Safe Speed Forums

Britain's top police officer was accused last night of paving the way for "Judge Dredd law" by proposing that officers should be allowed to by-pass the courts and confiscate driving licences, seize vehicles and issue anti-social behaviour orders on the spot.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said "modernisation" of the force should be carried forward by introducing "an escalator of powers" for the dispensing of instant justice.


Sir Ian: 'Instant justice'
"One idea is to have some police officers - paid more and with more powers - to impose an interim anti-social behaviour order, for instance, or suspend a driving licence," he said. This would have an immediate effect rather than waiting for intervention by the courts, Sir Ian suggested.

He acknowledged that giving police powers currently exercised only by the courts would be controversial but could be seen as legitimate if they were used by properly trained constables.

"There is something here about making justice more immediately apparent, not only to the offender but also to the society that the offender is irritating," Sir Ian said.

However, Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the human rights group Liberty, said Sir Ian was behaving like Judge Dredd, the post-apocalyptic comic book law enforcer whose catchphrase is "I am the law". She added: "This is more like summary justice which has no place in a democracy. He's supposed to be the Met Commissioner, not Judge Dredd. Sir Ian should concentrate on the difficult job of running the Metropolitan Police rather than working on political speeches arguing for ever more draconian laws."


Dredd: 'I am the law'
But Sir Ian, addressing the annual conference of the Police Superintendents' Association, said it was unsatisfactory that a disqualified driver could be arrested and released, and immediately get back in a car. In such cases, officers should be able to seize the offender's vehicles.

"In the same way that we've developed officers with lesser powers, maybe we should develop officers with more powers so they can instantly do things," Sir Ian added. "Instead of saying to a driver, 'We will report you for proceedings to be considered by a court' we say, 'Sorry, your driving licence is now gone and in 14 days it will come up before the court' ."

He conceded that such powers should be dispensed with care "and without turning the place into a police state, which would be unfortunate".

He added: "I don't want to see this as a massive widening of powers. It is to deal with some very specific issues."

However, colleagues were not convinced. Rick Naylor, the president of the association, said: "We police with consent and part of that is because the public see us as being approachable. If the public fear us more because of increased powers that approachability will be damaged."

Sir Ian also suggested that former soldiers could be trained and deployed as firearms specialists as part of a radical restructuring of police responsibilities and duties.

After being criticised over the shooting of a man mistaken for a suicide bomber in July, he said he was not suggesting bringing in the Army to take over firearms duties but rather hiring ex-servicemen on short-term contracts. Asked if he would resign if he were condemned by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over the shooting, he said: "It depends on the level of condemnation."

officers should be allowed to by-pass the courts

But Sir Ian, addressing the annual conference of the Police Superintendents' Association, said it was unsatisfactory that a disqualified driver could be arrested and released, and immediately get back in a car. In such cases, officers should be able to seize the offender's vehicles.

I see my role as apprehending people who constitute a danger to the public at large...

I can see his point regarding

There goes your promotion prospects mate. [sarcasm] The public at large are a danger to themselves and need constant nannying. [/sarcasm]

I can understand his frustration but i can't see his point. We have prisons don't we?

They're used to keep persistant offenders in as well as serious offenders, right? Yes, it is unsatisfactory that a disqualified driver can get nicked, released and drive again as soon as he's out of sight of the BiBs, but that car Ian Blair wants to seize, and presumably squash, without due process might be used by someone else in the family who would be unfairly deprived if it was taken away.

Besides which, the persistent offenders will all end up driving 50 quid throwaways (assuming they're not already ) and really won't give a toss if they're seized, like you said. The problem is that they still have opportunities to keep driving, and they will retain those opportunities as long as they keep being released regardless of how many cars Ian Blair takes away from them.

Surely the solution is don't ing release them. Like you said, remove the means for persistent offenders to carry on. Rather than Ian Blair wanting his officers to take over the roles of judge and jury I think he'd be better off pressing for custodial sentences for the real problem drivers. I'm not talking about a guy who drives a couple of weeks before his ban runs out because of an emergency - I'm talking about the type who gets given a lengthy ban in court and gets pulled by the BiBs three or four times over the next couple of months. If they drive badly enough to warrant a ban (and I know that not all bans are warranted, but that's another issue) and won't respect it then you have to ask why they keep getting released. I imagine it's pretty difficult to drive a car from the inside of the Scrubbs.

Still got promoted despite being a rebel I'll pm the actual rank sometime...

He added: "I don't want to see this as a massive widening of powers. It is to deal with some very specific issues."

How much rebellion does Mr Garvin put up with from you? As for the actual rank, I have my suspicions. I'll PM you and you tell me if I've guessed right.

Perhaps we should have an online poll "What rank is IG"..?

I'm concerned here that we're putting undue pressure on a very highly valued contributor. If In Gear choses to tell us more then that'd be great. Otherwise the subject is declared 'off topic' in all forums.

Apologies if this seems harsh or draconian. I'm trying very hard to do the right thing.

I was only joking...

oops!

I'll tell you mine if you want.