When Sir Mark Rowley was appointed as commissioner of the Metropolitan police, he made a commitment to oversee the revitalization of policing by consent, targeting corruption and rebuilding public trust. Currently, the force is in its most severe crisis since the 1970s. Sir Mark has emphasized that addressing past wrongdoings will require time. While austerity is partly to blame for the force’s current state, an institutional culture that protects discriminatory behavior and criminal activities is also to blame. To enhance performance and address these issues, both external oversight and internal change are necessary.
Last week, an officer was charged with the murder of an unarmed individual named Chris Kaba, who was shot in a car in south London in September of last year. This decision followed an investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and a determination by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). These organizations play a vital role in holding the police force and its officers accountable. It is disappointing, however, that Sir Mark’s response to this is a call for reevaluating the policies of these organizations and the threshold for the use of force, despite his commitment to reforming the Met and restoring confidence in it.
Unfortunately, there has been a lack of robust scrutiny and accountability when it comes to police actions and inactions. This is a significant problem as good governance relies on these essential elements. The lack of accountability is particularly felt when the public perceives the police to be at fault, especially in cases where individuals lose their lives as a result of police actions. In a review of the Met’s standards and culture published last year, Dame Louise Casey highlighted deficiencies in the police’s response to an investigation following another incident in which a man was shot dead. She also concluded that black Londoners face disproportionate policing. Previous inquiries have also shown that a disproportionately high number of black and minority ethnic individuals die in police custody.
Given the rarity of charging a police officer in relation to a shooting, it is unsurprising that colleagues have reacted strongly. Over 100 officers have handed in their weapons and are contemplating their futures. Those in authority should have anticipated this reaction and encouraged officers to carry out their duties while justice takes its course. However, the home secretary, Suella Braverman, has ordered a review of armed policing, while expressing support for “brave firearms officers” on social media. Sir Mark’s letter has further exacerbated the situation.
The most likely outcome of these actions is further damage. Even when trust in the police force is low, society still relies on them. Some suggest that breaking up the Met might be a better solution. However, Sir Mark seemed genuinely determined to shake things up and bring about change. Now, by expressing discontent with the IOPC and CPS, he appears to be choosing the status quo. What makes this even more unwelcome is that Dame Louise’s review singled out the firearms unit as an example of what is wrong with the organization, citing a culture of entitlement and subversion of authority. This intervention from the government and the Met risks perpetuating the dangerous notion that armed police officers should be immune to scrutiny.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
