sleepwalking into a police state

A recent correspondent to the letters page of the Glasgow Herald newspaper is correct in his understanding of when police have power to require a breath test. His concern that officers of police Scotland are acting outwith their powers is also correct. Not only in terms of use of the breathalyser should he and others be concerned. Their loose interpretation of stop and search powers require examination. Your own journalist Paul Hutcheon has done a good job in this regard, however it seems to little avail as the practice continues. In fact one supervising officer recently told me that they, police officers, are to use the term consensual search and if a person does not consent they are to be pressurised by suggesting they must have something to hide.

Centralisation of the police service has brought about the foregoing and worse to a service that, until the change to a single force, was centred in and answerable to communities. That is no longer the case and I can evidence that by reminding you of the following:

We were hardly into the new single service when the Chief Constable informed us that the days of solving the communities problems are over, the new service is about control. Is that change of direction based on listening to the communities he serves?

Officers routinely arrest and commit to custody at least one person from every domestic violence incident. Evidence is not the deciding factor, no it is a directive from the centre.

Recently a pensioner was arrested and committed into custody for an offence it took the police four days to attend to. The three elements that need to be considered before deciding to bring a person before a court the next lawful day are as follows:

1. seriousness of the crime ( the fact it took the police four days to take any action suggests it was not that serious ),

2. continuing threat / danger to the public ( the four day gap before police acted with no other incident negates that 'arrest' element ),

3. finally, the likelihood of avoiding justice by absconding ( the accused was 71 years of age and had resided at his house for in excess of forty years )

It is oppressive policing, supported by political dogma and it is no consolation that many serving officers recognise it as such, however are so intimidated by the ruling regime they simply get on with it.

The strength of our police service lies in a simple triangular principle;

• the law,

• discretion,

• the power invested in each officer through their warrant card.

Each serving officer, from constable to chief constable, is invested with the same power to carry out her or his lawful duty. Rank is not invested with any more power to discharge lawful duties.

Centralisation, well certainly that being carried out by police Scotland, has and is further eroding that simple principle. Officers are not trusted to make decisions, these are made at the centre. There is no discretion and the concept of the warrant card and each officer having equal powers to discharge lawful duties is history.

Allow me to quote a more learned person on this subject:

Lord Denning, in the English Court of Appeal, while accepting that the police are answerable to the law, reiterated the cardinal principle of police independence:

'No minister of the Crown can tell ( the commissioner ) that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone.'

In short, while referring to the Commissioner, he was talking about every police officer being individually answerable to the law for her or his actions.

We are sleep walking into a police State and whilst each step may seem benign it is not until you have travelled the path for some time that you realise you have forgotten where you started. Then you are lost.