Final Report of the Morris Inquiry: The Case for Change

ENHANCING THE OFFICE OF CONSTABLE
3.8 We have already referred to the status of police officers as office holders under
the Crown. We have heard much evidence that, whatever changes we may
propose in relation to employment rights for police officers, the office of constable
must be retained.
3.9 The arguments centre on the independence and impartiality of the role and its
importance in a democratic society. To police by consent, the police service is
dependent on the confidence of the community.
“The Office of Constable is a unique employment status that recognises the important and
distinctive role that police officers perform in society. Police officers hold powers to arrest and
can detain people against their will. They are required to comply with the lawful orders of
their senior officers, but they also have individual discretion as to how they perform their duties.
“Most importantly, police officers are required to be, and must be seen to be, independent of
government, unbiased in their approach to the public and non-political. Their independence is
guaranteed by the office of constable and the operation of the tri-partite agreement between
Chief Constables, the Police Authority and the Home Office.This is the very foundation of
policing by consent.”
(Submission from the National Police Federation of England and Wales.)
3.10 To quote Jane Stichbury, Chief Constable of Dorset, “… the more pragmatic
reality that consistently inspires the confidence of the community is the undeniable fact that
the office is not directable and that it retains political independence and objectivity.”
3.11 This independence has been reinforced over the years by rules setting out
what activities officers may undertake in their private lives. This is to ensure that
their objectivity cannot be compromised in the eyes of the public.
3.12 The special employment status of police officers is seen as part of this.
A recurring theme in the evidence of those who favour retaining the office of
constable was that, while police officers might perhaps be given employment
rights, which would include increased access to the Employment Tribunal, they
should not become employees and thus, potentially, subject to operational
interference.
“Police officers must remain, first, free from national or local political influence and, secondly,
free from operational interference. To subject officers to the control of the Crown – in
practice the government of the day – in the way that employees are subject to the control of
their employers, would be constitutionally wrong.”
(Submission from the Deputy Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair.)
“I have heard, and am not persuaded by, arguments that suggest the solution lies in abolishing
the office of constable and embracing employee status. This goes too far and would have
significant unintended consequences.”
(Submission from Ken Jones, Chief Constable of Sussex.)
49