Kent Academic Repository Full text document (pdf) Citation for published version McDaniel, John (2015) Rethinking police accountability and transparency within the EU: reconciling national and supranational approaches. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) thesis, University of Kent,. DOI Link to record in KAR http://kar.kent.ac.uk/48070/ Document Version Publisher pdf Copyright & reuse Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of research The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. Enquiries For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: [email protected] If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html Rethinking police accountability and transparency within the EU: reconciling national and supranational approaches PhD Thesis John McDaniel Kent Law School University of Kent Canterbury Thesis Supervisor: Professor Dermot Walsh, Professor of Law, Kent Law School Second Supervisor: Dr Sinead Ring, Lecturer in Law, Kent Law School April 2015 Word Count: (Excluding Footnotes & Bibliography): 91,632 (Excluding Bibliography): 103,556 (Bibliography only): 9,511 Abstract The new terrain of increasing interaction between national and supranational legal systems within the European Union presents new challenges for conventional approaches to police accountability and transparency. Each EU Member State is responsible for policing within its jurisdiction, and the EU institutions are increasingly responsible for enhancing the conduct of police cooperation between the Member States. The thesis explores the challenges of reconciling national approaches in the international sphere by conducting a critical analysis of ‘how and to what extent national legal and administrative norms on police accountability and transparency are informing the concept, design and operation of EU cross-border policing instruments’. Building on the work of Peter K. Manning, Geoffrey Marshall and David Bayley amongst others, the thesis develops a pragmatic typology of police accountability through which to view the evolution and adequacy of national and supranational approaches. The typology contains three key dimensions, namely codes, co-option and complaint. Using the typology to critique conventional approaches in the UK, Ireland and Denmark, the thesis identifies legal and procedural anomalies and challenges at both the national and supranational level since the traditional elements of police accountability were originally formulated within the confines of national legal, political, historical and cultural constraints. Employing the typology to both elucidate problems and suggest methods of internalisation, the thesis argues that the EU should follow the lead of the Member States’ legislatures by seeking to regulate a wider range of policing processes through more expansive procedural ‘codes’ which facilitate police discretion and co-option. The thesis shows that it is not sufficient for the EU to prioritise its post-Lisbon policy of ‘co-decision’ in order to remedy its democratic deficits but that it must oversee the establishment and enhancement of parliamentary committees, inspectorates and other oversight bodies in the interest of police accountability. A number of recommendations are made for police reform at both the national and supranational levels to this end. More particularly, the research indicates that additional treaty changes are needed beyond the Lisbon Treaty in order to adequately reconcile national and supranational approaches to police accountability. I am grateful to the Irish Research Council for supporting this research by the award of a Government of Ireland Research Scholarship. 2 Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER OUTLINE ................................................................................................................................ 4 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 5 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 24 CH. 1 CODES AND CO-OPTION WITHIN THE MEMBER STATES ........................................ 26 A MAJOR PARADIGM SHIFT: FROM ‘DISCIPLINARY CODES’ TO ‘PROCEDURAL CODES’ ......................... 27 THE FUTURE OF ‘CODES’ AS A SOURCE OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY .................................................. 38 THE ISSUE OF ‘CO-OPTION’ ................................................................................................................. 42 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 49 CH. 2 COMPLAINT AND INQUIRY WITHIN THE MEMBER STATES................................... 51 DISCIPLINARY ACCOUNTABILITY ........................................................................................................ 51 LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY ................................................................................................................... 73 DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY ......................................................................................................... 77 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 104 CH. 3 CODES AS EU LAW AND POLICY .................................................................................... 107 EUROPOL .......................................................................................................................................... 114 THE SCHENGEN ACQUIS ................................................................................................................... 120 MUTUAL POLICE ASSISTANCE & JOINT INVESTIGATION TEAMS ...................................................... 131 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 142 CH. 4 CO-OPTION OF EU LAW AND POLICY........................................................................... 144 EUROPOL .......................................................................................................................................... 145 MUTUAL POLICE ASSISTANCE & JOINT INVESTIGATION TEAMS......................................................... 161 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 167 CH. 5 COMPLAINT AND INQUIRY AS EU LAW AND POLICY ............................................. 169 DISCIPLINARY ACCOUNTABILITY ...................................................................................................... 169 LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY ................................................................................................................. 184 DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY ....................................................................................................... 186 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 198 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 201 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 206 3 Introduction The European Union’s relentless development of procedural instruments and frameworks for police cooperation is unprecedented and appears to suggest that a paradigm shift has occurred towards more enlightened, cosmopolitan thinking about issues of sovereignty, cross-border policing and police accountability in Europe. It can be anticipated that the development of common transnational measures and the challenges that they raise have been met by drawing upon and reconciling the Member States’ long-standing national approaches to police accountability which are rooted in constitutional, legal and administrative traditions and values. However no major academic studies have been carried out to determine the precise effect of the emerging EU regime, partly because the EU competency is relatively new, complex and continuously evolving. The thesis explores the precise nature of the EU cross-border policing project and, more particularly, critically analyses ‘how and to what extent national legal and administrative norms on police accountability and transparency are informing the concept, design and operation of EU cross-border policing instruments’? The thesis will show that the EU regime has introduced a number of cross-border policing measures without making appropriate accommodation for police accountability. Due largely