(C) OpenDemocracy
This story was originally published by OpenDemocracy and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Home Office trying to rush through Braverman’s armed policing review [1]
[]
Date: 2023-11
The Home Office has been accused of trying to rush through Suella Braverman’s sweeping reforms of armed policing without properly consulting victims.
A review was ordered by the disgraced former home secretary in September after dozens of Metropolitan Police officers downed their weapons to protest their colleague being charged with the murder of Chris Kaba.
Within hours of their protest, Braverman took to X to announce the review and give her full backing to officers, saying they “mustn't fear ending up in the dock for carrying out their duties”.
She was accused by campaigners at the time of trying to “derail” the case and “delegitimise” the campaign for justice for Kaba, who was shot dead by police in south London last year.
Help us uncover the truth about Covid-19 The Covid-19 public inquiry is a historic chance to find out what really happened. Make a donation
The Home Office review will look at “existing legal frameworks and guidance on practice that underpin police use of force and police driving, and the subsequent framework for investigation of any incidents that may occur”.
But Braverman’s old department has been accused of trying to push through the “extremely broad” review in under two months without giving the public or campaign groups any “meaningful opportunity” to have their say.
A consultation giving stakeholders the chance to submit evidence to the review lasted only three weeks. Law reform and human rights charity JUSTICE said this is “insufficient” time to conduct a “wholesale review of the framework for regulating, investigation and prosecuting cases arising from police use of force”.
What’s more, JUSTICE said it was not “adequately promoted”, with no announcement of the consultation in the press or on social media. Even those that did discover its existence had to then find details on how to submit evidence, which were buried at the bottom of the government’s web page outlining guidance for the review, according to JUSTICE.
The Home Office, working with the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General’s Office, is planning to present findings of the review to home secretary James Cleverly by the end of the year. Parliament rises for Christmas recess on 19 December, five weeks from the end of the consultation period and less than two months on from the publication of the review’s terms.
Emma Snell, senior legal fellow at JUSTICE, told openDemocracy: “The unworkable timeframe and consultation failures deeply undermine the legitimacy of this review, and any proposals or recommendations stemming from it.”
In her evidence submission for JUSTICE, she added: “It is our view that a meaningful review of this area cannot be carried out in such a short time frame, and without robust consultation with experts and other interested persons.”
Snell also noted in the evidence submission that the Home Office’s decision to conduct the review came only after an officer was charged following fatal use of force and not following numerous examples of disproportionate use of force.
She added: “For years bereaved families and survivors, and the organisations that represent them have highlighted issues with the (mis)use of police force, particularly against young Black men, and a lack of effective mechanisms for holding the police to account. However, the government has, to date, failed to adequately respond.”
The charity also highlighted that the review does not acknowledge the disproportionate use of force against Black and racialised communities or individuals suffering from mental illness.
Snell added: “To trust the police, we need to know they will be held to account if they misuse their powers – most importantly, if someone is killed and their family and community need answers.
“Yet the government is rushing through an extremely broad review of police accountability without meaningfully consulting the people most affected by changes in this area. Two months is nowhere near sufficient to conduct a proper, evidence-led examination of such a complex and contentious area.”
A spokesperson for the Bristol Copwatch police monitoring group said they had no idea about the consultation, adding: “When we look at the failings of the armed police it is clear that a two-month review is quite simply not long enough.
“It quite frankly speaks volumes that despite the concerns around armed response, the powers that be feel they alone should define what use of lethal force looks like.
“There has never been an engagement with the community or families who have lost loved ones at the hands of the police. The disconnect, and ‘us and them’ divide is clearer than ever."
Another member of the Copwatch network said: “This is evidence that they don't really care about what the public says.
“It's a slap in the face to marginalised communities and it's a green light for police brutality.”
The Home Office has been contacted for comment.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/home-office-armed-policing-review-suella-braverman-james-cleverly-chris-kaba/
Published and (C) by OpenDemocracy
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-ND 4.0.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/opendemocracy/
