Act 1978, s 1 – Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 6 – United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment e 1984, art 14. The claimant in the first action, J, issued High Court proceedings against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and A, a Saudi official. He claimed aggravated and exemplary damages for assault and battery, trespass to the person, false imprisonment and torture in the Kingdom. The Kingdom applied to set aside f service of the proceedings and to dismiss J’s claim on the ground of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978. Section 1(1)a of that Act provided that a state was immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom (except as provided in Pt I of the Act). On that ground, the master set aside service of the proceedings on the Kingdom and refused g permission to serve A, who had not been served, by an alternative method. J appealed to the Court of Appeal, contending that Pt I of the 1978 Act was incompatible with the right of access to the court guaranteed by the right to a fair trial contained in art 6b of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (as set out in Sch 1 to the Human Rights h Act 1998). The claimants in the second action issued High Court proceedings against four defendants. The first two defendants were sued as officers in the Kingdom’s police force. The third defendant was sued as a colonel in the Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom and deputy governor of a prison in which the claimants had been confined. The fourth defendant was sued as head of the Ministry of Interior. They claimed aggravated damages for assault and j negligence, contending that they had been subjected to torture in the Kingdom by the first two defendants, which the third and fourth defendants had caused or a Section 1, so far as material, is set out at [7], below b Article 6, so far as material, provides: ‘(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law . .’ All England Law Reports 10 January 2007 114 All England Law Reports [2007] 1 All ER permitted or negligently failed to prevent. The master refused the claimants’ a application to serve the proceedings out of the jurisdiction on the ground of state immunity under the 1978 Act. The claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed J’s appeal against the dismissal of all his claims against the Kingdom on the ground of state immunity, but allowed his appeal against refusal of permission to serve A out of the jurisdiction by an alternative method. It allowed the appeal of the three claimants in the second action against b the refusal of permission to serve all four defendants out of the jurisdiction (save in respect of the claimants’ allegations of negligence). The applications for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction in both actions were remitted to the master. J appealed against the dismissal of his claims against the Kingdom and the Kingdom appealed against the refusal of state immunity for the individual defendants in both cases. J and the other claimants relied on the proscription of c torture by the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 to which both the United Kingdom and the Kingdom were parties. Article 14c of the Torture Convention provided that each state party was to ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtained redress and had an enforceable right to d fair and adequate compensation. They contended, inter alia, that the proscription of torture by international law precluded the grant of immunity to states or individuals sued for committing acts of torture since such could not be governmental acts or exercises of state authority entitled to the protection of state immunity. e Held – The Kingdom and the individual defendants were protected by state immunity under Pt I of the 1978 Act. On the assumption that art 6 of the European Convention was engaged by the grant of state immunity, the grant of immunity did deny the claimants access to the English court. The claimants’ argument was that the restriction was not directed to a legitimate objective and f was disproportionate as the grant of immunity was inconsistent with a peremptory norm of international law superior in effect to other rules of international law which required that the practice of torture should be suppressed and the victims of torture compensated. However, although the Torture Convention had established a universal criminal jurisdiction it did not provide for universal civil jurisdiction. Article 14 of the Torture Convention g required a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of the forum state. Moreover, there was no evidence that states had recognised or given effect to an international law obligation to exercise universal jurisdiction over claims arising from alleged breaches of peremptory norms of international law, nor was there any consensus h of judicial or learned opinion that they should. That lack of evidence was not neutral: since the rule on immunity was well understood and established, and no relevant exception was generally accepted, the rule prevailed. It followed that Pt I of the 1978 Act had not been shown to be disproportionate. It was not for a national court to develop international law by unilaterally adopting a version of j that law which however desirable was simply not accepted by other states. There was no basis to deny immunity to individuals who were alleged to have committed acts of torture because torture could not constitute an official act. A state would incur responsibility in international law if one of its officials, under c Article 14 is set out at [16], below All England Law Reports 10 January 2007 HL Jones v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 115 colour of his authority, tortured a national of another state, even though the acts a were unlawful and unauthorised. The same act could not be official for the purposes of the definition of torture but not for the purposes of immunity. The Court of Appeal had been wrong to depart from the principle that a foreign state was entitled to claim immunity for its servants as it could if sued itself. Accordingly, J’s appeal would be dismissed and the Kingdom’s appeal would be b allowed (see [13]–[15], [17], [24]–[36], [40], [41], [46], [63], [64], [78], [79], [81], [85], [101]–[105], below). Al-Adsani v Government of Kuwait (1996) 107 ILR 536 followed. Al-Adsani v UK (2001) 12 BHRC 88, R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) [1999] 2 All ER 97 and Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium (Case concerning Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000) c [2002] ICJ Rep 3 considered. Notes For the International Human Rights Codes, see 8(2) Halsbury’s Laws (4th edn reissue) paras 103, 104, for jurisdiction under International Conventions and for d state immunity and the meaning of state, see 18(2) Halsbury’s Laws (4th edn reissue) paras 809, 826, 827. For the State Immunity Act 1978, s 1, see 10 Halsbury’s Statutes (4th edn) (2001 reissue) 830. For the Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 6, see 7 Halsbury’s Statutes (4th edn) (2004 reissue) 706. e Cases referred to in opinions A v Secretary of State for the Home Dept (No 2) [2005] UKHL 71, [2006] 1 All ER 575, [2005] 3 WLR 1249. Al-Adsani v Government of Kuwait (1996) 107 ILR 536, CA. f Al-Adsani v UK (2001) 12 BHRC 88, ECt HR. Alcom Ltd v Republic of Colombia [1984] 2 All ER 6, [1984] AC 580, [1984] 2 WLR 750, HL. Bouzari v Islamic Republic of Iran (2004) 71 OR (3d) 675, Ont CA; affg (2002) 124 ILR 427, Ont SC. Buchanan (Peter) Ltd v McVey [1954] IR 89, [1955] AC 516n, Ir SC. g Cabiri v Assasie-Gyimah (1996) 921 F Supp 1189, US DC (SD NY). Capital (AIG) Partners Inc v Republic of Kazakhstan [2005] EWHC 2239 (Comm), [2006] 1 All ER 284, [2006] 1 WLR 1420. Church of Scientology Case (1978) 65 ILR 193, Germ SC. Cia Naviera Vascongada v Steamship Cristina [1938] 1 All ER 719, [1938] AC 485, HL. h Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium (Case concerning Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000) [2002] ICJ Rep 3, ICJ.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Statutory Guidance for Police Collaboration 12Th March 2010
    STATUTORY GUIDANCE FOR POLICE COLLABORATION 12TH MARCH 2010 Statutory Guidance for Police Collaboration 1 2 Statutory Guidance for Police Collaboration Contents INTRODUCTION 5 NOTE ON DIRECTION AND CONTROL 6 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE POLICE ACT 1996 7 LEGAL FRAMEWORK 7 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS 12 RIPA AND COLLABORATIONS 25 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUTUAL AID AND COLLABORATIONS 27 MODELS OF COLLABORATION 29 AVOIDING BUREAUCRACY 29 CHOOSING COLLABORATION PARTNERS AND COLLABORATION MODELS 29 GOVERNANCE 31 FUNDING 35 WORKFORCE ARRANGEMENTS 37 LEGAL DUTIES AND LIABILITY FOR BREACH 41 PROCUREMENT 51 PROCUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS 51 MANAGING THE COLLABORATION OVER TIME 53 REVIEWING AND AMENDING THE AGREEMENT 53 NEW PROJECTS 53 ENDING THE AGREEMENT 53 EXIT STRATEGY 53 ANNEX A – DECISION PROCESS FOR COLLABORATION 55 ANNEX B – GLOSSARY 57 Statutory Guidance for Police Collaboration 3 This Statutory Guidance was developed by the Home Office with the assistance of consultants from Tribal involving wide consultation and review with partners throughout the police service. It has been endorsed by the tripartite National Police Protective Services Board (a sub-committee of the National Policing Board) whose member organisations include the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the National Policing Improvement Agency. It has also been approved by the Police Advisory Board of England and Wales. All of the above organisations, as well as the many individual reviewers and reference group members, are thanked for their substantial contributions. Through this Statutory Guidance document the Secretary of State is exercising his power (in section 23F of the Police Act 1996 (as amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2009)) to provide guidance about collaboration agreements or related matters.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File, Please Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. Q L/ LI7 '73 charge of each. There are 34 divisions, spectors. The State has about Police Rescue Squad each headed by an ins:1ector. 1,245,000 people. Several special squads are based at The force's motto is "The Safety of . the Sydney CIB, including the Armed the People is the Highest Law". Its role Hold-Up Squad, Homicide Squad, is laid down as the preservation of life Australi a:::'~sr'1fTK~TI·~hf~o: rces Special Breaking Squad, Consorting and the protection of property, the Squad, Drug Squad, Crime Intelligence prevention and detection of crime and Unit, Fraud Squad, Vice Squad and the maintenance of peace and good Motor Squad. Detectives and order. plainclothes police are also stationed at most police stations in the metropo!itan Western Australian area and at the larger country stations. Police Force This force has a strength of about Victoria Police Force 2,290. They serve about 1,116,000 Under its Chief Commissioner this people. The higher ranks include a senior force has about 6,500 members (some assistant commissioner, and three assis­ 300 of them policewomen). The~' in­ tant commissioners (for administration, clude one deputy commissioner, five crime, traffic) a chief superintendent, 21 assistant commissioners, two com­ superintendents, 20 senior inspectors manders, 24 chief superintendents, 29 and 25 inspectors including one woman superintendents, 87 chief inspectors, police inspector. and 173 inspectors. They serve about To bring about more effective un­ 3,700,000 people. derstanding among the State's Victoria is divided for police purposes Aboriginal population, 18 Aboriginal into 26 geographical districts each com­ police aides are part of the force (since manded by a chief superintendent.
    [Show full text]
  • Circular 2018/01: Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act
    Circular 2018/01 TITLE: ASSAULTS ON EMERGENCY WORKERS (OFFENCES) ACT 2018 From: Bail, Sentencing and Release Policy Distribution Date: 13/11/2018 Implementation Date: 13/11/2018 For further information Ashir Mir, Sentencing Policy Advisor contact: Bail, Sentencing and Release Policy [email protected] 07547 970008 BroaD subject: Criminal Law Sub category: Assaults on Emergency Workers This circular is for: Lord Chief Justice, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Senior Presiding Judge, Justices of the Supreme Court, Lords Justices of Appeal, High Court Judges, Crown Court Judges, District Judges (Magistrates Courts), Bench Chairmen, Clerks to the Justices, Chief Crown Prosecutors, Council of Circuit Judges, Magistrates’ Association, Justices’ Clerks’ Society, Registrar of Criminal Appeals, The Law Society, The Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association, National Police Chief’s Council, Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, Police Federation, Superintendents’ Association, Chief Police Officer’s Staff Association, College of Policing, Association of Special Constabulary Officers, Unison, Royal College of Nursing, Fire and Rescue Services Association, Fire Brigades Union, Fire Officers Association, National Fire Chiefs Council, Local Government Association, National Joint Council, Prison Officers’ Association, Prison Governors Association ASSAULTS ON EMERGENCY WORKERS (OFFENCES) ACT 2018 INTRODUCTION 1. The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 received Royal Assent on 13 September 2018 and will come into force on 13 November 2018. The Act is set out in full at Annex A. 2. The Act is a response to the increase, in recent years, in the number of assaults on emergency workers. There were 26,000 assaults on police officers in the past year.
    [Show full text]
  • Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC)
    Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) Basics Web site http://www.hmic.gov.uk/Pages/home.aspx Geographical England and Wales coverage Constitutional Aspects Legal Her Majesty’s Inspectors of the Constabulary (‘HMICs’) have an Framework/Basis extensive history, as the first HMICs were appointed under the provisions of the County and Borough Police Act 1856. In 1962, the Royal Commission on the Police (Final Report, Cmnd. 1728) formally acknowledged their contribution to policing. HMIC is governed by the Police Act 1996, which states that ‘inspectors of constabulary’ will inspect every police force in England and Wales in relation to their ‘efficiency and effectiveness’. The Police Act 1996 (sections 54 to 56 and Schedule 4A) describes the appointment procedure, functions and powers of HMIC including its duty to arrange for publication of its reports. HMIC’s core function is to inspect the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces (s. 54). The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 made significant changes to the powers/functions of HMIC. HMIC no longer reports directly to the Secretary of State, in order to secure its independence, and it is now HMIC that arranges to publish its reports as it considers appropriate. HMIC’s powers now include the ability to request (and be mandatorily given) information by chief police officers and the power to enter police premises (paragraphs 6A and 6B of Schedule 4A) as appear to HMIC to be required for the purposes of an inspection under section 54. In addition to HMIC’s proactive inspections, if a local policing body requests inspectors to carry out an inspection of a particular police force, or a specified section or activity of that force, HMIC may carry out such an inspection (with the policing body paying HMIC’s reasonable costs per s.
    [Show full text]
  • Neighbourhood Policing Developing Citizen Focus Policing
    Gwent Police – HMIC Inspection September 2008 HMIC Inspection Report Gwent Police Neighbourhood Policing Developing Citizen Focus Policing September 2008 Gwent Police – HMIC Inspection September 2008 ISBN: 978-1-84726-785-6 CROWN COPYRIGHT FIRST PUBLISHED 2008 Gwent Police – HMIC Inspection September 2008 Contents Introduction to HMIC Inspections HMIC Business Plan for 2008/09 Programmed Frameworks Statutory Performance Indicators and Key Diagnostic Indicators Developing Practice The Grading Process Force Overview and Context Force Performance Overview Findings Neighbourhood Policing Developing Citizen Focus Policing Appendix 1: Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations Appendix 2: Assessment of Outcomes Using Statutory Performance Indicator Data Gwent Police – HMIC Inspection September 2008 Introduction to HMIC Inspections For a century and a half, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has been charged with examining and improving the efficiency of the police service in England and Wales, with the first HM Inspectors (HMIs) being appointed under the provisions of the County and Borough Police Act 1856. In 1962, the Royal Commission on the Police formally acknowledged HMIC’s contribution to policing. HMIs are appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the Home Secretary and report to HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, who is the Home Secretary’s principal professional policing adviser and is independent of both the Home Office and the police service. HMIC’s principal statutory duties are set out in the Police Act 1996. For more information, please visit HMIC’s website at http://inspectorates.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/. In 2006, HMIC conducted a broad assessment of all 43 Home Office police forces in England and Wales, examining 23 areas of activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnic Profiling by Police in Europe Foreword: Christopher Stone 1
    A publication of the Open Society Justice Initiative, June 2005 Contents Ethnic Profiling by Police in Europe Foreword: Christopher Stone 1 Introduction Ethnic profiling, the inappropriate use by law Toward a Europe 6 enforcement of an individual's ethnic character- Without Ethnic Profiling James A. Goldston istics in identifying criminal suspects, is wide- Ethnic Profiling by Police in Europe spread but under-researched in Europe. Justice Evidence of Ethnic Profiling 14 in Selected European Countries Initiatives examines profiling by police in Europe, Misti Duvall and explores the methods used in the United ID Checks and Police Raids: 26 Ethnic Profiling in Central Europe States and the United Kingdom to confront it. Iulius Rostas A Failure to Regulate: Data 32 Protection in the Police Sector in Europe FOREWORD Benjamin Hayes The Case for Monitoring 44 Ethnic Profiling in Europe Preparing a Fresh Assault Stephen Humphreys on Ethnic Profiling Monitoring and Measuring Ethnic Profiling Christopher Stone† Measuring and Understanding 53 st Minority Experiences of Stop In this first decade of the 21 century, efforts to end ethnic and Search in the UK profiling by police are entering a new stage: more global, more Joel Miller collaborative, and more practical than the campaigns of the Benchmarking and Analysis 59 late 1990s. This volume of Justice Initiatives provides both a for Ethnic Profiling Studies succinct summary of the lessons from the recent past and a John Lamberth guide for those who are now preparing fresh assaults against Policing Practice: Case Studies the invidious use of race and ethnicity as markers of suspicion. Confronting Ethnic Profiling 66 In the late 1990s, the campaign against “racial profiling” in the United States by police services in the United States enjoyed a swift and David Harris somewhat surprising political victory.
    [Show full text]
  • Law Enforcement, Judiciary, and Corrections 43 the Problems of Law Enforcement
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. COMMUNITY· RELATIONS concepts third edition :3-d j-. tJ t-.! 'M' .. f /j..~;. ;, . '.~.. " . - m Denny F. Pace . -.,. ' ' .. ~.' ..•. ~~-:-:.- 1'-'- .---'~">~... '~. COMMUNITY RELATIONS concepts third edition Denny F. Pace COPPERHOUSE PUBLISHING COMPANY 1590 Lotus Road Placerville~ California 95667 (916) 626-1260 Your Partner in Education with "QUALITY BOOKS AT FAIR PRICES" Community Relations Concepts Third Edition Copyright © 1993, 1990, 1987, 1985 by Copperhollse Publishing Company All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any manner without prior written permission of the publisher; except for brief passages which may be quoted in connection with a book review and only when source credit is given. Library of Congress Catalog Number 92-085119 ISBN 0-942728-54-8 Paper Text Edition Printed in the United States of America. .., DEDICATION This book is respectfully dedicated to the thousands of professional agents and representatives of the criminal justice system who strive diligently to make the system better serve the public; and to those elected and appointed officials, educators, and public spirited citizens who constantly strive to raise the profes­ sionallevel of all the system's participants. It is the author's fondest wish that Community Relations Concepts will contribute to a better understanding and more effective operation of the system by both students planning to enter and those already engaged in this most challenging area of public service. D.F.P. 144616 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Manchester Police, Fire and Crime Panel
    Public Document GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE, FIRE AND CRIME PANEL DATE: Friday, 14th May, 2021 TIME: 10.00 am VENUE: Manchester Town Hall Extension, Albert Square, Manchester M60 2LA AGENDA 1. APOLOGIES 2. CHAIRS ANNOUNCEMENTS AND URGENT BUSINESS 3. DECLARATION OF INTEREST 1 - 4 To receive declarations of interest in any item for discussion at the meeting. A blank form for declaring interests has been circulated with the agenda; please ensure that this is returned to the Governance & Scrutiny Officer at the start of the meeting. 4. CONFIRMATION HEARING - CHIEF CONSTABLE 5 - 8 To note the report of the Confirmation Hearing to appoint the Chief Constable of GMP, held on 26 March 2021. 5. BALANCED APPOINTMENT OBJECTIVE AND CO-OPTED 9 - 12 MEMBERS Report of Liz Treacy, GMCA Monitoring Officer 6. CONFIRMATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY MAYOR (TO FOLLOW) 7. GM FIRE &RESCUE SERVICE - FIRE PLAN (TO FOLLOW) BOLTON MANCHESTER ROCHDALE STOCKPORT TRAFFORD BURY OLDHAM SALFORD TAMESIDE WIGAN Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed via www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk, please speak to a Governance Officer before the meeting should you not wish to consent to being included in this recording. For copies of papers and further information on this meeting please refer to the website www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk. Alternatively, contact the following Governance & Scrutiny Officer: Steve Annette [email protected] This agenda was issued on 6 May 2021 behalf of Julie Connor, Secretary to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Broadhurst House, 56 Oxford Street, Manchester M1 6EU 2 POLICE FIRE AND CRIME PANEL – 14 MAY 2021 Declaration of Councillors’ Interests in Items Appearing on the Agenda NAME: ______________________________ DATE: _______________________________ Minute Item No.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Thepdf
    Volume 59, Issue 5 Page 1395 Stanford Law Review KEEPING CONTROL OF TERRORISTS WITHOUT LOSING CONTROL OF CONSTITUTIONALISM Clive Walker © 2007 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, from the Stanford Law Review at 59 STAN. L. REV. 1395 (2007). For information visit http://lawreview.stanford.edu. KEEPING CONTROL OF TERRORISTS WITHOUT LOSING CONTROL OF CONSTITUTIONALISM Clive Walker* INTRODUCTION: THE DYNAMICS OF COUNTER-TERRORISM POLICIES AND LAWS................................................................................................ 1395 I. CONTROL ORDERS ..................................................................................... 1403 A. Background to the Enactment of Control Orders............................... 1403 B. The Replacement System..................................................................... 1408 1. Control orders—outline................................................................ 1408 2. Control orders—contents and issuance........................................ 1411 3. Non-derogating control orders..................................................... 1416 4. Derogating control orders............................................................ 1424 5. Criminal prosecution.................................................................... 1429 6. Ancillary issues............................................................................. 1433 7. Review by Parliament and the Executive...................................... 1443 C. Judicial Review..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Yorkshire Police Force Management Statement 2019 Written in May 2019 and Relates to January - December 2018
    South Yorkshire Police Force Management Statement 2019 Written in May 2019 and relates to January - December 2018 Force Management Statement 2019 | South Yorkshire Police 1 Contents Introduction ................................................6 10. ICT and Information Management ..........................................133 1. Finance ...................................................8 Information Services ................................134 2A. Responding to the public - requests for service ................................17 Workforce Planning .................................139 2B. Responding to the public - incident Learning and Development .....................141 response ...................................................28 Professional Standards ...........................144 3. Prevention and deterrence Specials and volunteers ..........................146 (Neighbourhood Policing) .......................40 Estates and Fleet Management ...............149 4. Investigations .......................................57 Business Change and Innovation ............152 5. Protecting Vulnerable People .............70 Finance ....................................................155 6. Managing offenders ............................88 Procurement ............................................157 Registered sex offenders ..........................89 Legal Services .........................................160 Integrated offender management ..............91 12. Collaboration ...................................164 Multi-Agency Public Protection
    [Show full text]
  • Police Officers As Victims
    Police officers as victims Sentencing standards and their justifications in England and Germany Prof Dr Osman Isfen, Ruhr-University Bochum Dr Regina E Rauxloh, University of Southampton1 Abstract While there is plenty research in crime committed by police officers surprisingly little debate can be found regarding the situation where a police officer becomes a victim. This is remarkable as the police not only embody criminal law enforcement but also epitomises State power. Based on a comparative study, this article examines how criminal law in England and Germany deals with attacks against police officers through separate criminal offences as well as increased sentences. The authors examine how the use of criminal law reflects on the State’s perception and valuation of the role of the police officer. It will be shown that while in England there is the clear understanding that the status of the victim as police officer has an aggravating effect, Germany strongly opposes the idea that the office-holder deserves more protection than ordinary citizens. On the contrary, the law takes in consideration that the offender finds him- or herself in a vulnerable situation when faced with the power of the State. Keywords Police officers as victims, resistance against law enforcement, sentencing standards, comparison England and Germany, mitigating and aggravating circumstances I. Introduction In the context of criminal law, law enforcement is usually associated with the role of the police in protecting the victim of crime, but one easily forgets that quite often police officers themselves become the victim of crime. Interestingly, while crimes committed by police officers are subject to extensive research and debate, violence against police officers rarely appears in literature, legislation or case law.
    [Show full text]
  • [2021] Csoh 65 P925/20 Opinion of Lord
    OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2021] CSOH 65 P925/20 OPINION OF LORD FAIRLEY In the petition of CALUM STEELE Petitioner for JUDICIAL REVIEW Petitioner: Dean of Faculty, Young; MacRoberts LLP Respondent: Ross QC, Blair; Clyde & Co 22 June 2021 Introduction [1] The petitioner is the General Secretary of the Scottish Police Federation (“the SPF”). The SPF is a body established under section 59 of the Police Act 1996 for the purpose of representing members of the police force in Scotland in all matters affecting their welfare and efficiency. [2] The petitioner is also a police constable with the Police Service of Scotland. Since his appointment as General Secretary of the SPF in around 2009 the petitioner has not undertaken any operational police duties. He nevertheless remains subject, in his capacity 2 as a police constable, to the misconduct procedures contained within the Police Service of Scotland (Conduct) Regulations 2014 (SSI 2014/68) (“the 2014 Regulations”). [3] The respondent is the Deputy Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland. The petitioner seeks declarator that a decision made on behalf of the respondent to institute and maintain misconduct proceedings against him was unlawful at common law and incompatible with his right to freedom of expression in terms of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). He seeks reduction of a particular decision taken by the respondent on 22 September 2020, on which date a Misconduct Form under Regulation 15 of the 2014 Regulations was issued to him. “Misconduct” by police officers [4] Issues of alleged misconduct by police officers are regulated principally by the 2014 Regulations.
    [Show full text]