Reducing Bureaucracy in Policing - Home Office

Common Purpose
Responsibility for the criminal justice system, or service as it is beginning to be described, is shared
across government departments and between the police, prosecution service, courts, prisons and
probation. With no one, other than the rule of law being in overall control, parochialism and
dysfunctional systems cause excessive duplication, overlapping responsibility, and more handling
and handing on of information.
Numerous reports have highlighted this problem and whilst there is general support to rationalise,
streamline processes and work closer together the potential benefits have yet to be fully realised.
The need to adopt a system approach, to review how information flows, where decisions are taken,
whether appropriate checks and balances are in place and importantly what the outcomes are. I
welcome work being undertaken by HMIC to improve how the system operates as a whole.
Where responsibility is shared there is a need to work to a common purpose and build trust at all
levels. In my Full Report I recommended the adoption and active promotion of ‘reduce crime,
prevent reoffending and reduce the prison population’ as a common purpose and the
implementation of complementary performance frameworks for each criminal justice partner. Due
to the General Election no real progress has been made and I therefore repeat the same
recommendations now.
Alternatives to Arrest
The power to remove someone’s liberty cannot be taken lightly. Legally police officers must
demonstrate an arrest was necessary and the objectives cannot be met by other, less intrusive
means. In my Full Report I highlighted the impact that unnecessary arrests create for the criminal
justice system in general and the custody process in particular 6 . Officers in some focus groups
reported disproportionate encouragement to arrest to feed local performance indicators. This
unnecessarily blocks custody suites, increases the number of offenders being bailed for further
enquiries and increases the number of cases where no further action is taken. Some forces have
reviewed arrest profiles to assess which were unnecessary and taken action to significantly reduce
the number of arrests and cases where no further action is taken (up to 30%).
While police officers and prosecutors should not act as judge and jury, it is unnecessary to arrest
every offender. To reduce crime and reoffending some offenders will benefit more from words of
advice, a caution or a penalty notice than a court appearance. Alternatives should not be viewed
as a soft option because evaluations show they can be more effective than the more traditional
responses.
The key is to arrive at an outcome that is proportionate and appropriate to the circumstances and
takes account of the wishes and needs of the victim, and not the outcome that receives the most
recognition in a performance culture.
When dealing with suspects, officers have a number of options. The current focus on what gets
counted gets done has placed a ‘dividend’ on arrest/detected leading to a formal disposal, but this
might not be the most appropriate course of action, might not be what the victim wants or needs
and may not be the most likely to prevent reoffending. Some options are not recognised (NR) by
Home Office Counting Rules 7 , others are recognised (R):
6 Reducing Bureaucracy in Policing; Full report, Jan Berry QPM (Home Office November 2009).p47.
7 The Home Office Counting Rules provide a national standard for recording and counting notifiable offences recorded
by police forces in England and Wales.
18