The Peelian principles summarise the ideas that Sir Robert Peel developed to define an ethical police force. The approach expressed in these principles is commonly known as policing by consent in the United Kingdom and other countries such as Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand.[ citation needed ]
In this model of policing, police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of those fellow citizens. "Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so.
In early 19th-century Britain, attempts by the government to set up a police force for London were met with opposition. People were suspicious of the idea of a large and possibly armed police force, and feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule. Since 1793 Britain had been at war with France, home of the best-known, best-organised and best-paid police force at the time, as well as a secret and political police force, and many Britons were uncomfortable with any police force's association with France. Most people did not think that it was the job of the national government to set up and control a police force, and thought it should be under local control. [1] [2]
Following the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1816, several factors drove the country into a severe depression. The increased industrialisation of the country, combined with the demobilisation of the forces, led to mass unemployment. The Corn Laws led to massive increases in the price of bread, while the repeal of income tax meant that the war debt had to be recovered by taxing commodities forcing their prices even higher. In addition, 1817 was unusually wet and cold, producing a very poor harvest. This led to the so-called Pentrich rising, for which three men were hanged and beheaded at Derby Gaol. [3]
The 1819 Peterloo Massacre in St Peter's Field, Manchester occurred when at least eighteen died after 60,000 people who had gathered to stand up for universal suffrage (amongst other ideas) were overrun by multiple cavalry charges. This was followed by the 1820 Yorkshire West Riding Revolt and the 1821 Cinderloo Uprising, the latter of which resulted in two deaths and one man hanged subsequently. [4] It was against this background that Peel said that "though emancipation was a great danger, civil strife was a greater danger" and thus the principles known as Peel's were developed. [5]
London in the early 19th century had a population of nearly a million and a half people but was policed by only 450 constables and 4,500 night watchmen who belonged to many separate organisations. [1] Several parliamentary committees examined the policing of London and made proposals to help evolve the existing state of affairs. [6] The concept of professional policing was taken up by Robert Peel when he became Home Secretary in 1822, emphasising a rigorous and less discretionary approach to law enforcement. Peel's Metropolitan Police Act 1829 established a full-time, professional and centrally-organised police force for the Greater London area, known as the Metropolitan Police. [7] [8]
The Peelian principles describe the philosophy that Sir Robert Peel developed to define an ethical police force. The principles traditionally ascribed to Peel state that: [9] [10]
The Metropolitan Police officers were often referred to as 'Bobbies' after Sir Robert (Bobby) Peel, and are regarded as the first modern police force. [7]
The nine principles of policing originated from the "General Instructions" issued to every new police officer in the Metropolitan Police from 1829. [11] [12] Although Peel discussed the spirit of some of these principles in his speeches and other communications, the historians Susan Lentz and Robert Chaires found no proof that he compiled a formal list. [9] The Home Office has suggested that the instructions were probably written, not by Peel himself, but by Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, the joint Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police when it was founded. [11] [12]
Those general principles were later distilled into nine points by Charles Reith in his 1948 book A Short History of the British Police and it is in this form they are usually cited: [9] [11] [12]
The presence of police officers on the streets of London, a new symbol of state power, raised questions about police legitimacy from the outset. The government sought to avoid any suggestion that the police was a military force, so they were not armed. Nor was their uniform anything like military uniform. [1] [13]
At the time, local government had a much more significant role in the day-to-day life of citizens. Initially, many sections of society were opposed to the 'new' police. Uncertainty about what they could and could not do was responsible for many of the early complaints about the police. [1] [13]
Officers acted as a unique point of contact between the state and the wider public. The legitimacy of this expanded state power was reflected in public opinion about the police. As the nineteenth century progressed, the police were viewed in a more favourable light by many sections of society. Still, even in the twentieth century, tensions remained. [1] [13]
The historian Charles Reith explained in his New Study of Police History (1956) that Sir Robert Peel's principles constituted an approach to policing "unique in history and throughout the world, because it derived, not from fear, but almost exclusively from public co-operation with the police, induced by them designedly by behaviour which secures and maintains for them the approval, respect and affection of the public". [11] [14]
The UK government Home Office in 2012 explained policing by consent as "the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual" and added an additional statement outside of the Peelian principles: "No individual can choose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law." [11] The Home Office defined the legitimacy of policing, in the eyes of the public, as based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so. [15]
A study in 2021 described the notion of policing by consent in three terms: "that the police are 'citizens in uniform'; that the primary duty of the police is to the public, not the state; and that the use of force is a last resort." [16] Another study contrasts policing by consent with 'policing by law' and states: "Even though the basic premise of policing in UK is by consent, the British Police system as it exists now is more a reverse process of investing more power in people by law, than policing by consent. As such, the policing in UK has now become policing by law, but a law which mandates a police which is accountable to public." [17]
The influence of this philosophy can still be found today in many parts of the Commonwealth of Nations, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. [18] [19] [20] It is also seen in the police forces of the Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories. [21] The British model of policing influenced policing in the United States; [22] [23] the principles informed the American community policing movement in the 1960s and are still a component of more recent policing doctrine. [24] American law-enforcement reformer William Bratton called them "my bible" in 2014, [25] but others commented in 2020 that the application of the principles in the US appears "increasingly theoretical". [24] The term is sometimes applied to describe policing in the Republic of Ireland, [26] [27] and in Northern Ireland. [28] While Hong Kong was a British colony, and for a time afterwards, the concept of policing by consent was applied, but that approach has since faded out. [29] The concept has been applied to other countries as well, whose police forces are routinely unarmed. [30]
Some countries, such as Finland, Norway and other Nordic countries developed a consensual model of policing independently of the Peelian principles. [31] [32] [33]
As a result of the tradition of policing by consent, the United Kingdom has a different approach to policing public-order crime, such as riots, as compared to other western countries, such as France. [34] [35] Nonetheless, public order policing presents challenges to the approach of policing by consent. [36] [37] The death of Ian Tomlinson after being struck by a police officer during the 2009 G-20 summit protests sparked a debate in the UK about the relationship between the police, media and public, and the independence of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. [38] In response to the concerns, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Denis O'Connor, published a 150-page report in November 2009 that aimed to restore Britain's consent-based model of policing. [39]
Policing by consent remained a central consideration for police in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland while enforcing temporary laws during the COVID-19 pandemic. [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]
Calls for the routine arming of police officers with firearms have consistently been resisted in the United Kingdom. With a long history of unarmed policing, police use of firearms in the United Kingdom is much more limited than in many other countries. The UK is one of only 19 nations which have police forces that are routinely unarmed; these countries also have comparatively restrictive rules on civilian gun ownership. [30] [45] The increased use of tasers in the UK was recognised as a fundamental shift in policing, [46] and criticised as damaging policing by consent. [47] One study wrote that the "fact that officers operate largely unarmed is a key tenet and manifestation of [policing by consent]." [16] Terror attacks in the UK and Europe have led to increased deployment of firearms officers; the same study found more negative responses in the UK to police when they are armed. [16] In Finland, police are armed but may not fire without direct permission, that is, they are armed but not by default authorised. [30]
In Finland and Norway, two countries with an emphasis on a consent-based model of policing, recruits study at national colleges and spend time on an internship with local police, in addition to earning degrees in criminal justice or related fields. [45] In these two countries, there are rigorous rules about what is considered justified use of force. [48]
The police are a constituted body of persons empowered by a state with the aim of enforcing the law and protecting the public order as well as the public itself. This commonly includes ensuring the safety, health, and possessions of citizens, and to prevent crime and civil disorder. Their lawful powers encompass arrest and the use of force legitimized by the state via the monopoly on violence. The term is most commonly associated with the police forces of a sovereign state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. Police forces are often defined as being separate from the military and other organizations involved in the defense of the state against foreign aggressors; however, gendarmerie are military units charged with civil policing. Police forces are usually public sector services, funded through taxes.
A civilian is a person who is not a member of an armed force nor a person engaged in hostilities.
Criminal justice is the delivery of justice to those who have been accused of committing crimes. The criminal justice system is a series of government agencies and institutions. Goals include the rehabilitation of offenders, preventing other crimes, and moral support for victims. The primary institutions of the criminal justice system are the police, prosecution and defense lawyers, the courts and the prisons system.
Law enforcement in the United Kingdom is organised separately in each of the legal systems of the United Kingdom: England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Most law enforcement duties are carried out by those who hold the office of police constable of a territorial police force.
Throughout the history of criminal justice, evolving forms of punishment, added rights for offenders and victims, and policing reforms have reflected changing customs, political ideals, and economic conditions.
Dorset Police is the territorial police force responsible for policing the county of Dorset in South West England, which includes the largely rural area covered by Dorset Council, and the urban conurbation of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole.
Essex Police is a territorial police force responsible for policing the county of Essex, in the East of England. Essex Police is responsible for a population of over 1.8 million people and an area of 1,420 square miles (3,700 km2).
Northamptonshire Police is the territorial police force responsible for policing the county of Northamptonshire in the East Midlands of England, in the United Kingdom.
The Port of Liverpool Police is a non-Home Office ports police force with responsibility for Liverpool, Bootle, Birkenhead, Ellesmere Port and Eastham Dock Estates and Freeports, as well as the Manchester Ship Canal areas in the north-west of England.
The Metropolitan Police Act 1829 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, introduced by Sir Robert Peel, which established the Metropolitan Police. This was to be responsible for policing the newly created Metropolitan Police District, which consisted of the City of Westminster and parts of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, within seven miles of Charing Cross, apart from the City of London. It replaced a previously more diverse system of parish constables and watchmen. It is one of the Metropolitan Police Acts 1829 to 1895.
Law enforcement in Canada is the responsibility of police services, special constabularies, and civil law enforcement agencies, which are operated by every level of government, some private and Crown corporations, and First Nations. In contrast to the United States or Mexico, and with the exception of the Unité permanente anticorruption in Quebec and the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia, there are no organizations dedicated exclusively to the investigation of criminal activity in Canada. Criminal investigations are instead conducted by police services, which maintain specialized criminal investigation units in addition to their mandate for emergency response and general community safety.
Police uniforms and equipment in the United Kingdom vary enormously per force or service, and different uniforms and equipment is used for different situations. Both what is worn and what is carried have varied considerably from the inception of the earliest recognisable mainstream police services in the early 19th century. As various laws in the mid-19th century standardised policing in the United Kingdom, so too were uniforms and equipment. From a variety of home grown uniforms, bicycles, swords and pistols the British police force evolved in look and equipment through the long coats and top hat, to the recognisable modern uniform of a white shirt, black tie, reflective jackets, body armour, and the battenburg-marked vehicles, to the present-day Airwave Solutions radios, electric vehicles and tasers.
Preventive police is that aspect of law enforcement intended to act as a deterrent to the commission of crime. Preventive policing is considered a defining characteristic of the modern police, typically associated with Robert Peel's London Metropolitan Police, established in 1829. In recent years, however, British police have abandoned the idea of preventive policing in favour of "quick response".
In the United Kingdom police firearm policy varies by constituent countries. In Northern Ireland, all police officers carry firearms whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom, firearms are carried only by specially-trained firearms officers.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to law enforcement:
The history of law enforcement in the United Kingdom charts the development of law enforcement in the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It spans the period from the Middle Ages, through to the development of the first modern police force in the world in the nineteenth century, and the subsequent modernisation of policing in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Community policing or community-oriented policing (COP) is a strategy of policing that focuses on developing relationships with community members. It is a philosophy of full-service policing that is highly personal, where an officer patrols the same area for an extended time and develops a partnership with citizens to collaboratively identify and solve problems.
Police reform in the United States is an ongoing political movement that seeks to reform systems of law enforcement throughout the United States. Many goals of the police reform movement center on police accountability. Specific goals may include: lowering the criminal intent standard, limiting or abolishing qualified immunity for law enforcement officers, sensitivity training, conflict prevention and mediation training, updating legal frameworks, and granting administrative subpoena power to the U.S. Department of Justice for "pattern or practice" investigations into police misconduct and police brutality.
Police legitimacy is the extent to which members of the public view the police as higher power authority figure, often measured in terms of the public's willingness to obey and cooperate with the police. Police legitimacy is linked to the degree of public support for, and cooperation with, the police's efforts to fight crime. When a police officers ability and authority to effectively complete their job is compromised there is potential for a lack of police legitimacy.
The ideology of British policing rests on the notion of 'policing by consent': that the police are 'citizens in uniform'; that the primary duty of the police is to the public, not the state; and that the use of force is a last resort. The fact that officers operate largely unarmed is a key tenet and manifestation of this ideology. Yet, despite the long history of unarmed policing, recent terror attacks in the UK and Europe and a putative rise in serious violent crime have led to increased deployment of firearms officers and calls for the routine arming of more police.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help); Greener, Bethan (23 February 2021). "Policing by consent is not 'woke' — it is fundamental to a democratic society". The Conversation. Retrieved 2021-06-24.Many believe that the English model of policing eventually became the model for the United States.
Sir Robert Peel ... identified several principles that he believed would lead to credibility with citizens ... Many of these ideologies were also adopted by American police agencies during this time period and remain in place in some contemporary police agencies across the United States.
Peelian principles form the heart of the American community policing movement, which began with the Johnson administration's efforts in the 1960s and is still an important component of policing doctrine today. But in 2020, the idea appears increasingly theoretical.
At the heart of this process is the concept of policing by consent.
the absence of a tradition of policing by consent
The priority here has been to embed an inclusive and community-based form of policing by consent
We can only perform our duties effectively, if we have the trust, confidence and collective support of the community we seek to serve. In this regard, 'policing by consent' requires a degree of legitimacy that can only be achieved from the public at large when they are confident in the transparency of our powers, the integrity of our officers and the accountability of our actions.; "In city under siege, can police force rise to repair image?". South China Morning Post. 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-12-05; "APPG on Hong Kong finds Hong Kong police "indisputably" broke international human rights laws". Whitehouse. 2020-08-04. Retrieved 2020-12-05.
Traditionally, the idea of policing by consent was absolutely central to the operation of the Hong Kong Police Force. But this idea has been lost.
While the 19 nations in the world that do not arm officers vary greatly in their approach to policing, they share a common thread. "What we can identify in these countries is that people have a tradition—and an expectation—that officers will police by consent rather than with the threat of force," says Guðmundur Ævar Oddsson, associate professor of sociology at Iceland's University of Akureyri who specializes in class inequality and forms of social control such as policing.; Kara Fox, CNN Graphics by Henrik Pettersson (19 July 2017). "How US gun culture compares with the world". CNN. Retrieved 2020-12-05.
a small club of 19 nations do not routinely arm their police forces ... Botswana, Cook Islands, Fiji, Iceland, Ireland, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Naru, New Zealand, Niue, Norway, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland excepted), Vanuatu, U.S. Virgin Islands.
{{cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (help)It is of course a vital element of police legitimacy, based on the theory 'policing by consent' that predominates in the UK context, that public protest is policed impartially, and in a politically neutral manner
Based on its tradition of policing by consent
The decision to extend the deployment of Conducted Energy Devices to some non-firearms officers, and the training they receive, should be kept under review. The use of this weapon on a general scale poses many issues regarding public safety and more widespread use of Tasers would also represent a fundamental shift between the police and the general public. British policing is based on consent and face-to-face engagement, the use of Taser has the potential to erode that relationship and create a rift between the police and the policed. Furthermore, we would not endorse any move to authorise its wider use beyond dealing with a violent threat.