Brit cops and guns

[Gob]

The deaths of two female police constables have brought into focus the unarmed status of most British police. Why does Britain hold firm against issuing guns to officers on the beat?

It's the single most obvious feature that sets the British bobby apart from their counterparts overseas.

Tourists and visitors regularly express surprise at the absence of firearms from the waists of officers patrolling the streets.

But to most inhabitants of the UK - with the notable exception of Northern Ireland - it is a normal, unremarkable state of affairs that most front-line officers do not carry guns.

Unremarkable, that is, until unarmed officers like Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone are killed in the line of duty. There are always those who question why Britain is out of step with most of the rest of the world, with the exceptions of the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and a handful of other nations.

For a heavily urbanised country of its population size, the situation in Great Britain is arguably unique.

Film director Michael Winner, founder of the Police Memorial Trust, and Tony Rayner, the former chairman of Essex Police Federation, have both called for officers to be routinely armed.

But despite the loss of two of his officers, Greater Manchester Chief Constable Sir Peter Fahy was quick to speak in support of the status quo.

"We are passionate that the British style of policing is routinely unarmed policing. Sadly we know from the experience in America and other countries that having armed officers certainly does not mean, sadly, that police officers do not end up getting shot."

But one thing is clear. When asked, police officers say overwhelmingly that they wish to remain unarmed.

A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years.

It is a position shared by the Police Superintendents' Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

The British public are not nearly so unanimous.

An ICM poll in April 2004 found 47% supported arming all police, compared with 48% against.

PDF download ICM poll (see page two)[106KB]

In 2007, the centre-right think-tank Policy Exchange found 72% of 2,156 adults wanted to see more armed police patrols.

For decades there have been incidents that have led to calls for issuing all officers with firearms. Cases like those of Sharon Beshenivsky, shot dead during a robbery in 2005, or of the three plain-clothes officers murdered by Harry Roberts in west London in 1966, or the killing of PC Sidney Miles in the Derek Bentley case of 1952.

Few expect the system to change even after widespread public horror at the deaths of PCs Bone and Hughes.

For one thing, incidents such as that in Greater Manchester are extremely rare. Overall gun crime, too, remains low.

In 2010-11, England and Wales witnessed 388 firearm offences in which there was a fatal or serious injury, 13% lower than the previous 12 months. In Scotland during the same period, there were two fatal and 109 non-fatal injuries during the same period, a decade-long low.

Additionally, officers, chief constables and politicians alike are wary of upsetting an equilibrium that has been maintained throughout Britain's 183-year policing history.



"There's a general recognition that if the police are walking around with guns it changes things," says Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.

Arming the force would, say opponents, undermine the principle of policing by consent - the notion that the force owes its primary duty to the public, rather than to the state, as in other countries.

This owes much to the historical foundations of British criminal justice, says Peter Waddington, professor of social policy at the University of Wolverhampton.

"A great deal of what we take as normal about policing was set out in the early 19th Century," he says.

"When Robert Peel formed the Metropolitan Police there was a very strong fear of the military - the masses feared the new force would be oppressive."

A force that did not routinely carry firearms - and wore blue rather than red, which was associated with the infantry - was part of this effort to distinguish the early "Peelers" from the Army, Waddington says.

Over time, this notion of guns being inimical to community policing - and, indeed, to the popular conception of the Dixon of Dock Green-style bobby - was reinforced.

View from a bobby

A police constable serving in a city in southern England gives his view:

"I have been in the police for 12 years, before that I was in the Army. I would happily carry a gun if the decision was made but it won't ever happen.

"I don't think practically it could work because of the training. Officers in this country are highly trained and this would extend to firearms training, too. But, at the moment, with all the cuts, we can't put enough officers in the cars, let alone give them firearms training.

"Also, the police in this country are always under so much scrutiny. Look at the issue of Tasers, the civil liberty groups think they are one of the most inhumane things going.

"I was previously injured badly in an assault. My colleague and I feared for our lives - thankfully other officers came to our aid. I don't think a gun - or a Taser for that matter - would have helped us in that situation. Communication is one of the best tools, and to be honest, having a gun could make an officer feel over-confident."

While some in London were issued with revolvers prior to 1936, from that date only trained officers at the rank of sergeant or above were issued with guns, and even then only if they could demonstrate a good reason for requiring one.

Today only a small proportion of officers are authorised to use firearms. Latest Home Office figures show there were just 6,653 officers authorised to use firearms in England and Wales - about 5% of the total number.


None of which implies, of course, that the British police are somehow gun-free. Each police force has its own firearms unit. Police armed response vehicles have been deployed since 1991.

In addition, trained officers have had access to Tasers since 2004 despite controversy about their use. Met Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe called for police response officers to be routinely armed with the weapons in November 2011.

Particularly in London, the sight of armed officers at airports, embassies and other security-sensitive locations has become a familiar one, especially since the 11 September attacks.

However much firearms become an accepted part of British life, former Met deputy assistant commissioner Brian Paddick doubts police themselves will ever support a universal rollout.

For one thing, the sheer cost of equipping all personnel with weapons as well as providing regular training would be prohibitive at a time of public spending cuts, he says.

In addition, Paddick adds, front-line officers would not be keen to face the agonising, split-second decisions faced by their counterparts in specialist firearms units.

"In terms of the police being approachable, in terms of the public being the eyes and ears of the police, officers don't want to lose that," he says.

"Every case in which a police officer has shot someone brings it home to unarmed officers the sheer weight of responsibility that their colleagues face."

Cases like that of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot dead by a Met firearms officer after he was wrongly identified as a terrorist, illustrate Paddick's point.

For now, at least, that starkest of all distinctions between British officers and those abroad looks secure.

[Long Run]

It has always seen odd coming from the U.S. It would be interesting to either do a trial run with most officers having weapons, or find a good example of where the shift has been made to see if that helped bring down the crime rate, or the rate at which officers are attacked. Obviously, plenty of armed officers are shot in this country every year so being armed is no bullet-proof vest.

[Gob]

being armed is no bullet-proof vest.

Something I've said every time the issue comes up, nice to be on the same page.

[rubato]

I doubt it would have much effect on anything.

Let the police vote on it and give them what they want.

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

being armed is no bullet-proof vest

Nope, but the rule is 'Find cover; then return fire' A dead soldier can't shoot back.

...if these officers are mainly combat trained in the military, then they should be aware of this rule.

[liberty]

It seems appropriate that in a country were the individual has no right to self-defense the police should not have it either. At least in Britain the police are portrayed as members of the public in contrast to the US were the police are often seen as some kind of military. I hate it when liberals refer to member of the public as civilians when compared to the police. If one is not military one is civilian, police or not.

Ok scooter , I am aware of common usage and how it effect the definition of a word, but when you refer to non-police as civilians you are separating the police into their own society as a sort of an occupying force instead of the civil servants they are.

[Gob]

It seems appropriate that in a country were the individual has no right to self-defense the police should not have it either.

Self-defence is available as a defence to crimes committed by use of force.

The basic principles of self-defence are set out in (Palmer v R, [1971] AC 814); approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551:
"It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary."

The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v R is also relevant to the application of section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Section 3 applies to the prevention of crime and effecting, or assisting in, the lawful arrest of offenders and suspected offenders. There is an obvious overlap between self-defence and section 3. However, section 3 only applies to crime and not to civil matters. So, for instance, it cannot afford a defence in repelling trespassers by force, unless the trespassers are involved in some form of criminal conduct.


Reasonable Force
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.
In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and
was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?

The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367).

To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.

It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R 1971 AC 814);

"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ..."

The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable: (R v Clegg 1995 1 AC 482 HL). Where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.

In (R v OGrady 85 Cr App R 315), it was held by the Court of Appeal that a defendant was not entitled to rely, so far as self-defence is concerned, upon a mistake of fact which had been induced by voluntary intoxication.

Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

The law on self defence arises both under the common law defence of self-defence and the defences provided by section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (use of force in the prevention of crime or making arrest). It has recently been clarified by section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 provides clarification of the operation of the existing common law and statutory defences. Section 76, section 76(9) in particular, neither abolishes the common law and statutory defences nor does it change the current test that allows the use of reasonable force.

Section 76(3) confirms the question whether the degree of force used by the defendant was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.

Section 76(4) provides that where the defendant claims to have a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances, the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether the defendant genuinely held it. However, if it is established that the defendant did genuinely hold the belief he may rely on that belief to establish the force used was reasonable whether or not it was a mistaken belief and if it was mistaken, whether or not the mistake was a reasonable one to have made, i.e. the crucial test at this stage is whether the belief was an honest one, not whether it was a reasonable one. However, the more unreasonable the belief, the less likely it is that the court will accept it was honestly held.

Section 76(7) sets out two considerations that should be taken into account when deciding whether the force used was reasonable. Both are adopted from existing case law. They are:


that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action;

that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.

This section adopts almost precisely the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R [1971] AC 814) which emphasise the difficulties often facing someone confronted by an intruder or defending himself against attack:

"If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken..."

[liberty]

Ok Gob, one question: I am aware that in Britain in the rural areas one can obtain a permit for shotgun if one has a friend on the police force. If a man used his legal obtained shot gun to kill an intruder in his home in the middle of the night, what would be the probable legal out come?

Got to go to bed, it is 00:33 here.

[Gob]

One can gain a permit for a shotgun wherever one lives in the UK, not just rural areas. I held one myself from 1977 to 1982.

If someone shot an intruder in the middle of the night with one? It would depend on the circumstances.

Compare this and this.

[liberty]

One can gain a permit for a shotgun wherever one lives in the UK, not just rural areas. I held one myself from 1977 to 1982.

If someone shot an intruder in the middle of the night with one? It would depend on the circumstances.

Compare this and this.

Gob, based on what I read Britain does not sound like a great place to live; in both examples the victim was punished for defending his home, one was only three days, but he still spent time in jail. In the US the surviving burglar would be charged with felony murder not the home owner. Thank God for the USA for the moment at least; it might not be long before we lose those rights too.

[dales]

Thank God for the USA for the moment at least; it might not be long before we lose those [Second Amendment] rights too.

Not if the NRA has anything to say about it.

[Gob]

Gob, based on what I read Britain does not sound like a great place to live; in both examples the victim was punished for defending his home, Thank God for the USA for the moment at least; it might not be long before we lose those rights too.

Liberty, based on what I read the USA does not sound like a great place to live; the chances of being shot are hugely higher than in the UK, and even higher than that of being shot in Aus. (Per capita homicide gun deaths, USA 4.14 UK 0.7 Aus 0.4)

Thank God for the USA for the moment at least; it might not be long before we lose the rights too die at such a high rate.

[liberty]

Gob, based on what I read Britain does not sound like a great place to live; in both examples the victim was punished for defending his home, Thank God for the USA for the moment at least; it might not be long before we lose those rights too.

Liberty, based on what I read the USA does not sound like a great place to live; the chances of being shot are hugely higher than in the UK, and even higher than that of being shot in Aus. (Per capita homicide gun deaths, USA 4.14 UK 0.7 Aus 0.4)

Gob, I believe that those statistic are misleading, a disproportionate number of the incidences are in intercity neighborhoods and involve street gangs and the drug trade. Stay out certain neighborhoods and away from drugs and ones chances of being shot drops dramatically. I believe that if one considered only deaths in my area we would have a lower rate than Britain.

[dales]

Liberty, based on what I read the USA does not sound like a great place to live....

I wish more people knew this ugly truth.

[Gob]

You know I'm only joking dales, but when Lib makes such silly assertions, then I have to have a laugh...

Edited to add, this is also something Lib may want to consider...

A police officer is killed every 53 hours somewhere in the country. In 2010, 61 police officers were killed by gunfire, compared to 49 in 2009. A total of 73 officers were killed on the nation’s roadways.

[dales]

"Violence is as American As Apple Pie"

~ H. Rapp Brown

[loCAtek]

A police officer is killed every 53 hours somewhere in the country. In 2010, 61 police officers were killed by gunfire, compared to 49 in 2009. A total of 73 officers were killed on the nation’s roadways.

...protecting how many civilians? How many were saved, by an officer's sacrifice?

[Miles]

I live just 35 miles north of Pittsburgh Pa. I have been here for the better part of 30 years and in that time I am only aware of one shooting death and that was drug related. Many people around the world think of the U.S. as still the wild west which paints us with a very wide brush. Most Americans want nothing better than to live a full productive life free from the stress of violence. The average person is not a gun wealding drug dealing scum with a moral compass spinning out of control.

I do imagine that if many of those who consider the U.S. such a nasty place were to visit us, and not just the large cities, we could change that attitude.

[liberty]

You know I'm only joking dales, but when Lib makes such silly assertions, then I have to have a laugh...

Edited to add, this is also something Lib may want to consider...

A police officer is killed every 53 hours somewhere in the country. In 2010, 61 police officers were killed by gunfire, compared to 49 in 2009. A total of 73 officers were killed on the nation’s roadways.

Well mate, I was trying to be provocative, but not insulting or offensive. There are many things about Britain I admire; they are the best friend of my country and one of our few true and reliable allies.
However, Gob will you admit that the two example that you provided are not good examples of the right to self-defense.

If individuals are denied the means to defend themselves, do they really have a right to self-defense? There is a difference between what is written as law and what is practiced. They are not always the same.

[Gob]

I do imagine that if many of those who consider the U.S. such a nasty place were to visit us, and not just the large cities, we could change that attitude.

Miles, if those who consider the UK and Aus not free and lacking Liberty do an exchange visit, you're on...