Evening All!

"The chief constable in all his or her duties is not the servant of anyone, save the law itself … he is answerable to the law and the law alone." Lord Denning, 1968.

As the Covid-19 crisis unfolds, societies are undergoing rapid changes, with existing values reset. In the UK, the police are facing criticism for perceived heavy-handed action in response to the lock-down.

​Britain prides itself on its freedoms. Thus, as the state extends its tentacles into ordinary life by limiting movement, a backlash is inevitable. Lord Sumption, a retired Supreme Court judge, cited drones filming people walking their dogs as authoritarianism. 

In response to this criticism, police leaders have asserted that these are challenging times, with officers facing many difficulties. They are right. Thus we need public forbearance. Yet these events are exposing the limitations of the British policing model in times of crisis.

Peel's principle of 'policing by consent' is rubbing up against reality. In truth, all policing is by consent. Because should the population decide to rise-up enmasse, no police service can stem the tide. 

(The attribution of the nine principles to Peel himself is historically dubious — it's more likely that they were written by Rowan and Mayne. Later Peel claimed credit.)

The recent troubles in Hong Kong have brought up similar issues. A tangible shock wave ran through the community when the police, righty, used robust measures against rioters.

​It was soon evident that few understood the law, and the requirements imposed on the police to maintain order. This was compounded by Hong Kong people's collective memory, which is, sadly, short.

Adding to this are attempts to portray young adults throwing petrol bombs as 'misunderstood' youth — these utterances border on the surreal. People, with over-indulgent tendencies, fell over themselves to justify the violence.

In containing the riots, the Hong Kong Police have used tactics that have evolved since the 1950s. These methods served Hong Kong well in 1956, 1966 and 1967.

​Likewise, in 2005 the public cheered on the police against rioting Korean Farmers attending the WTO conference. Few raised an eyebrow in the late 1980s and 1990s when Vietnam refugee disturbances needed controlling.

Also, the 'false horror' of opposition legislators is laughable. Many have visited the Police Tactical Unit, over many years, to see the training. They were fully aware of the police training, and what responses would be made to counter threats to society.

While a few people are busy laundering the facts and displaying willful blindness to reality, others are misreading history. Into the mix has fallen the issue of 'policing by consent'. Yet, 'policing by consent' doesn't negate the need to maintain law and order.
 
Lord Denning, in 1968 asserted, "The chief constable in all his or her duties is not the servant of anyone, save the law itself … he is answerable to the law and the law alone."

This judgement faced several challenges, including during the Patten Inquiry in Northern Ireland. And yet it remains a powerful influence on police governance. Denning gave voice to the view that the police are not in absolute terms beholden to the whims of their communities. 

It's worth revisiting some history. The first British Police Force, established in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel's Police Act, faced bitter resistance. Many people felt the establishment of a  regular, full-time police force as a threat to liberty, and a power grab. Such opinions still hold sway in specific sectors.

With the formal establishment of the Hong Kong Police Force in 1844, the original model adopted was not from mainland Britain. For Hong Kong and other colonies, the 'occupier' Irish policing model became the frame of reference. 

This process accelerated in 1907. The Colonial Office decided that all ranking officers of colonial police forces must undergo training at the Dublin depot of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Hence, as the Hong Kong Police underwent a steady expansion, officers came imbued with the Irish paramilitary model. 

Then 1936 saw the establishment of the Colonial Police Service. Amongst other aims, this aimed to bring uniformity to colonial policing. The Colonial Police Service remained under the Foreign Office, while the Home Office controlled policing in Britain.

Over time, in the UK, the 'citizen constable' concept evolved, and the myth of policing as exemplified by 'Dickson of Dock Green'. 

The Hong Kong Police was a very different animal. In its first iteration, the Hong Kong Police was a tool of it's colonial masters. 

Moreover, it operated under a system of apartheid, with the interests of Europeans taking precedence over the local people. Given the training that the commanders received in Ireland, the paramilitary ethos predominated. 
​
Outbreaks of public disorder meant retaining this approach. Academics Crisswell and Watson (1980), identified the Hong Kong Police model as 'coercive institutionalised paramilitary'. There is substantial research from others that affirm this view.

That's not to say the Force wasn't cognisant of public perception. Indeed in the late 1970s, increasing awareness of community expectations shaped policing. Although it would be mistaken to suggest that the Force wholly adopted Peel's principles. 

As Hong Kong's middle-class emerged, their demands and expectations drove reform. That, coupled with the advent of ICAC, and the drive against corruption, led to many initiatives. 

The 1980s saw attempts at neighbourhood policing, and later came public opinion surveys and such. This reform gathered pace with the formation of the Service Quality Wing, in the 1990s, as a push for culture change started. But, the underlying policing model never diverged much, retaining its 'paramilitary' element.

That posture served British interests in the lead up to 1997, when the UK feared unrest from an unsettled local population. Those structures and processes remained in place after 1997. I've covered this history in more detail here. 

The crude belief that British policing is somehow superior because of Peel's principles soon falters. Even in Britain, there is a recognition that the 'policing by consent' model has profound imperfections, especially when it comes to public order policing. 

The Guardian ran this article some years ago. As the article points out "If they act too soon or in too widespread a manner, they (the police) face charges of indiscriminate brutality at worst and at best wholesale erosion of innocent protesters' rights. If they delay or stand by reticently, they are castigated for giving succour to vandals and violence." That's sounds familiar! 

In my career, I had extensive exposure to the UK's policing on courses and exchange visits. Once I joined a table-top exercise dealing with a riot. Imagine my shock as the UK police stood passive as shops and homes went up in flames. Anti-riot units loitered, while community leaders came in for discussions.

At the debriefing, everyone appeared pleased because commanders had 'engaged' with their community. The fact that peoples livelihoods lay in ruins was incidental. 

Asked my view, I opined the officers had neglected their duty to restore order and failed in the primary role of a police officer. Later over drinks, UK officers agreed with my assessment, but to state these views in a formal context is career-ending. 

The British police response reminded me of Sergeant Wilson in Dad’s Army. After a receiving a direct order to deal with the riots, they murmured ‘I say … would you mind awfully stopping that petrol bombing? Be good chaps.’

Then in 2011 the same scenario played out for real, as riots gripped the UK after the death of Mark Duggan. Police stood passive for long periods allowing looting, arson and attacks to unfold. They lost control of large swaths of London, leaving peaceful citizens  exposed to wanton violence. 

Thus it's pertinent to ask how are Peel's principles working out in modern Britain. With rampant crime and an overall detection rate of under 8%, something has gone wrong. In London, young men die daily on the streets in stabbings.

​No matter how worthy Peel's principles, these haven't saved the UK citizens from the reality of underfunding and misdirected resources. 

In the end, 'policing by consent' is not the 'be all and end all' of policing. On occasions, in speeches and seminars, Peel's ideas did surface in Hong Kong in an aspirational manner. You could argue that Peel had some influence on the Hong Kong Police Force's values, although this is far from explicit.

​At no time did the Hong Kong Police Force endorse the Peel model as a founding principle. Policing in any society needs to reflect the culture and the legal framework of that culture. Hong Kong is a unique culture. 

Lastly, while the Hong Kong Police are far from perfect, their international standing is higher than most western police forces. And, after all, Hong Kong remains one of the safest places on the planet, Peel or not.