DOCSLIB.ORG

Misconduct in Public Office Issues Paper 1: the Current Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Misconduct in Public Office Issues Paper 1: the Current Law Misconduct in Public Office Issues Paper 1: The Current Law 20 January 2016 The Law Commission MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE Issues Paper 1: The Current Law © Crown copyright 2016 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.lawcom.gov.uk. ii The Law Commission – How We Consult About the Law Commission: The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Bean, Chairman, Professor Nick Hopkins, Stephen Lewis, Professor David Ormerod QC and Nicholas Paines QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. Topic of this consultation: Analysis of the current law of misconduct in public office and the identification of associated problems. Geographical scope: This paper applies to the law of England and Wales. Availability of materials: The paper is available on our website at http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/misconduct-in-public-office/. Duration of the consultation: We invite responses from 20 January 2016 to 20 March 2016. The terms of this issues paper were agreed on 16 December 2015. Comments may be sent: By email: [email protected] By post: Justine Davidge, Criminal Law Team, Law Commission of England & Wales, 1st Floor Tower, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London, SW1H 9AG. By telephone: 020 3334 3462 By fax: 020 3334 0201 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, whenever possible, you could also send them electronically (for example, on CD or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format). After the consultation: In the light of the responses we receive, we will produce a further consultative document on the topic of law reform options. Consultation Principles: The Law Commission follows the Consultation Principles set out by the Cabinet Office, which provide guidance on type and scale of consultation, duration, timing, accessibility and transparency. The Principles are available on the Cabinet Office website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance. Information provided to the Law Commission: We may publish or disclose information you provide us in response to this consultation, including personal information. For example, we may publish an extract of your response in Law Commission publications, or publish the response in its entirety. We may also be required to disclose the information, such as in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential please contact us first, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic disclaimer generated by your IT system will not be regarded as binding on the Law Commission. The Law Commission will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. iii THE LAW COMMISSION MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE ISSUES PAPER 1: THE CURRENT LAW CONTENTS Para Page CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The common law offence of misconduct in public office 1.8 1 Background to the project 1.12 2 The structure of this paper 1.25 7 Chapters 1.25 7 Appendices 1.26 7 Acknowledgments 1.28 8 CHAPTER 2: CURRENT LAW The context of the offence 2.6 10 One or more offences? 2.6 10 The tort of misfeasance in public office 2.7 11 The elements of the offence 2.8 12 (1) Public office 2.8 12 (2) Acting as such 2.116 34 (3) Breach of duty (neglect or misconduct) 2.126 37 (4) Wilfulness 2.144 40 (5) Abuse of the public’s trust 2.153 42 (6) Without reasonable excuse or justification 2.187 50 Overall conclusion 2.209 55 Jurisdiction 2.210 57 Liability of secondary parties 2.221 60 Corporate liability 2.226 61 CHAPTER 3: THE NEW OFFENCE OF CORRUPT OR OTHER IMPROPER EXERCISE OF POLICE POWERS OR PRIVILEGES Background to section 26 3.10 64 Progression through Parliament 3.18 66 iv Para Page Elements of section 26 3.25 68 (1) The conduct element - exercising the powers and 3.28 70 privileges of a constable (2) The circumstances element – improperly 3.51 75 (3) The fault element 3.70 79 Relationship between section 26 and misconduct in public office 3.84 81 (1) The abuse of authority example 3.86 82 (2) Other differences between the offences 3.109 87 Impact of section 26 on the review of misconduct in public office 3.116 88 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE OFFENCE AND CONCLUSIONS Problems 4.3 89 Problem 1: Public office - a critical element which lacks 4.4 89 clear definition Problem 2: Breach of duty - ill-defined and unclear what 4.26 93 must be proved Problem 3: Abuse of the public’s trust - crucial as a 4.37 95 threshold element but unworkably vague Problem 4: The fault element - unprincipled variability 4.48 98 Problem 5: Without reasonable excuse or justification - 4.54 99 defence or definitional element? CHAPTER 5: OVERLAPS WITH OTHER FORMS OF LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY Alternative or related criminal offences 5.4 101 Common law offences and the principle of legal certainty 5.8 102 Must a statutory offence always be charged in preference 5.16 103 to a common law offence? Choosing to charge misconduct 5.26 106 The tort of misfeasance in public office 5.58 112 Disciplinary procedures 5.60 112 Drawing a line 5.65 113 The decision to prosecute 5.69 114 NOMS: an example of the challenges faced 5.87 118 Conclusion on the overlap with disciplinary procedures 5.107 122 v Para Page CHAPTER 6: CONDUCT PROSECUTED AS MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE Conduct that can only be prosecuted as misconduct in public office 6.3 124 (1) Public office holders who exploit their positions to 6.6 125 facilitate a sexual relationship (2) Public office holders who use their positions to facilitate 6.16 127 a personal relationship which may create a conflict with the proper performance of the functions of their position (3) Public office holders who deliberately act in a 6.20 128 prejudicial or biased manner or under a conflict of interest (4) Neglect of duty by public office holders which results in 6.30 131 serious consequences, or a risk of serious consequences arising (5) Public office holders who fail properly to protect 6.37 133 information that comes into their possession by virtue of their positions Conduct that is prosecuted as misconduct in public office but could be 6.49 135 prosecuted as an alternative criminal offence (1) Public office holders who exploit their positions to 6.52 135 facilitate financial gain (2) Payments made or received in advance of an individual 6.56 137 becoming a public office holder (3) Interference with evidence 6.62 139 (4) The conveyance of non-prohibited, but potentially 6.67 140 harmful or disruptive, articles into prison (5) Public office holders who fail properly to protect 6.75 142 information that comes into their possession by virtue of their positions CHAPTER 7: QUESTIONS FOR CONSULTEES vi APPENDICES All appendices are available online at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/misconduct-in-public-office/ Appendix A: The history of the offence of misconduct in public office Appendix B: The tort of misfeasance in public office Appendix C: Misconduct in public office and the ECHR Appendix D: Spreadsheets relating to misconduct in public office Appendix E: Previous reform proposals Appendix F: International comparisons vii viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Law Commission is undertaking a review of the offence of misconduct in public office as part of its 11th programme of law reform.1 1.2 Our reform objectives are: (1) to decide whether the existing offence of misconduct in public office should be abolished, retained, restated or amended; and (2) to pursue whatever scheme of reform is decided upon. 1.3 This background document sets out the current law of misconduct in public office, highlighting problems that arise through areas of uncertainty, as well as gaps and overlaps with alternative offences. The legal concepts involved in this offence are highly technical and complex and not easily accessible to non-lawyers. Furthermore, given that the law is so unclear and controversial, there is often some confusion between what the law is and what it should be. The question of the appropriate boundaries of criminal liability for public officials is clearly a matter of broad public interest. 1.4 In light of this complexity and controversy, we have divided the consultation process into two phases in an effort to expand the scope for engagement with the important issues raised in this review. 1.5 The first phase of this consultation commences with our symposium of pre- eminent speakers and delegates, coinciding with the publication of this paper on 20 January 2016. Our focus is on the current law and its problems. We will use the contributions from delegates at this symposium and responses to the questions in this background paper to formulate options for reform. 1.6 We seek responses to the questions set out in this background paper by 20 March 2016. 1.7 The second phase of consultation will set out options of what the law of misconduct in public office should be and will involve a consultative document to be published this spring.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crosby K. Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Juror Punishment in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century England. Legal Studies 2015 DOI: 10.1111/Lest.12098
    Crosby K. Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Juror Punishment in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century England. Legal Studies 2015 DOI: 10.1111/lest.12098 Copyright: This is the peer reviewed version of the above article, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lest.12098. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. Date deposited: 27/07/2015 Embargo release date: 21 December 2017 Newcastle University ePrints - eprint.ncl.ac.uk Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Juror Punishment in Nineteenth- and Twentieth- Century England Kevin Crosby* The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 has created several new offences regarding juror misconduct. While this legislation has been passed in response to jurors accessing improper ‘evidence’ online, it is wrong to treat juror misconduct as a new problem. The most famous case on this topic (Bushell’s Case) did not completely prohibit juror punishment, but the rhetorical force of the decision was such that penal practices have until recently been overlooked in the academic literature. This article argues that assessing the new offences is greatly helped by understanding how juror misconduct has been responded to in the past. Drawing on the language of Bushell’s Case itself, as well as new archival research, it argues that previous practices of juror punishment have largely depended on whether particular instances of misconduct related to the juror’s ‘ministerial’ or ‘judicial’ functions; and that ‘judicial’ offences (those relating to verdict formation) have been much less likely to be punished.
    [Show full text]
  • Juries Act 1974 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 23 May 2021
    Status: Point in time view as at 01/12/2016. Changes to legislation: Juries Act 1974 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 23 May 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) Juries Act 1974 1974 CHAPTER 23 An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to juries, jurors and jury service with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. [9th July 1974] Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act amended by S.I. 1986/1081, regs. 2, 51(6) C2 By Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53, SIF 39:1), s. 101(1), Sch. 12 para. 23; S.I. 1991/2208, art. 2(1), Sch.1 it is provided (14.10.1991) that in relation to any time before the commencement of s.70 of that 1991 Act (which came into force on 1.10.1992 by S.I. 1992/333, art. 2(2), Sch. 2) references in any enactment amended by that 1991 Act, to youth courts shall be construed as references to juvenile courts. Commencement Information I1 Act wholly in force at 9. 8. 1974 see s. 23(3) [F11 Qualification for jury service (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person shall be qualified to serve as a juror in the Crown Court, the High Court and [F2the county court] and be liable accordingly to attend for jury service when summoned under this Act if— (a) he is for the time being registered as a parliamentary or local government elector [F3and aged eighteen or over but under seventy six] ; (b) he has been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for any period of at least five years since attaining the age of thirteen; and F4(c) .
    [Show full text]
  • Criteria for Service As Jurors
    THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF HONG KONG REPORT CRITERIA FOR SERVICE AS JURORS This report can be found on the Internet at: <http://www.hkreform.gov.hk> June 2010 The Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong was established by the Executive Council in January 1980. The Commission considers for reform such aspects of the law as may be referred to it by the Secretary for Justice or the Chief Justice. The members of the Commission at present are: Chairman: Mr Wong Yan-lung, SC, JP, Secretary for Justice Members: The Hon Mr Justice Andrew Li, Chief Justice Mr Eamonn Moran, JP, Law Draftsman Mr John Budge, SBS, JP The Hon Mr Justice Chan, PJ Mrs Pamela Chan, BBS, JP Mr Godfrey Lam, SC Professor Felice Lieh-Mak, JP Mr Peter Rhodes Mr Paul Shieh, SC Professor Michael Wilkinson Ms Anna Wu, SBS, JP The Secretary of the Commission is Mr Stuart M I Stoker and its offices are at: 20/F Harcourt House 39 Gloucester Road Wanchai Hong Kong Telephone: 2528 0472 Fax: 2865 2902 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.hkreform.gov.hk THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF HONG KONG REPORT CRITERIA FOR SERVICE AS JURORS ______________________________ CONTENTS Chapter Page Preface 1 Introduction 1 Terms of reference 1 The sub-committee 2 1. Existing law and practice in Hong Kong 4 Introduction 4 Origins of the jury system 4 The history of the jury system in Hong Kong 5 The jury system today 7 Use of the jury 7 The provisional list of jurors 8 Compilation of the list 10 Qualifications and disabilities 11 Formation of and empanelling the jury 12 Challenge and discharge of jurors 14 Majority verdicts 15 Confidentiality of jurors' discussions in jury room 15 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Circular 2015/01
    CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS ACT 2015 CIRCULAR 2015/01 Circular No. 2015/01 TITLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS ACT 2015 From: Criminal Law and Legal Policy Unit Issue date: 23 March 2015 Updated on 18 May 2015 Implementation 13 April 2015 date: This circular provides guidance about provisions in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 which are being commenced on 13 April 2015 and which have an operational impact that stakeholders need to be aware of. For more [email protected] tel. 020 3334 4632 information contact: [email protected] tel. 020 3334 5007 Broad Subject Criminal Law Civil Law Offender Management Sub Category Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 1 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS ACT 2015 CIRCULAR 2015/01 This circular is Lord Chief Justice, Justices of the Supreme Court, addressed to President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Master of the Rolls, Senior Presiding Judge, Lords Justices of Appeal, Chairman of the Judicial College, High Court Judges, Presiding Judges, Resident Judges, Crown Court Judges, District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts), Chairmen of the Justices, Director of Public Prosecutions, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Chief Officers of Police in England and Wales, Director General of the National Crime Agency, Police Service Scotland, Police Service of Northern Ireland, Director-General of HM Prison Service, Chief Executive of HM Courts and Tribunals Service, Chief Executive of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, Chief Crown Prosecutors, Heads of Division Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office, Chief Probation Officers, Director of Crime, Heads of Crime, Cluster Managers, Regional Support Units, Court Managers Crown Courts, Court Managers Magistrates’ Courts, Clerks to the Justices, DVLA, DOENI, DVA Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Courts Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Hl] Explanatory Notes
    ARMED FORCES (FLEXIBLE WORKING) BILL [HL] EXPLANATORY NOTES What these notes do These Explanatory Notes relate to the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL] as introduced in the House of Lords on 28 June 2017 (HL Bill 13). These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Ministry of Defence in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament. These Explanatory Notes explain what each part of the Bill will mean in practice; provide background information on the development of policy; and provide additional information on how the Bill will affect existing legislation in this area. These Explanatory Notes might best be read alongside the Bill. They are not, and are not intended to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. HL Bill 13–EN 57/1 Table of Contents Subject Page of these Notes Overview of the Bill 2 Policy background 2 Legal background 2 Territorial extent and application 3 Commentary on provisions of Bill 4 Clause 1: Regular forces: part-time service and geographic restrictions 4 Clause 2: Consequential amendments 5 Clause 3: Short title, commencement and extent 5 Financial implications of the Bill 5 Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights 5 Related documents 6 Annex A – Territorial extent and application in the United Kingdom 7 These Explanatory Notes relate to the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL] as introduced in the House of Lords on 28 June 2017 (HL Bill 13) 1 1 Overview of the Bill 1 The Bill makes provision for part-time working by members of the regular Armed Forces and for their service to be subject to geographic restrictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Leadership and Standards in the Police: Follow–Up
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Leadership and standards in the police: follow–up Tenth Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I HC 756-I House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Leadership and standards in the police: follow–up Tenth Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes Volume II: Oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed date 30 October 2013 HC 756-I Published on 3 November 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £6.50 Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Chris Ruane MP (Labour, Vale of Clwyd) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament. Rt Hon Alun Michael (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Karl Turner MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152.
    [Show full text]
  • Law Reform Commission's Report on "Criteria for Service As Jurors"
    THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF HONG KONG REPORT CRITERIA FOR SERVICE AS JURORS This report can be found on the Internet at: <http://www.hkreform.gov.hk> June 2010 The Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong was established by the Executive Council in January 1980. The Commission considers for reform such aspects of the law as may be referred to it by the Secretary for Justice or the Chief Justice. The members of the Commission at present are: Chairman: Mr Wong Yan-lung, SC, JP, Secretary for Justice Members: The Hon Mr Justice Andrew Li, Chief Justice Mr Eamonn Moran, JP, Law Draftsman Mr John Budge, SBS, JP The Hon Mr Justice Chan, PJ Mrs Pamela Chan, BBS, JP Mr Godfrey Lam, SC Professor Felice Lieh-Mak, JP Mr Peter Rhodes Mr Paul Shieh, SC Professor Michael Wilkinson Ms Anna Wu, SBS, JP The Secretary of the Commission is Mr Stuart M I Stoker and its offices are at: 20/F Harcourt House 39 Gloucester Road Wanchai Hong Kong Telephone: 2528 0472 Fax: 2865 2902 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.hkreform.gov.hk THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF HONG KONG REPORT CRITERIA FOR SERVICE AS JURORS ______________________________ CONTENTS Chapter Page Preface 1 Introduction 1 Terms of reference 1 The sub-committee 2 1. Existing law and practice in Hong Kong 4 Introduction 4 Origins of the jury system 4 The history of the jury system in Hong Kong 5 The jury system today 7 Use of the jury 7 The provisional list of jurors 8 Compilation of the list 10 Qualifications and disabilities 11 Formation of and empanelling the jury 12 Challenge and discharge of jurors 14 Majority verdicts 15 Confidentiality of jurors' discussions in jury room 15 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Report: Leadership and Standards in the Police
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Leadership and standards in the police Third Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I HC 67-I House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Leadership and standards in the police Third Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes Volume II: Oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume III, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 26 June 2013 HC 67-I [Incorporating HC 617, 2012–13] Published on 1 July 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Chris Ruane MP (Labour, Vale of Clwyd) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following Member was also a member of the Committee during the Parliament. Rt Hon Alun Michael MP (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Karl Turner MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ANDREW MARR SHOW INTERVIEW: DAMIAN GREEN POLICING MINISTER OCTOBER 20Th 2013
    PLEASE NOTE “THE ANDREW MARR SHOW” MUST BE CREDITED IF ANY PART OF THIS TRANSCRIPT IS USED THE ANDREW MARR SHOW INTERVIEW: DAMIAN GREEN POLICING MINISTER OCTOBER 20th 2013 ANDREW MARR: Now was Andrew Mitchell stitched up? That’s the question being asked at Westminster with MPs of all parties now concerned that the former Conservative Chief Whip at the centre of the Plebgate affair may have been the victim of a police conspiracy. The story has taken some pretty extraordinary twists and turns over the past year or so, but what does it all say about the force at large? In simple terms, can we trust our police? I’m joined now by the Policing Minister, Damien Green. Welcome. DAMIAN GREEN: Good morning. ANDREW MARR: Do you believe that there was a conspiracy in all of this? DAMIAN GREEN: Well the actual conspiracy is still being investigated (if there is one) by the Crown Prosecution Service … ANDREW MARR: 1 Indeed. DAMIAN GREEN: … so we don’t know yet and we will see what they say. ANDREW MARR: Yeah. DAMIAN GREEN: Clearly what happened when those three police federation reps came out of his meeting in Sutton Coldfield and, to put it mildly, said things that don’t seem to be borne out by the transcript of the meeting - that’s disturbing. ANDREW MARR: If Andrew Mitchell hadn’t listened to his wife and taped that meeting with serving police officers, he would be still hung out to dry. I mean that’s a very, very worrying thing for a lot of people.
    [Show full text]
  • The Re-Professionalisation of the Police in England and Wales Simon
    The Re-Professionalisation of the Police in England and Wales Simon Holdaway, Professor of Criminology, Nottingham Trent University Abstract In this article contemporary police claims to professional status are analysed and related to a new structure of police regulation in England and Wales. It is argued that the notion of the police as a profession is not new and, unlike police and academic commentary, analysis of this subject, should draw on sociological understandings of professions. The wider policy context within which claims to professionalisation are made is also considered. It is argued that a new, loosely-coupled system of regulation has been developed in England and Wales. Policing’s professional body, the College of Policing, is central to this regulatory framework that has placed government at a distance from constabularies and police representative associations. Finally, some of the consequences of the hybrid system are considered and benefits of the framework of analysis proposed are discussed. Introduction I suppose you could sum it all up by saying that in Britain certainly, and I have no doubt elsewhere, the time has come when the police are abandoning their artisan status and are achieving by our ever-increasing variety of services, our integrity, our accountability and our dedication to the public good, a status no less admirable than that of the most learned and distinguished professions (Mark, 1977). 1 The designation of the police as a profession is not a contemporary idea. During a period when he dealt with serious corruption in his force Robert Mark, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, argued that the 1970’s was a decade of change from artisan to professional police status.
    [Show full text]
  • Bill Explanatory Notes
    These notes refer to the Mental Health (Discrimination) (No.2) Bill as brought from the House of Commons on 3rd December 2012 [HL Bill 62] MENTAL HEALTH (DISCRIMINATION) (No. 2) BILL —————————— EXPLANATORY NOTES INTRODUCTION 1. These Explanatory Notes relate to the Mental Health (Discrimination) (No.2) Bill as brought from the Commons on 3rd December 2012. They have been prepared by the Cabinet Office, with the consent of Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, the Peer in charge of the Bill, in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament. 2. The Notes need to be read in conjunction with the Bill. They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. SUMMARY 3. The purpose of the Mental Health (Discrimination) (No.2) Bill is to contribute to removing the stigma associated with mental illness. 4. The Bill repeals section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983, removing the provision under which MPs and members of the devolved assemblies and parliament lose their seats if they are detained under the Act for more than six months. It also abolishes any common law which disqualifies a person from membership of the House of Commons on grounds of mental illness. 5. The Bill also amends the Juries Act 1974 so that it no longer excludes from jury service those people voluntarily receiving regular treatment for a mental health disorder but who are not resident in a hospital or similar institution.
    [Show full text]
  • Academy 2019
    APComm ACADEMY 2019 from Wednesday 27 November to Friday 29 November Hosted by at the Belton Woods Hotel, Grantham Members of the Lincolnshire Police Communications and Public Affairs Team involved in this year’s Academy welcome you back to Lincolnshire. Tony Diggins Sandra Mason Julia Lovett John Horton Head of Communications Graphic Design and Graphic Design and Campaigns and and Public Affairs Publication Publication Engagement Officer We’re delighted to welcome you back to Lincolnshire for the We will be here throughout the event to make sure everything APComm Academy. The APComm Executive has created runs smoothly and efficiently so please contact any of us if a very strong agenda which has led to another sell-out you have any queries or anything you think we can help with. attendance. Once again Belton Woods Hotel won through the tendering process which has allowed us to keep the full delegate fee to around £500 – representing remarkable value for money and is well under the cost of attending even five or more years ago! Contents Our Sponsors .............................................................................................. 1 Digital Marketplace ................................................................................ 3 Welcome Bill Skelly .............................................................................................. 5 Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Kate Quilley and Ruth Shulver .............................................................. 6 Co-Chairs of APComm Agenda Wednesday ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]