The Police Cannot Serve Two Masters

I have a personal interest in organisational behaviour with regard to the police for both personal and academic reasons. In consequence I have been following closely reports on police actions which have aroused controversy over the past few years. The most recent being reports that the Police have been unsure as to how to respond the "Honour Killings". There have also been reports of concern with regard to their response to reports of sexual assault on children and young people by "grooming gangs".

Working on the basis of getting the "basics right", if you want an organisation to function appropriately I bring to your attention the following: namely the oath of allegiance police officers make on being appointed. When I was appointed some years ago all Constables (whether Special or Regular) were required to attest or affirm the following.....

I, ... ... ... of ... ... ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve?Our Sovereign Lady?the Queen in the office of constable,?without favour or affection, malice or ill will; and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against?the persons and properties of Her Majesty's subjects; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law. (My italics).

In 1996 this changed to:

I, ... ... ... of ... ... ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable,?with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against?people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law. (my italics)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/notes/division/4/1/18/2?view=plain

This change in wording is very profound and in a very unhelpful way for the police officer. The original oath was clear and focused. It focused on the “Queen’s Peace” (now the King’s) and Officers were to administer it impartially and fairly. You were clearing riding one horse and one horse only.?You knew what your job was.

The introduction of the words “upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people;” is what has thrown a spanner in the functioning of the police service. Upholding the Sovereign's Peace is principled, focused and empirical. It is based on the criminal law both Common and Statute Law. Such laws are therefore knowable to anyone who cares to look. There are law books on the Statutes and Common Law an Officer where officers can and do read for clarification and guidance.?The reference to “fundamental human rights” within policing is foolish and unhelpful. Human Rights are not empirical nor objective. They cannot be codified. They are nuanced and context dependent.

?

Moreover Common and Statute law is non-political. Human Rights however are a political construct. By this is meant that with Common and Statute Law they operate as absolute concepts. As an example it is a crime to steal and the definition of stealing is described "to permanently to deprive...". With Human Rights there is often a conflict as to how the Right of one person may impact negatively on another person's "Right". Such conflict ending up in the Courts where a definitive judgement maybe given.

At a stroke the police officer is now being asked to ride two horses and serve two masters, Common Law and Statute Law on the one hand and "Human Rights" on the other. It cannot be done. You can become political and seek to uphold human rights, or you can protect the public by enforcing the law not both at the same time.

Looking at policing from this absolute basic perspective of: "What is my job?", I am not surprised that police officers may feel ambivalent dealing with crimes that are seen, say, within a "cultural" context.

Within some cultures the maintenance of family "honour" is seen as legitimate goal and if a daughter is going out with the "wrong" type then unfortunate consequences may well follow. With the "Grooming Gangs" scenario if an Officer senses that cultural differences are accepted as legitimate (equal respect to all people) by Council Officers, local Faith Leaders and their own Senior staff, bearing in mind the "Rights" element of their Attestation oath why would someone want to put their head above the parapet?