Nick Timothy:
London’s murder rate is now higher than New York’s but reforming stop and search is not the solution
Almost all crime dramas on television suffer from the same cliché. A gruff, old cop, who thinks nothing of breaking the rules, is paired with a naive, young recruit, who insists on doing everything by the book. This clash between characters – typified by Gene Hunt and Sam Tyler in the BBC’S Life on Mars – may be a cliché but it represents a real disagreement about how to fight crime. We should not worry too much about the misuse of police powers, say some, if it cuts crime. On the contrary, say others, we cannot trust the police, because they will abuse civil liberties.
In reality, what lies behind criminal behaviour and what works in policing is far more complex. But the news this week that London now has a higher murder rate than New York means the argument has returned. Violent crime is increasing, knife crime is a particular problem and there has been a spate of stabbings across the capital.
Yesterday, David Blunkett attacked the Government for reducing police spending and reforming police stop and search powers. He boasted that his policies, as home secretary, cut crime.
There are several flaws in his argument. First, crime started falling long before Blunkett became Home Secretary, and continued long after. In fact, crime is still falling today, according to official figures from the Office for National Statistics. At its peak, in 1995, crime in England and Wales reached 19.1 million offences. Last year, it fell again to 5.8 million, the lowest number on record.
Second, there is no correlation between spending cuts, officer numbers and crime rates. Since 2010, police funding has been cut by more than 20 per cent, and the number of officers by 14 per cent, yet over the same period crime has fallen by 35 per cent.
And third, like many others, Blunkett was also wrong about stop and search powers.
There are two main ways in which officers can stop and search members of the public. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows them to search people if they have “reasonable grounds for suspecting [they] will find stolen or prohibited articles.” The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows officers to search people without suspicion of criminality, in a defined geographical area, for a specific period of time. To authorise the use of these powers, the police must believe “serious violence” may occur or people may be carrying “dangerous instruments or offensive weapons”.
Both powers are useful, but both have been abused. The police have often applied the 1994 powers in areas as large as half a London borough, and rolled them over repeatedly, granting themselves permanent no-suspicion powers in defiance of Parliament’s wishes. The 1984 powers were also misused. In 2013, inspectors found that 27 per cent of these stops – out of more than one million – were carried out illegally, without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The inspectors found that “very few forces could demonstrate that stop and search was based on an understanding of what works to cut crime” and “rarely was it targeted at priority crimes”.
The inspectors were right: misused and untargeted stop and search is ineffective policing. If only one in 10 stops lead to an arrest, it is a waste of hundreds of thousands of hours of police time. And when black people know they are more likely to be searched than white people, it undermines public confidence in the police.
This is why, as home secretary, Theresa May reformed stop and search. Her reforms did not weaken any legislation, and came in the form of a voluntary code for police forces. This tightens the use of the lesser-used no-suspicion searches, and ensures the police do not go beyond their legal powers.
Since the changes were implemented, the number of stops has fallen, the stop-to-arrest ratios have improved, and black people are less likely to be searched than before. And there has been no proven effect on crime: in fact, when the Metropolitan Police reduced their use of stop and search, stabbings fell by a third and shootings by 40 per cent.
But now that knife crime has started to rise, critics have blamed the changes. Demonstrating how little they understand the law, some police officers say they “feel” they can no longer stop and search people. But their powers remain clear. If they think a crime has been committed they can stop and search the suspect. And if police commanders believe there will be violence in a particular place, they should allow no-suspicion searches there for a fixed period.
In fact, the data show that the police FOLLOW Nick Timothy on Twitter @ Nickjtimothy; READ MORE at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion are still stopping and searching, but they are not targeting knife crime suspects. Fewer than 11 per cent of stops in London last year were because officers believed the suspect was carrying a knife, while nearly 72 per cent were because officers believed the suspect possessed drugs. And there were more than twice as many searches in Westminster compared to Croydon, where last year knife crime doubled, making it the third most violent borough in London.
The problem is not that the police cannot search knife crime suspects: when they have reasonable suspicion, they can and should. The problem is that they do not have an effective strategy to deal with knife crime. As one senior police figure told me, “people talk about New York, but what are the lessons from New York? Accurate and timely information, rapid deployment of officers, effective tactics, and relentless follow-up. And get everyone in to help: housing, health, schools, the transport police.”
Part of the solution will undoubtedly be targeted – and, if necessary, increased – use of stop and search. But without the smart interrogation of data, which is being pioneered by – among others – West Midlands Police, or a preventative strategy of the kind that reduced stabbings in Glasgow, we are unlikely to get very far. Without good neighbourhood policing and intelligence-led detection, knife crime in London will continue to rise.
None of these solutions involves going back to the clichés of oldfashioned, rough-’em-up policing.
It is not Gene Hunt London needs, but leadership from its mayor and Metropolitan Police commissioner. Sadiq Khan and Cressida Dick, over to you.