UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Criminal Justice

  • Michael Tomlinson – 2023 Speech at the Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime

    Michael Tomlinson – 2023 Speech at the Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime

    The speech made by Michael Tomlinson, the Solicitor General, on 4 September 2023.

    Introduction

    It is a pleasure to be speaking to you today – in this wonderful setting – at what is my first Symposium since being appointed Solicitor General last year.

    It is right to say that this event is held in high regard – and indeed, the fact that the Symposium is celebrating its fortieth birthday is a testament to its enduring value in considering the ever-evolving threat we face from economic crime.

    And I know that Professor Rider has been at the heart of the Symposium since its foundation. I would like to thank him, and his team, for their work in bringing together such a comprehensive and thought-provoking programme.

    I would also like to mention Daniel Zeichner, MP, who spoke about the symposium in parliament recently – and to thank him for his warm welcome to me and his parliamentary colleagues.

    The Law Officers’ role

    Let me start by saying a little more about my own role, which can be something of a mystery – even, on occasion, to my ministerial colleagues!

    As Solicitor General for England and Wales, I am one of the UK Government’s three Law Officers. The others are the Attorney General for England and Wales – who is also the Advocate General for Northern Ireland – and the Advocate General for Scotland.

    Put broadly, the Attorney General and I have three main roles.

    Firstly, we are the Governments’ chief legal advisers.

    Secondly, we are responsible for superintending the work of several public bodies, including the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

    And thirdly, we have several public interest functions that we carry out independently of government. This includes, for example, considering whether to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient; or granting consent to prosecute certain offences, such as cross-border conspiracies or under the Official Secrets Act, applying the established principles of evidential sufficiency and the public interest.

    The role the Law Officers is, in many respects, unique. While we are politicians drawn from the ruling party, and are government ministers, we are of course firstly lawyers.

    This dual politician-lawyer role has, over the years, given rise to questions related to the focus of this year’s Symposium: “integrity.”

    Integrity

    As a Law Officer, much of my role is acting quasi judicially and independently of Government – politics simply does not come into it. When considering whether consent should be granted for a prosecution; whether a sentence is unduly lenient; whether a charitable gift in a will is valid; or whether to institute proceedings for contempt of court.

    The public interest function is just that.

    But some have questioned, given our commitment to the political objectives of the Government, whether the Law Officers can maintain the integrity that is required to deliver independent, impartial – and potentially unwelcomed – advice to their colleagues.

    In fact, a number of previous Attorneys have felt challenged by the role. Sir Patrick Hastings said it was his ‘idea of hell’. Francis Bacon ‘described it as the painfullest task in the realm’

    The provision of frank advice, without fear or favour, is fundamental to our role – and that there is enormous value in having at the heart of Government independent lawyers who are trusted by those that they advise – precisely because they are one of them.

    Indeed, this is well captured in the very mission of the Attorney General’s Office which sets itself the task of “making law and politics work together at the heart of the UK constitution”.

    Corruption

    Perhaps a flipside of integrity is corruption.

    While there is no universally accepted definition, it is clear that corruption, in all its forms, has a corrosive effect. It threatens our national security and prosperity – and unchecked, it erodes public confidence in domestic and international institutions – including the rule of law.

    And one just needs to look to the international stage and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine – fuelled by a kleptocratic regime – to see just how devastating its effects can be.

    Promoting integrity and fighting corruption

    The UK has long been seen as a world leader in dealing with corruption, and we are continuing to take action – for example with economic crimes linked to corruption such as fraud and money laundering.

    I know that my noble friend Baroness Penn may expand upon this theme, but let me just mention the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which we will be debating and voting on later today in the House of Commons.

    This will bear down even further on kleptocrats, criminals, and terrorists who target our economy and will help prevent our corporate structures being abused by corrupt actors.

    Disclosure

    Let me also mention integrity in the context of our prosecution system and disclosure.

    As we all know, effective disclosure is critical to a fair trial and supports public confidence in the administration of justice.

    At the same time, the volume of digital material generated in complex case work continues to grow exponentially – particularly in economic crime cases.

    This is posing significant challenges for law enforcement.

    Indeed, we are now dealing with petabytes – that’s a thousand terabytes – of data in some of our cases.

    This highlights the critical importance of ensuring we have a modern disclosure regime, which reflects the realities of our digital age.

    And this is why I have personally been working with colleagues across Government to ensure that the current regime supports effective disclosure in complex cases – whether prosecuted by the CPS or the SFO.

    This includes looking at the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure to find ways to reduce the scheduling burden on investigators and prosecutors.

    We also announced – as part of the Fraud Strategy we published in May – an independent review of the disclosure regime for cases with large volumes of digital material.

    I look forward to continuing this work with many in this room and the independent reviewer on this important piece of work.

    The work of the prosecutors

    It would be remiss of me not to highlight some of the pivotal successes of the SFO and CPS in our fight against corruption.

    Just last year, the SFO secured the conviction of Glencore Energy UK Ltd, – and the company was sentenced to pay £280m – the largest corporate sentence imposed in the UK to date.

    And I never tire of mentioning SFO’s returns to the taxpayer – especially in front of a Treasury Minister – the SFO brought in nearly 4 times its cost to the taxpayer between 2019/20 and 2022/23, bringing in over £1bn into the Treasury against vote funding of around £280m.

    And I would like to take this opportunity to give particular thanks to Lisa Osofsky, the outgoing Director of the SFO, who leaves post at the end of this month. Over her five-year tenure, she has led the charge in delivering some outstanding outcomes and I wish her the all of the best for the future.

    The CPS has likewise responded robustly in cases of corruption and illicit finance.

    And I know that Adrian Foster, Chief Crown Prosecutor in the CPS Proceeds of Crime Division, will be talking more about this later.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, I know there will be much lively discussion and debate this week – and there is much in this impressive programme – and I am grateful to have been invited to be a part of it.

  • Alex Chalk – 2023 Speech at the Lord Mayor of London’s Dinner for HM Judges

    Alex Chalk – 2023 Speech at the Lord Mayor of London’s Dinner for HM Judges

    The speech made by Alex Chalk, the Secretary of State for Justice, at the Mansion House in London on 18 July 2023.

    My Lord Mayor, Lady Mayoress, my Lord Chief Justice, members of His Majesty’s judiciary, ladies and gentlemen.

    Thank you, Lord Chief Justice for your kind words. It is of course a special honour to be speaking to you as Lord Chancellor. But can we all please spare a thought for at least three of your number here who led me at the Bar and are now feeling really, really old…

    So much has happened for all of us in the last decade. In 2013, I was at the Bar at 6KBW College Hill. It was a different time entirely; as a busy practitioner I confess I didn’t always pore over every dissenting Court of Appeal judgment; unaccountably, I find them absolutely compelling today.

    And it was in 2013 that I was selected as the Conservative candidate for Cheltenham. It wasn’t going terribly well. Door after door was opened by people who said they knew who I was, but added that although I was better than my brother, they weren’t going to vote for David Miliband either. When I fed that back to HQ they came up with what they assured me was a brilliant plan. They would send down the then-Mayor of London to boost my profile. Even then, I was aware that this could be a high-risk strategy.

    I thank Lord Burnett for his speech.

    The Lord Chief Justice has shown himself ready to serve in so many ways. He attended a Commonwealth conference in 2022. On the second night the hosts announced that the judges would be called to dance by rank, starting with Chief Justices, and starting with England & Wales.

    My source tells me that Lord Burnett did not hesitate to get to his feet, to the delight of the hundreds watching on. His Private Secretary still has the footage available in, I am told, clear contravention of a judicial order. There will be an auction at the end of the evening.

    Few in peacetime have been tested as Lord Burnett was. He showed leadership to help keep the courts open during Covid, in a judgement that was vindicated. He has promoted transparency, in particular broadcasting of sentencing remarks in the Crown Court. He has increased engagement with the public and students. And he has championed modernisation, digitisation, diversity and recruitment.

    MPs and peers of all parties hold him in the highest regard. Parliament, his profession and indeed the nation owe him a debt of gratitude and wish him well for whatever comes next.

    I want also to thank those of you who sat during the pandemic.

    You did so despite the fact that many of you, I’m sure, will have come under pressure from concerned friends and family not to come into court, not to put yourselves at risk. ‘Why you?’ they will have said; to which the only answer was that fate put you there, at that unique moment of jeopardy for our justice system and yours was the task to do.

    Thank you for all you did. Covid has a long tail when it comes to the courts, and plainly there are still significant pressures as the system heals – from family law (public and private) to the employment tribunal. But let us remember that those pressures would have been immeasurably greater without your efforts.

    I want to turn to some other points, and I’m pleased to say that No.10 were so delighted that I was attending this event that they even helped me draft this part of speech. So, turning to our five priorities…

    I recently visited Japan for the G7 Justice Ministers Conference. It was immediately clear just how strong the relationship is between the UK and Japan, and the importance that is attached by that country and indeed the ASEAN countries (from Malaysia to Singapore) to our playing our part in the Indo-Pacific.

    Now, that importance isn’t wholly or even mainly underpinned by the strong and growing military and industrial alliance through our collaboration with Japan on the Global Combat Air Programme – important though that is. Instead, absolutely at the heart of our offer to the Indo-Pacific and indeed to the world is our strong legal capabilities and tradition of upholding the rule of law – as demonstrated by Japan’s enthusiasm to single out the UK to sign a memorandum of cooperation on law and justice, including on our legal sectors.

    Because it is well understood internationally that our country has historically contributed a great deal, perhaps more than any other, to the development of private international law through the Hague Conventions, with their network of jurisdiction and mutual enforcement arrangements. It is also acknowledged that the UK has the biggest legal sector in Europe, second only worldwide to the United States, a sector that continues to thrive.

    And our international counterparts recognise that our common law system enjoys an endless potential for modernisation to respond to the latest trends, technologies and dispute flashpoints. The common law is ancient, yes, and yet relentlessly contemporary.

    Against that backdrop, we will of course assert this advantage, we will press for strengthened cooperation and exchange in legal services. That will help grow our economy and generate extraordinary opportunities for young people from this jurisdiction to go as far as their talents will take them – promoting the social mobility agenda which brought me into politics. Thank you to the judiciary, the Bar Council and the Law Society for what you are doing to support this endeavour.

    But in truth it’s about more than that. Despite the undoubted commercial opportunities, we will prioritise this agenda because every time we advance a PIL agreement, every time we improve access to a foreign legal market, every time we secure that exchange event between lawyers we strengthen the international rules-based order. In the Indo-Pacific and in the wider world, we must recognise that the argument for the rule of law is far from settled. That part of the world, as well as being the crucible of global economic growth over the coming decades, is also the crucible of competing visions. It is in some ways the epicentre of a global contest. And in that contest, free societies have to demonstrate that the rule of law matters – and ultimately it makes societies safer, and citizens freer and better off.

    So we will continue to speak up for the rule of law. We will make clear in the context of Russia’s unlawful full-scale invasion of Ukraine that might is not always right, that the international rules-based order counts for something, and that there are consequences for those who violate recognised borders.

    And we are putting resources behind our words. Quite apart from being the second largest provider of military support to Ukraine after the US, we have delivered war crimes investigation training to Ukrainian police on behalf of the ICC, we have provided training for Ukrainian judges led, by Sir Howard Morrison KC, and allocated additional funding to support ICC investigations.

    But as well as advocating the rule of law abroad, we must show focus and vigilance to maintain it here at home. Although deep-rooted in our society, it must never be taken for granted. It requires care and effort to keep it in good health – particularly in an era of social media and disinformation which throws up new, dystopian misinformed challenges.

    So, the starting-point is to make the case for why it matters – to bring it to life in terms that are accessible to all. In my swearing-in speech I stated that the rule of law, independence of the judiciary and access to justice aren’t quaint, obscure notions to pay lip-service to – but the essential building blocks of a safe, fair and prosperous society – as relevant today as in any year of the modern era.

    And what access to justice and independence of the judiciary mean in practice is walking out of court as an advocate or litigant having lost, and knowing deep down that despite your disappointment you have been heard by judges of formidable intellect and unimpeachable integrity. And you have had a full and fair hearing. That is inestimably precious.

    So what must we do to nurture it?

    Well, in the first place, show respect to its key custodians. The Government is pleased to have been able to accept in full the PRB pay recommendations, including the Senior Salaries Review Body recommendation. In doing so, the Government is sending I hope a clear message about its deep regard for the judiciary, and the value attached to the essential work that you do.

    Second, I believe very strongly that we must invest in the infrastructure of the courts estate. The physical condition of the buildings that discharge justice matters. It is difficult to uphold the dignity and authority of the law, important by the way to promote the small matter of compliance with court orders, when there is a bucket catching drips in the corner of the room.

    It is equally difficult as a practitioner to feel proud of the profession you have worked hard to join as you open your case to the jury in Isleworth (as I did in the past) and know that all anyone is thinking about is the overwhelming smell of damp in the carpets. (Those have been replaced by the way).

    Poor maintenance impacts capacity of course – but it also corrodes morale. And we need that morale, not least to unwind the pressures Covid created. It is only by sustaining and growing pride in the justice system and pride in the legal profession that we will continue to retain the practitioners we need and attract the brightest and the best to join. Every improvement in infrastructure sends out a ripple of confidence, through robing rooms, chambers and into university lecture theatres; and it enhances the overall attractiveness of the profession. Notwithstanding the £185m spent on court maintenance in the last two years, and the extra £38m in the last financial year for redecorations and deep cleans, we can go further. It’s a point I raised on my first day in office. I have prioritised it since, and I look forward to being able to say a little more in due course.

    Third, we must be vigilant in clamping down on those who would misuse our courts, absorbing capacity with bogus lawsuits cynically designed to intimidate journalists and campaigners, and stifle freedom of speech. So I am pleased that we have acted through amendments to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill to create an early dismissal process in respect of spurious SLAPPS which are connected to financial fraud and corruption – the overwhelming majority of actions.

    Fourth, we should take every opportunity to promote access to justice. And let me say that legal aid plays an important role in delivering that. So I am pleased that we have published our response to the Legal Aid Means Test Review, which when fully implemented will lead to over six million more people falling within the scope of legal aid.

    All this we do and more. As a junior minister in the department, I devised ELSA (Early Legal Support and Advice) as the umbrella term for a suite of proposals to improve access to justice. Politics is the art of the possible, and we won’t get everything done overnight. But I will give it my all.

    Fifth, we must abandon for good the outdated complacency that assumes all those who rise to positions of responsibility in our country are experts (or at least experienced) in the inner workings of our constitution. We should dismiss what has come to feel like a conspiracy of romantic hopes that through their education and wider upbringing people somehow acquire osmotically an understanding of the balance of our constitution, the conventions that secure it and – yes – the boundaries.

    And yet, this is something that as a society we devote little or no effort to. Despite the fact that new legal practitioners receive ethics training as part of their preparation for practice, for those entering public life there is no such guidance or investment at all. There should be.

    And so, with a general election due in the next 18 months, preparations should be made to ensure that Members of the next Parliament and the people they work alongside, are given the assistance and information they require. As the President of the Supreme Court noted earlier this month, and I agree, maintaining the rule of law is a joint responsibility of Parliament and the courts. Far from being a contest for power between the two, we have a shared commitment and we should support each other in delivering it.

    And in that spirit we must work together to support the parliamentarians of the future. Precisely how that support is framed will be a matter for discussion and careful thought. But it shouldn’t be put off.

    Finally this. I know there are real pressures in the system. I have referred to them already. I know that despite the Magistrates’ Court snapping back fast, the caseload in the Crown Court is high.

    That is in part a function of the fact that we didn’t abandon jury trials, even when some suggested we should. That was manifestly the right decision. Because jury trials remain the lamp of our liberties, and the ultimate guarantors of fair trials which enjoy the public’s confidence. But we have to recognise that this had a consequence, and the sheer volume now is at least in part the price we pay for principle.

    We will do all we can to help. We have removed the cap on sitting days for two years in a row, ensuring the Crown Court can sit at maximum capacity. We have passed the PCSC Act so that remote hearings can continue, where appropriate. 24 Nightingale courtrooms have been extended beyond March 2023 to provide additional capacity. We expect criminal legal aid spending will increase by approximately £141m per year in a steady state.

    We are recruiting up to 1,000 judges across jurisdictions. And we have raised the statutory mandatory retirement age to 75 for judicial office holders, estimated to retain an additional 400 judges and tribunal members.

    But I am acutely conscious that it is you and the practitioners that you see in your courts and tribunals that will do more than anyone else to bear down on these volumes, and do so in a way that delivers justice.

    So I want to thank you for what you have done, but all that you will do. It is not easy I realise.

    We use the adjective ‘world-beating’ sparingly these days. But excessive diffidence is to be avoided too. It is entirely reasonable to point out that we have a judiciary that rightly enjoys enormous respect globally – and not just for the quality of its dance moves. In terms of sheer intellectual horsepower and fundamental fairness it stands out.

    And it is underpinned by unswerving professionalism. To serve in our courts, as judge or practitioner, is to follow a vocation – to know that you are part of something extraordinarily precious, something far more important than any one of us. And it means all of us, whether judge, practitioner or Lord Chancellor are united by a common desire to serve, and leave the system of justice in our country stronger for our having been here. That is what you might call, my ‘overriding objective’.

    Thank you for your attention. Let me close by offering a toast to our hosts – to the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress.

    Thank you.

  • Chris Philp – 2023 Speech on Police Stations

    Chris Philp – 2023 Speech on Police Stations

    The speech made by Chris Philp, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, in the House of Commons on 10 July 2023.

    Let me start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on securing this important debate and for speaking with such passion and eloquence on this topic. I agree with her sentiments about how important police stations are for our constituencies and our local communities. I say that having visited Chorley police station just a few days ago, Mr Speaker.

    As my right hon. Friend said, police stations in our local communities are close to the people they serve. They help officers stay in touch with the local community and connected to it. Their ears and eyes are on the ground picking up information, and they can serve local residents. They are also visible and reassure the public that the police are close to where crimes may be committed. It shows that police are available and accessible, and they can often respond to crimes a lot more quickly if they are deploying from a police station close to the local community, rather than one miles and miles away. My right hon. Friend set out a whole number of reasons why police stations as a physical location are so important.

    In relation to police stations in London, I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that Mayor Sadiq Khan should look again at the closure plan he set out in 2017—I think it was for a total of 37 police stations—and reverse it. Some of those closures have happened already; others have not. He demonstrated with his rather opportunistic and cynical U-turn on Uxbridge just a few days ago that he could look at this issue again, and he should. We should keep in mind that decisions on opening and closing police stations are for police and crime commissioners—in London, that is Sadiq Khan—not for the Government. I join my right hon. Friend in calling on the Mayor to reconsider and reverse the swingeing cuts that he announced back in 2017.

    It is worth reminding ourselves as we make that call that plenty of resources are available. The Metropolitan police have the highest funding per capita of any police force in the country by some margin, and that is excluding the national and international capital city grant and the counter-terrorism money they receive. On a straightforward territorial policing basis, the Met gets more per capita than any other police force. It receives some £3.3 billion a year. That figure went up by £102 million this compared to last year.

    It is also worth reminding ourselves that the whole policing system across the country gets £17.2 billion a year, and the part of that spent by police and crime commissioners on local policing—the vast majority of it—went up by £550 million this year compared to last year. So the resources are there, and we expect police and crime commissioners to use them wisely—unlike Mayor Sadiq Khan, who is not doing so.

    This might be a good moment to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who is in the Chamber this evening. His tireless campaign has saved his local police station in Tipton from the planned cuts. I am sure the whole House will want to congratulate him on his successful campaign to overturn a decision originally announced by the police and crime commissioner in the west midlands.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet made excellent points about why police stations are so important and why the Met’s decision should be reversed, one of which was about the extra police officers that we have recruited across England and Wales. Across the jurisdiction as a whole, we now have record police numbers—149,572 to be precise, which is 3,500 more than at any other time in the history of policing. The Metropolitan police also have record numbers—about 35,000 more than ever before—and, as she said, they need to be accommodated somewhere.

    It is worth mentioning that the Metropolitan police could have had even more officers—an extra 1,000 officers —if Mayor Sadiq Khan had used all the money that was available. It is a great shame and a great disappointment to me as a London MP, as I am sure it is to colleagues, that he failed to do so. I therefore completely endorse the points my right hon. Friend made about police stations in our community.

    There are some things that can be done to try to mitigate Sadiq Khan’s terrible police station closure plans. In my constituency of Croydon South, we have a fire station in Purley—there is no police station in my constituency—and following some work between the local police and the London Fire Brigade, we have managed to move local patrolling neighbourhood officers into the fire station. They now patrol from the fire station around the neighbouring area, which helps a little towards faster response times. It is also more convenient for officers, and they can share information with the firefighters based there. That is helpful, but it is not as good as having a police station.

    Given the lateness of the hour, I will conclude. I thank my right hon. Friend again for her tireless campaign to save Barnet police station. The Mayor of London has record levels of funding; I only wish that he would use that funding a little more wisely and reverse his shocking closure plans.

  • Theresa Villiers – 2023 Speech on Police Stations

    Theresa Villiers – 2023 Speech on Police Stations

    The speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, in the House of Commons on 10 July 2023.

    The hour is late, but we still have an important issue to discuss this evening: police stations. In November 2017, the Mayor of London announced the closure of a substantial list of police stations around the capital, including Barnet police station. Ever since, I have been campaigning to save it. A key justification given for the Mayor’s decision was that the number of crimes reported at police station front counters has fallen. It is true that the way people report crimes has changed in recent years—it can, of course, now be done by phone or online—but being able to attend a police station front counter and talk to someone face to face is still an option valued by many, especially the elderly or those who may not be comfortable in the digital environment.

    Moreover, police stations perform other vital functions in addition to front counter services. Crucially, they are a place to locate officers, but they also provide facilities such as evidence and equipment storage, police vehicle parking, and custody suites and cells. As such, what is even more worrying than the loss of a front counter is the loss of the physical presence of the police in a particular locality. In the six years since Mayor Khan announced the closure of Barnet police station’s front counter, that police station building has thankfully remained in use by officers, both neighbourhood police and other teams.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Theresa Villiers

    I will.

    Mr Speaker

    I thought you would at least allow the right hon. Member to get under way. I call Jim Shannon.

    Jim Shannon

    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Lady is right to mention community policing—it is about not just the buildings, but the community officers and the contact with their local communities. She made a very helpful intervention in the debate on the Northern Ireland budget that referred to that issue. I echo her request to ensure that not only the buildings, but the community policing is there, because it is the eyes and ears of the community. It is about making policing better.

    Mr Speaker

    I am sure that the right hon. Member, if given time, would have got to that.

    Theresa Villiers

    I absolutely agree that community policing is vital. As I will explore in my speech, the presence of police stations is an important part of keeping policing close to communities. If we shut them down or retreat into a handful of buildings around the capital, we make it more difficult to deliver genuine community policing. Closing Barnet police station altogether and selling it off for redevelopment would leave officers with nowhere at all in my constituency from which to operate. That would be disastrous, not least because it could mean ward officers having to undertake long and complex journeys to and from the only remaining police station in the borough, which is in Colindale.

    At engagement meetings linked with the 2017 closure announcements, I remember City Hall representatives indicating that one of the reasons police stations were now less important was that officers would be given iPads for processing paperwork, which they could use anywhere. Frankly, it is wholly unrealistic to expect a police officer sitting in Starbucks with an iPad to be an adequate substitute for a functioning police station. Apart from the noted reliability problems with many such devices issued by the Metropolitan police, that approach would violate confidentiality and data protection obligations. There is also the concern that a number of the Met’s IT upgrade programmes have yet to be fully delivered, as highlighted in the Casey report. Moreover, officers would undoubtedly be approached by members of the public, making it harder for them to focus on the work they need to do. Their office time would inevitably become advice surgery time.

    In February last year, I secured a promise from Sophie Linden, the deputy mayor for policing, that Barnet police station’s building would not be disposed of until a base was found for ward police teams that enabled them to reach their areas in 20 minutes by walking or cycling. That was of course welcome, and it amounted to a partial reprieve for the station, but it is not an adequate substitute for a properly functioning police station.

    Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)

    On this point about the connection with communities, particularly in Greater London, does my right hon. Friend agree that the basic command unit model that the Mayor has adopted since 2018 is having a negative impact on the ability of police to connect with communities, but also to respond to crimes in a timely manner?

    Theresa Villiers

    I am very much aware of the concern felt in many parts of London about the tri-borough policing model, and I think it is important to review it.

    I turn back to the idea that new bases for police officers could be found. There is still real uncertainty about where these would be and what they would involve. The suggestion remains that a new base for police officers could be in a corner of a library or the backroom in a high street shop, but providing a base for police officers is not a straightforward matter. Officers have access to highly sensitive personal data, and they hold evidence from cases for which it is vital that they keep rigorous and reliable records of custody. Moreover, some police equipment is potentially harmful, such as tasers, and it would be dangerous if this kind of kit fell into the wrong hands. Special storage facilities would need to be built in new alternative accommodation. They could not just set up a few lockers in a local library. Flogging off existing police stations could end up being a false economy if multiple new premises for ward teams in different areas need to be bought and fitted up to replace them.

    I also want to highlight the sense of confidence that the presence of a police station gives people—a sense that would be entirely lost in the areas where police stations are currently under threat. For example, the East London Advertiser reported that people felt that police station closures in Tower Hamlets meant that the area felt less safe. Complete loss of the remaining police presence in Chipping Barnet town centre would inevitably leave my constituents feeling more insecure. Serious concerns have been reported to me about crime, thefts and antisocial behaviour in Barnet High Street, including what appears to have been a serious assault that took place recently outside McDonald’s. The sale of the police station and its complete closure would make it harder to grapple with the existing crime issues in the local area.

    These worrying local crime problems were discussed recently at a meeting I attended of the High Barnet police community action panel, under the chairmanship of my constituent Mahender Khari. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him, and to everyone who chairs or takes part in police action panels in my constituency. They do a vital job. That includes Councillor Jennifer Grocock, who has done excellent and innovative work on making neighbourhood police teams more visible by involving them in Barnet Council’s community safety hubs, which were pioneered by the previous Conservative administration in Barnet.

    I am also worried about the impact of police station closures on the viability of our high streets. We all know that town centres have suffered in recent years for a range of reasons, particularly the big shift to online retail. It has become harder and harder to get footfall to high streets, and I fear that losing police stations could lead to a further hollowing out of our struggling town centres, adding to the list of vacant buildings.

    Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)

    I thank the right hon. Member for her speech and for giving way. Last November, Devon and Cornwall police launched an online poll using SurveyMonkey, and invited the public in Devon and Cornwall to vote to reopen three front desks out of a list of 44. I was pleased to help promote that poll and to attend the reopening of Tiverton police station—and I hope to attend that of Honiton later this year—but does she think that we should not have to fill in SurveyMonkey polls to get to speak to a human being?

    Theresa Villiers

    The hon. Member makes the important point that much of what we are talking about is the ability of the police to maintain appropriate contacts with members of the public. That distance from members of the public is one of the problems that the Met is grappling with, and I think it is useful to hear his point of view about police stations and police services elsewhere in the country.

    During this difficult era for high streets, we should try to enhance the visible presence of public services, not scale it back. That is another good reason to maintain the police station estate, both in Barnet and in other towns and cities. In her report on the Met, Baroness Casey highlighted that station closures are likely to have affected efficiency, with police spending more time travelling, and longer police response times. Recent research by Elisa Facchetti, published by the Centre for Economic Policy Research, pointed to a correlation between reduction in police stations and poorer crime clear-up rates. That suggests that the capacity to collect the evidence needed to solve crimes might be impeded by police having to travel increased distances, although I acknowledge that many other variables could be relevant, and it is difficult to establish a clear causative link.

    Four important recent developments make this debate very timely, and mean that the Mayor of London should reverse his closure programme. First, the Government have delivered on the Conservative manifesto pledge to recruit 20,000 additional police officers. That means that the Met now has more uniformed officers than at any time in its history—and we need somewhere to put them. That radically changes the situation we faced in 2017, when the Mayor wielded the axe against Barnet police station and others.

    Secondly, Baroness Casey’s damning report on the Met cited the closure of 124 police stations as one of the reasons behind what she describes as “eroded frontline policing”. She concluded that the combined impact of various efficiency measures, including police station closures, had led to

    “a more dispersed and hands-off training experience for new recruits and existing personnel, which gives them less sense of belonging to the Met…greater distances for Response officers and Neighbourhood Policing teams to travel”,

    and

    “fewer points of accessible contact for the public”.

    At a time when culture and conduct at the Met have come under huge scrutiny, we should not persist in making disposals from the police station estate—disposals that are calculated to make officers less connected to one another, more isolated and more distant from the communities they serve.

    David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend is making a speech that will entirely resonate with my constituents. Does she agree that the Mayor’s U-turn on the closure of the Uxbridge police station, which serves my constituents, as well as those in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, demonstrates that the argument that there was simply no alternative but to press ahead with the closures no longer holds water? Does it give her a stirring of hope and optimism that other police stations, such as that in Northwood, already closed and disposed of by the Mayor, will be replaced with operational police stations, or that other stations closed by the Mayor will be reopened forthwith?

    Theresa Villiers

    I agree entirely. The Mayor’s U-turn on Uxbridge should be a lifeline for police stations across the capital. That is one of the reasons why I am delighted to have the opportunity to make this speech.

    I come to the third reason why the Mayor should change his approach. As part of the big changes that he is taking forward, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, has asked his team to carry out a review of the list of police stations earmarked for closure and sell-off. I have made the case strongly for saving Barnet police station in a number of meetings with senior police officers, including Sir Mark. That includes at a meeting in May, at which Sir Mark acknowledged how important it is for the police to be close to the communities they serve. He also accepted that whether physical premises are retained or closed inevitably has an impact on whether officers can genuinely be close to the community.

    I understand that that is one of the reasons why the review, expected to report at the end of the summer, was set up. I sincerely hope that it provides a lifeline for Barnet police station and other communities experiencing the same closure threat. That includes Sidcup, Notting Hill and Wimbledon. My hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) have all fought hard for their local police station, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds).

    Until a few days ago, the places where police stations were in jeopardy and teetering on the brink of sale and redevelopment included Uxbridge. That brings me to my fourth and final point. Uxbridge was on the same closure list as Barnet in 2017. When the Mayor announced its shut-down, Conservative Hillingdon Council offered to buy the site at the market rate, and to provide a £500,000 revenue contribution and a leaseback arrangement, so that the community could keep its police station and the services it provides. At the time, the Mayor rejected this plan out of hand. Undeterred, Hillingdon Conservatives campaigned energetically to save their police station, led by Councillor Steve Tuckwell, the excellent Conservative candidate in the by-election.

    For years, those efforts fell on deaf ears at City Hall, and then there seemed to be a Damascene conversion. Suddenly, out of the blue, the Mayor announced that he had

    “written to the Met Commissioner saying that the case for now retaining more police station sites across the capital is strong”.

    He is yet to specify exactly which police stations may escape the axe he threatened them with six years ago, but this looks suspiciously like a by-election stunt to take credit for a plan to safeguard the police station put together by Hillingdon Council and Steve Tuckwell. It would be massively cynical if the Mayor’s U-turn were confined just to Uxbridge. I therefore take this opportunity once again to call on Mayor Khan to remove the threat to Barnet police station and confirm that its future is secure, along with other stations under threat around the capital.

    In conclusion, when the plan to close Barnet police station was first floated in 2013, I fought successfully to stop it. I saved our police station back then, and I am doing all I can to save it again. I have raised this issue in Parliament many times, including twice at Prime Minister’s questions. The online version of the petition for this issue, which I presented to Parliament last year, now has more than 1,600 signatures. I assure the House and my constituents in Chipping Barnet that I will continue to do all I can to resist the Mayor’s threat to our local police station so that my constituents are safer and more secure and can have the visible police presence in their local town centre that they rightly believe is so important.

  • Alex Chalk – 2023 Statement on Rape Review Action Plan and Operation Soteria

    Alex Chalk – 2023 Statement on Rape Review Action Plan and Operation Soteria

    The statement made by Alex Chalk, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 10 July 2023.

    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman) and I are pleased to announce that the Government are today publishing a progress report two years on from the publication of the end-to-end rape review action plan. This is the fourth six-monthly progress report on implementation, and demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to be transparent and accountable to the public on our progress in delivering the ambitions of the Rape Review.

    The data in the report provides clear evidence of progress to drive up police referrals, charge rates, and Crown court receipts. We are making sustained progress towards the rape review’s ambition to return volumes of cases being referred to the police, charged by the Crown Prosecution Service, and going to court, to at least 2016 levels. It is well documented that the charge rate and volume of convictions for adult rape dropped drastically after 2016 due to a range of factors, not least a lack of join-up across the system, and the criminal justice system overcorrecting following a small number of high-profile disclosure failures. A return to 2016 levels is ambitious, marking a year where adult rape convictions were 30% higher than in 2010. The latest data shows that we have hit two of our ambitions already, and remain on track to hit the other:

    Adult rape cases referred by the police to the CPS—for either early advice or a charging decision—continue to increase, with 1,079 total police referrals in the fourth quarter of 2022, exceeding our ambition of 766 and up by 134% from the quarterly average in 2019, when the Rape Review was commissioned.

    Adult rape cases charged by the CPS have been increasing, with 472 suspects charged between October and December 2022, close to our ambition of 538 and up by 93% from the quarterly average in 2019.

    The number of adult rape Crown Court receipts continued to increase in the first quarter of 2023 with 605 Crown Court receipts, exceeding our ambition of 553. It is also up by 162% from the quarterly average in 2019.

    And despite the barristers’ strike impacting court action in 2022, adult rape prosecutions continue to rise, up 44% in the last calendar year, almost double what was achieved during 2019, and higher than the volume achieved in 2010.

    Key achievements over the last six months include:

    Introducing the landmark Victims and Prisoners Bill to Parliament in March, bringing forward measures to better serve victims and the public.

    Legislating through the Victims and Prisoners Bill to ensure requests for third party material, such as therapy notes, or medical, educational and social service records are necessary and proportionate.

    Recruiting 20,000 additional police officers, having brought in a net increase of 20,951 officers across England and Wales since the launch of the recruitment campaign in 2019, ensuring the police have the resources available to dedicate capacity to priority issues such as rape.

    A second round of Government funded procurement—with a value of £4.2 million—of technical capability to retrieve digital evidence—when it is the least intrusive means to do so—from mobile phones at a time and place convenient to the victim has been completed and is being deployed to forces.

    The Law Commission publishing its consultation into the use of evidence in trials involving sexual offences.

    Today we are also announcing that through the specialist sexual violence support project, we will ensure that any adult rape victim at Newcastle, Leeds or Snaresbrook Crown court who needs it has the option to remotely observe the sentencing hearing for their case, through video link, subject to judicial agreement. This will give victims the opportunity to see justice done without the distressing experience of attending court alongside the defendant’s family or supporters. This builds on other work to improve the victim experience at court, including legislation to permit the remote observation of sentencing hearings and allowing victims to pre-record their evidence and spare them the trauma of attending court in person.

    Operation Soteria is an ambitious joint Home Office and CPS programme to transform the way that rape investigations and prosecutions are handled and progressed, with a focus on investigating the suspect rather than the victim. Through close collaboration between frontline policing, prosecutors and academics, the programme has developed new national operating models for the investigation and prosecution of rape and serious sexual offences. All police forces in England and Wales have committed to implement this new approach and will be supported to do so by the Home Office, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, who are establishing a joint unit to oversee implementation and monitor progress. In addition, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue has been commissioned to conduct a thematic inspection on forces’ implementation of the model.

    While strong progress has been made, we made clear in our last progress report that the rape review action plan is a start and must remain dynamic and continue responding to the challenges that victims face. We recognise there is still more to do, which is why we are setting out our action plan until December 2024, ensuring we continue to deliver improvements to the criminal justice system’s response to rape.

    These publications form part of the Government’s ambition to ensure access to justice, improve the experience of victims and make our society safer for everyone.

  • Alex Chalk – 2023 Lord Chancellor Swearing-in Speech

    Alex Chalk – 2023 Lord Chancellor Swearing-in Speech

    The speech made by Alex Chalk, the Lord Chancellor, at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on 25 May 2023.

    My lords.

    Thank you to the Lord Chief Justice for that welcome.

    It’s more than I deserve – and it’s more than I’m used to frankly…

    You mentioned my Lord the number of Lord Chancellors. You’ll be aware of course that between 1678 and 1689 there were seven Lord Chief Justices. So we all have our rough patches.

    My Lord, there will be more to say in due course as your retirement draws closer, about your extraordinary career and contribution to the law. For now I hope it can simply be noted that you are held in the highest regard across the House of Commons, including by the Justice Select Committee.

    Members of all political parties would wish me to thank you for your many years of service to the law and latterly to the courts and tribunals. Parliament wishes you well for the next chapter, wherever it may take you.

    It is the greatest pleasure to see so many friends and distinguished colleagues from the Bar here today. Those that have led me, those that I’ve led. I do hope that you were intending to come to this swearing-in and you’ve not stumbled into Court 4 by mistake.

    I always knew my colleagues at the Bar were brilliant lawyers and advocates, literally some of the finest this country has produced. What I hadn’t quite appreciated before I entered Parliament is that they were such expert political pundits too. Over recent years I have been pleased to receive regular political insights from colleagues via text message – although some have included Anglo-Saxon words that I don’t understand…

    Let me put on record my particular thanks to my pupil supervisors from 6 Pump Court where I first became a tenant and 6KBW College Hill (I had to resign my tenancy and undergo a second pupillage, all very complicated…) I want to thank them for instilling in me as a junior barrister the core principles that underpin our legal tradition: in particular that abiding priority of fairness.

    From the very start of my career I did more prosecuting than defending, and I well understood from my very first appearance for the Crown that prosecutors are bound to act as ministers of justice, with an overriding duty to preserve and promote the overall fairness of the proceedings – not simply to win at all costs. But before anyone misunderstands me, and any of our friends in the media present today, let me stress that fair prosecutors are very often the most deadly – and I’m looking at some of them now.

    I remember leading a young barrister from 6KBW in the prosecution of three councillors for election fraud. We were prosecuting, but I couldn’t attend for the cross-examination of D3 as I had an appeal listed in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. When I came back, I listened to the tape. Once I’d got over the grim realisation that it was considerably more skilful than my cross-examinations of D1 and D2, I was able to appreciate it for what it was – calm, courteous, scrupulously fair…and utterly devastating. All in the finest traditions of the English & Welsh Bar.

    Now, the appeal hearing that kept me away that day took place in this very courtroom.

    I experienced then as I waited for the hearing to be called on that tingle of apprehension that I always did whenever I had to appear in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. It is a tingle rooted in respect. Respect for the quality of this tribunal; respect for the ruthlessly searching analysis that every advocate knows is to come.

    Candidly, it’s partly too because I lost rather more often than I won in this court. Over time I became increasingly skilled at detecting my doom before it was confirmed. In the case of Soe Thet my spirits lifted as I heard Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers open his ruling to note that I had “argued a difficult case with admirable clarity and eloquence”… before finding against me on every single point. I soon learnt that compliments tend to spell catastrophe.

    But more importantly, a message sunk in about the true meaning of some of the aphorisms that get bandied around – the rule of law, access to justice, independence of the judiciary.

    Because when you appear in this court you soon realise that these aren’t quaint, airy notions to pay lip-service to – but the essential building blocks of a safe, fair and prosperous society.

    What access to justice and independence of the judiciary mean in practice is this: as you walk out of this court having lost, you know deep down that despite your disappointment you have been heard by judges of enormous intellect and unimpeachable integrity. And you have had a full and fair hearing.

    It is difficult to overstate how precious that is.

    And so, as I sit here as your Lord Chancellor with responsibility for our justice system, I am aware of the responsibility I hold. It’s like carrying a Ming vase – ancient, priceless… but also fragile – and doing so whilst walking across a polished floor.

    It would be easy to feel overawed. After all, I’m following in a line that includes some greats (Sir Francis Bacon and Ken, now Baron, Clarke spring to mind).

    But it’s quietly reassuring that there are some absolute howlers in that list.

    Richard Rich who was Lord Chancellor under Edward VI is remembered for being immoral, dishonest, a perjurer and a man “of whom nobody has spoken a good word.”

    I hope I can modestly improve on that.

    So what will this Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State prioritise?

    As the Prime Minister has made clear, this Government will act to protect the public. That includes, of course, working to expand capacity in our justice system.

    We will redouble our efforts, working with the independent judiciary, to manage and reduce the court and tribunal caseload, speeding up access to justice for litigants and victims. In doing so, we will continue to tackle violence against women and girls. Prosecutions for adult rape continue to rise remarkably following some very hard work by counsel, prosecutors, court staff and others; charges are up over 90% percent compared to the quarterly average in 2019 pre-Covid.

    Second, we will progress the Victims and Prisoners Bill, with its emphasis on ensuring entitlements contained within the Victims Code 2020 are promoted and secured.

    Third, we will play our part in operationalising any immigration legislation that Parliament is minded to enact. We will do so whilst being careful to provide individuals with the due process which is the hallmark of our legal system. The rule of law requires that illegality has consequences, but it also requires that individuals have the proper opportunity to make representations in their own cause.

    Fourth, I will work to promote access to justice. As a parliamentary under-secretary of State, I devised a concept called ELSA – Early Legal Support and Advice – and I will be seeking out opportunities to drive that agenda forward. It is access to justice that empowers individuals, strengthens society and bolsters the rule of law.

    I take very seriously the oath that I have sworn today.

    I swear it as someone who sees this very much as a destination job, whatever Quentin Letts might say. That’s important because I believe that occupiers of this sensitive position in our constitution shouldn’t be looking over the political horizon. Nor indeed, should they be looking over their shoulder.

    And, as your Lord Chancellor, I will do everything I can to uphold the judiciary’s hard-won reputation for excellence, integrity and independence.

    But this role is not all about interactions with the judiciary, important though those are. I am responsible for over 90,000 prison officers, probation officers, HMCTS staff, LAA staff and others. And I want to say a few words to them.

    First I want to thank you for what you delivered during the pandemic. You are the ones who ensured that neither our courts nor our tribunals ever closed completely. Thanks to you vulnerable litigants were able to access justice and get the orders they needed to keep them safe. Thanks to you, ours was one of the first – if not the first – jurisdiction to resume jury trials. (We believe in jury trials by the way, even if others seem to be having a bit of a wobble…)

    But perhaps above all that, I want to note the quiet miracle that you delivered in our prisons. Many have already forgotten that at the start of the pandemic, Public Health England and Public Health Wales predicted around 3,000 deaths in custody. In the event the total was less than 300. Every one remains a tragedy for the individual and families involved, but the fact is that there are thousands of people alive today who would not have been if prison officers had not done their duty and come to work – when no doubt concerned family members were begging them not to. The same is true for probation officers who worked hard to manage risk in the community.

    So let me conclude with this.

    One of my predecessors, Francis Bacon, observed that, “if we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us.”

    Let us turn to the task ahead. I as Lord Chancellor will do my duty. And I know that all of us, whatever part we play, will join today in committing to maintaining that justice, endeavouring to leave the rule of law in our country stronger for our having been here.

    Those are my submissions.

  • Metropolitan Police – 2023 Statement on Bacari-Bronze O’Garro

    Metropolitan Police – 2023 Statement on Bacari-Bronze O’Garro

    The statement made by the Metropolitan Police on 24 May 2023.

    Understandably there has been extensive comment on this case in the media and on social media.

    Now that an individual has been charged, I would ask that the judicial process be respected and allowed to take its proper course.

  • Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on Policing the Coronation Protests

    Chris Philp – 2023 Statement on Policing the Coronation Protests

    The statement made by Chris Philp, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, in the House of Commons on 9 May 2023.

    The coronation was a once-in-a-generation moment, a moment of national pride and a moment when the eyes of the world were upon us. It was a ceremony with roots over a millennium old, marking a renewed dedication to service by His Majesty the King in this new reign. The coronation went smoothly and without disruption. I thank the 11,500 police officers who were on duty alongside 6,500 military personnel and many civilians.

    Today, Commissioner Mark Rowley has outlined the intelligence picture in the hours leading up to the coronation. It included more than one plot to cause severe disruption by placing activated rape alarms in the path of horses to induce a stampede and a separate plot to douse participants in the procession with paint. That was the context: a once in a generation national moment facing specific intelligence threats about multiple, well-organised plots to disrupt it. The focus of the police was, rightly, on ensuring that the momentous occasion passed safely and without major disruption. That was successful. All plots to disrupt the coronation were foiled by a combination of intelligence work and proactive vigilant policing on the ground. I would like to thank the police and congratulate them on that success.

    At the same time, extensive—[Interruption.] Wait for it. At the same time, extensive planning ensured that protests could take place. That was also successful. Hundreds of protesters exercised their right to peaceful protest, including a large group numbering in the hundreds in and around Trafalgar Square. Where the police reasonably believed they had grounds for arrest, they acted. The latest information is that 64 arrests were made. I will not comment on individual cases or specific decisions, but the arrests included a person wanted for sexual offences, people equipped to commit criminal damage with large quantities of paint, and arrests on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance, often backed by intelligence. The Met’s update last night included regret—to use its word—that six people arrested could not join the hundreds protesting in Trafalgar Square and nearby. The Met confirmed that those six people have now had their bail cancelled with no further action.

    The police are operationally independent and it is primarily for the Mayor of London to hold the Met to account, but let us be clear: at the weekend officers had to make difficult judgments in fast time, in a highly pressured situation against a threatening intelligence picture. I thank the police for doing that, for delivering a successful a coronation and for enabling safe, peaceful protests.

  • Suella Braverman – 2023 Speech at the Public Safety Foundation [redacted version]

    Suella Braverman – 2023 Speech at the Public Safety Foundation [redacted version]

    The speech made by Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, on 26 April 2023. This is the redacted version issued by the Government press release which has removed political content. We asked the office of Suella Braverman for the complete text, but they didn’t respond.

    Thank you, Rory for that introduction. You know better than most, from your own experience on the beat, the realities that our brave police officers face when going up against violent thugs and other criminals, and the damage that crime can do to people and communities.

    And that’s why it’s wonderful to be here welcoming the launch of The Public Safety Foundation, an organisation committed to making the UK the safest place to live, work, and raise a family.

    This really is the perfect forum for setting out my ethos for common sense policing.

    Everything that our police officers do should be about fighting crime, catching criminals, and keeping the public safe.

    My mantra at the Home Office is simple: common sense policing.

    Common sense policing means more police on our streets.

    It means better police culture and higher standards.

    It means giving the public confidence that the police are unequivocally on their side, not pandering to politically correct preoccupations.

    It means measuring the police on outputs such as public response times, crimes solved, and criminals captured.

    It means police officers freed up to spend their time on proper police work.

    It means police prioritising the highest harm crimes and those that matter most to the public.

    It means the police making use of powers like stop and search that have proven effective in taking weapons off our streets.

    And above all else, common sense policing means officers maintaining a relentless focus on fighting crime, catching criminals, and keeping the public safe.

    I am going to speak to each of these themes in turn today.

    Firstly, the public wants to see more bobbies on the beat and so do I.

    It is central to common sense policing.

    Everyone who has been part of the government’s Police Uplift Programme should be immensely proud of what we’ve achieved in the last few years.

    […]

    We’ve delivered an additional 20,951 officers into policing over the past three years.

    There are now almost 150,000 police officers across England and Wales. The highest number ever.

    24 forces now have more police officers than they ever had before the programme.

    I am extremely grateful to police chiefs for leading this drive.

    And to those men and women who have signed up: you are now part of a policing family epitomised by bravery, and dedicated to public service and safety.

    As part of the new generation of policing, you will help to raise standards, refocus priorities, and maintain our world-leading place in policing.

    Policing must remain open to the best and the bravest – whether or not they have a degree. And common sense policing means encouraging the recruitment of officers that come from and live in the communities they serve, familiar with local challenges, and familiar to local people.

    That’s why I have widened the pool from which we can recruit, by enabling non-degree holders to be part of policing. It’s not about how many exams you sit or essays you can write – important skills though those are. It’s about common sense, problem-solving, strength- of character and strength of physique.

    20,000 officers is not just a statistic in a press release.

    The uplift is already delivering improved outcomes for policing and the communities they serve.

    All forces now have a named officer and contact information on their websites, meaning our commitment to greater local accountability as set out in the Beating Crime Plan.

    More police, means more flexibility for forces to do what makes sense locally, which goes to the very heart of common sense policing.

    A Police and Crime Commissioner recently explained how the uplift is making a difference in their patch: They said: “Additional officers have been deployed into our more rural communities, which allows response times to lessen and takes pressure off urban-based officers from covering a wider area allowing them to focus on localised crime.”

    In one force, much of uplift has been reinvested in to tackling rape, with the creation of an additional 119 roles.

    Another force has used the uplift to double the size of its knife crime team, boosting its capacity to seize dangerous weapons and keep people safe.

    Recruiting officers is crucial to getting more bobbies on the beat. But retention of existing officers is similarly important.

    Every force must focus on retaining the essential skills and experience of existing officers.

    We are driving forward work to support this, whether that’s through the College of Policing’s Leadership Centre, the NPCC’s Productivity Review, or introducing a statutory Police Covenant, which is already delivering tangible benefits for the police.

    For the first time, new officers are given pre-deployment mental health training to ensure they are able to manage the rigors of frontline policing.

    And welfare standards covering the entire workforce are now assessed as part of the regular force inspection programme.

    It is also vital that policing can offer a pathway back for those who do leave, to ensure that experience doesn’t only ever leave the building.

    Whilst many forces have deployed rejoiner schemes at entry level, I am not convinced that all forces are doing enough to encourage more senior people back into policing.

    There is scope to expand these schemes to focus on key skills gaps using the standards and guidance developed by the College of Policing.

    […]

    This is a great success story. But what will really count is what an expanded police force – this new generation of policing – does next.

    More policing is necessary but not sufficient. Common sense policing must also mean higher standards, better culture, and more effective policing.

    Baroness Casey’s review into the Metropolitan Police makes for harrowing reading.

    As I said in the House of Commons, there have been serious failures of culture and leadership.

    I have the utmost confidence in the Met’s new leadership team. Sir Mark Rowley is right to make the restoration of public confidence in policing his top priority and I will give him every support as he pursues his turnaround plan.

    But I also expect those with direct political accountability for forces – PCC’s in general, and with respect to the Met, the Mayor of London in particular – to properly exercise their oversight functions.

    Baroness Casey’s review will inform the work of Lady Elish Angiolini’s inquiry which will look at broader issues of policing standards and culture.

    Steps have already been taken to ensure that forces tackle weaknesses in their vetting systems. I am currently reviewing the police dismissals process to speed up the removal of those officers who fall short of the high standards expected of them.

    That review is also looking at simplifying the process for dealing with poor performance and ensuring that the system is effective at enabling an officer who fails vetting checks in service to be removed.

    The law-abiding public must be able to know that they can trust any officer they see. Those who are not fit to wear the badge must never do so, and where they are exposed, they must face justice and be driven out of the force.

    I have seen examples of strong leadership transforming police forces up and down the country. So, I’m confident that policing can and will step up.

    Changing the culture doesn’t just mean addressing the sorts of issues that Baroness Casey identified and raising professional standards to the level that the public rightly expect. That is a pre-requisite.

    A common sense culture in policing must also mean that policing understands and reflects public expectations about the police’s proper focus and function.

    For too long, too many in authority have indulged a narrative that crime, rather than being a destructive option chosen by a criminal minority, is an illness to be treated.

    This narrative seeks to diminish individual responsibility and culpability by holding that criminals are themselves victims.

    This modern emphasis on the needs of delinquents, thugs and criminals, however cruel their intentions or damaging their behaviour may be, displaces the old fashioned and just retributive consideration of the criminal events themselves, and of the effect they have on the genuine victims.

    People want their government and their police to be unequivocally on the side of the victims, rather than making excuses for, or distracted by efforts to redeem the perpetrators.

    It’s something I hear a lot. On my travels around the country. On the doorstep. People everywhere tell me they want common sense, good old fashioned criminal justice.

    They want the police to turn up quickly when they’re called.

    They want to know that when a crime is reported it will be properly investigated – and, so I’m glad that all domestic burglaries now receive a police response, as I called for last autumn.

    They want hope that the police might even catch the crooks.

    And they want confidence that when someone is arrested, if they are found guilty, they will be appropriately punished.

    Because without risk of capture or of punishment, without an appropriate cost to those breaking the law, criminals will take advantage.

    That sense of mission must be reflected in police priorities if the police are to retain public confidence.

    Sometimes the police simply need to make better arguments. Most people recognise that smartphone clips of a contested incident circulating on social media only ever tell a fraction of the story. Where appropriate, forces should do more to share body worn video footage. It is vital to public confidence that the police can quickly demonstrate the legitimacy of action to counter spurious claims and trial by social media that may otherwise follow and allow dangerous narratives to take hold.

    Maintaining public confidence, also requires that the police be seen as politically impartial, and unequivocally on the side of the law-abiding majority.

    When police officers stood by as a statue was torn down; when the police were pictured handing cups of tea to protestors engaged in blocking a road; or when police chiefs spend taxpayers’ money that could have been spent fighting crime, on diversity training that promotes contested ideology like critical race theory; the reputation of policing as an institution, is damaged in the eyes of the public.

    Some forces have ‘equality’ teams that have completely abandoned impartiality in favour of taking partisan positions – sometimes even engaging in political argument on Twitter.

    Now I believe in the police. But the policing in which I believe isn’t riven with political correctness, but enshrined in good old-fashioned common sense.

    The perception – however unjustified or unrepresentative – that some police are more interested in virtue signalling, or in protecting the interests of a radical minority engaged in criminality, than they are protecting the rights of the law-abiding majority – is utterly corrosive to public confidence in policing. The police must be more sensitive to this and work harder to counter it.

    If police chiefs approached instilling a culture of political impartiality, with the same dedication which they approach instilling a culture of diversity and inclusion, I have no doubt that public confidence in policing would be materially improved.

    More police, and better police culture, is essential. But positive effects are blunted if the police are not free to properly focus on policing.

    That is why, over the last 6 months, I have led a broad programme of common sense policing reforms to reduce unnecessary and inappropriate burdens on police time.

    Chief amongst those burdens is the amount of time police spend responding to mental health call outs. I am frequently told about officers waiting 10-20 hours with patients who need medical attention. This is an unacceptable use of police time.

    We want frontline officers to be able to focus on fighting crime, and the work they are trained to do. Police officers are not mental health specialists, and the best place for people suffering a mental health crisis is a healthcare setting.

    This includes developing a National Partnership Agreement to ensure health calls are responded to by the most appropriate agency.

    The ‘Right Care Right Person’ approach sets out a threshold to assist police decision-making on responding to incidents. It is founded on the understanding that police should only be responding to health and social care incidents where there is an immediate risk of serious harm or criminality.

    A toolkit to assist forces in their implementation of the Right Care Right Person will be rolled out in the coming months, and guidance for the health sector is also being prepared.

    Whether it’s saving an estimated 400,000 police hours a year by reforming the Home Office Counting Rules (reducing them from 350 pages to almost 50 pages); or reforming the redaction process so officers spend less time stuck behind a computer screen; we are doing all that we can to support forces to ensure their officers spend as much time as possible on the beat.

    But it’s not enough merely to free up more police resource. Common sense policing means acknowledging that police resource is necessarily finite, and that it must therefore be deployed on the things that matter most to the public.

    It’s with this sentiment in mind that I recently introduced a new code of practice on non-crime hate incidents.

    Taking action for hurt feelings is not the job of our police.

    Curbing freedom of expression is not the job of our police.

    Enforcing non-existent blasphemy laws is not the job of our police.

    The new code makes clear that personal data should only be recorded if there is a real risk of significant harm and stresses the importance of giving proper weight to freedom of expression.

    The public want to see the police focussed on the highest harm crimes and those that are priorities to address in their communities.

    They want to see the police tackling violence against women and girls – a key priority to which we’ve committed nearly a quarter of a billion pounds in Home Office and wider government funding through 2025.

    They want to see the police focused on tackling child sexual exploitation which is why we launched a new Grooming Gangs Task Force, introduced mandatory reporting, and will be announcing further measures when responding to the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, next month.

    They want to see police cracking down on drugs and associated criminality. I’m proud to say that together with the police, we have done considerable damage to county lines gangs, seizing record amounts of drugs, making 20,000 arrests for drug related offences and disabling 1,600 organised crime gangs since 2021.

    They want to see the police tackling knife crime which is why I’m doubling down on stop and search and launching a public consultation on banning machetes and other large knives that should have no place on our streets but are readily available online.

    They want to see the police treating antisocial behaviour as a priority crime which is why we’ve just published a bold and ambitious action plan to address this blight on communities.

    And they want to see that the police are on their side when it comes to addressing highly disruptive protests which is why we strengthened police powers in this area. This has already supported the arrest of over 750 individuals by the Metropolitan Police alone since October 2022.

    By contrast, the public do not want to see the police turning up to residential addresses to police bad jokes on Twitter.

    And when it comes to delivering on the public’s priorities, common sense policing calls for the use of the most effective tools available, without regard to political correctness.

    Stop and search is a perfect example. It is a critical tool which I, and this government, fully support the police using to keep our streets safe.

    I’m proud to say that under this government, it has never been easier for the police to make legitimate use of stop and search powers.

    Stop and search has helped remove over 40,000 weapons from our streets and led to over 220,000 arrests since 2019.

    Stop and search acts as a deterrent by preventing offenders from carrying weapons in the first place.

    And Serious Violence Reduction Orders, currently being piloted in four police force areas, will provide the police with enhanced powers to stop and search adults already convicted of knife or offensive weapons offences – reducing violence and crucially saving lives.

    Common sense policing requires the police to use all available powers, without fear or favour, to keep the public safe and stop the misery caused by violence and drugs.

    That is why I intend to write to police chiefs in the coming days, to reiterate the importance of stop and search and the government’s full support for the police’s appropriate use of it.

    […]

    Domestic burglary and robbery are around half the level they were in 2010.

    Violence and vehicle theft are around 40% lower than in 2010.

    And fewer people are dying from drug and alcohol related deaths compared to 2010.

    But I also see policing at a turning point. With devastating events like the murder of Sarah Everard, forces in special measures, and the problems highlighted in the Casey report, we must all work towards rebuilding public trust and refocusing on the public’s priorities.

    Common sense policing is the way we will do that.

    More police on our streets.

    Better police culture.

    Higher standards.

    More effective policing.

    Focused on the public’s priorities.

    Making use of all appropriate powers.

    Pursuing good old fashioned criminal justice rather than social justice.

    Relentlessly focussed on fighting crime, catching criminals, and keeping the public safe.

    That is the policing that the decent, hard working, law-abiding majority, up and down this country, can get behind and have confidence in.

    Common sense policing we can all be proud of.

    Thank you.

  • Dominic Raab – 2023 Statement on Family Law – Dispute Resolution and Mediation

    Dominic Raab – 2023 Statement on Family Law – Dispute Resolution and Mediation

    The statement made by Dominic Raab, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2023.

    Today the Government are launching a consultation that will inform proposals to support more families, in appropriate cases, to agree their children and financial arrangements without court involvement.

    Family courts are under unprecedented pressure. In recent years, more families than ever before are applying to the court to resolve their disputes about children and financial matters, and once at court their cases are taking longer to be resolved. We believe that many of these disputes can be successfully resolved outside of court, and that in supporting this we can spare families, and especially children, the anguish of protracted litigation. Resolving more disputes outside of court will also help enable the courts to focus available resource on the cases that need to be there, including where domestic abuse is evidenced or there are urgent issues, and ensure these are resolved swiftly. This will help us to deliver on the levelling-up agenda by ensuring we improve the experience of parents across the country, including the most deprived areas.

    Key proposals in the consultation include:

    Supporting parents to resolve their children and financial arrangements without court involvement:

    We propose to strengthen access to resources and guidance for parents/carers and separating couples, and seek views on requiring parents/carers, in appropriate cases, to attend a co-parenting programme alongside mediation to help them better understand their family’s options.

    Resolving private family law arrangements through mediation:

    We propose to introduce a requirement, in appropriate cases, to make a reasonable attempt to mediate before applying to court. We are seeking views on how this could operate, and the circumstances that should make an individual or family exempt from the requirement. We propose that Government would fund the cost of this mediation for child arrangement cases and seek views on the funding of mediation for finance cases.

    Accountability and costs in court proceedings:

    We are also consulting on how costs orders could be used by the family courts to enforce requirements to mediate and discourage unnecessary prolonging of court proceedings.

    The consultation also seeks views on the impact these proposals may have on the mediation sector, and the role of other forms of dispute resolution in family cases.

    We want to hear from a range of people with experience of the private family law system, including families with experience of family courts, the organisations that work to support them, and the professionals who work within the system sector. We will be holding a number of stake- holder engagement events to ensure we receive detailed responses from a wide range of people and organisations.

    The consultation is available at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/

    The consultation closes on 15 June 2023.