Safe Speed Forums

Celeb pics row shows ACPO in frame for shake-up
Who's driving this thing anyway?
By Jane Fae Ozimek Posted in Policing, 13th September 2010 13:35 GMT

Comment Allegations by the Mail on Sunday that the UK police may be making improper use of speed camera pics were dismissed last week as wholly inaccurate by ACPO affiliate Road Safety Support (RSS).

Nonetheless, the story raises further questions as to the role and democratic accountability of the police when they form up into non-statutory bodies such as ACPO.

The Mail allegations appear to highlight an issue raised last month in El Reg, of police allowing into the public domain pictures of individuals accused of a crime before the courts had actually pronounced on their guilt or innocence. Instances cited included cases involving comedian Jimmy Carr and footballer Jermaine Defoe.

The guilty party was said to be ACPO affiliate and independent private company RSS Ltd. Except it was not guilty.

Debunking the original story, a spokeswoman for RSS told us: "Both photographs used in this presentation were from cases that had been fully dealt with at court.

"The picture of Jermaine Defoe’s Range Rover, which was claimed to be part of a pending mobile phone case from Essex awaiting sentence, is in fact from a speeding prosecution in Portsmouth. Defoe pleaded guilty to this allegation and was sentenced on 4 January, 2010. The photograph of his Ferrari related to a speeding offence in St Albans dealt with on 4 August, 2009.

"The picture of Jimmy Carr’s vehicle related to a speeding offence for which he was sentenced on 12 January, 2010."

So that’s all right then?

Except this incident does highlight a further fragmenting of responsibility when it comes to policing in the UK. We have noted in the past how the UK has deliberately opted not to have a national police force, with national policies – and in that context, the very existence of ACPO is theoretically at odds with government policy.

The official ACPO line is that it is no more than a means to enable co-operation and development of common strategies across police forces, and that police constables remain at all times responsible to their local police authorities. Our experience in recent months has been that questions directed to local police forces in respect of statements made by individual police chiefs may be bounced up to ACPO because they are the "national liaison" for a particular issue.

RSS represents yet another step away from local accountability. On the plus side, RSS is filling a gap created when the Department of Transport decided it would no longer provide support for national road safety initiatives. Its existence is a direct response to the way in which some solicitors are seen as having turned the defence of high profile driving offenders into a business – and provides expertise above and beyond what is usually available to the prosecution.

As RSS told us: "Road Safety Support (RSS) provides expertise and invaluable advice on all road safety matters, including assistance with complex speeding cases, to Road Safety Partnerships, Highway Authorities and Roads Policing teams. RSS is a not-for-profit organisation and does not make money out of its activities."

RSS is headed by South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes and, according to the Mail, receives subscriptions of about £900,000 a year from speed camera partnerships. They also allege that the organisation earns large sums – possibly as much as £5m - administering "implementation and ongoing management" for the National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme.

RSS remains a limited company: it is affiliated to ACPO and follows all ACPO and police guidance and policies in its work. However, their spokeswoman added: "Ultimately RSS is accountable to its members."

The coalition govenment has already demonstrated a willingness to dismantle national policing structures, such as the National Policing Improvement Agency, and has declared itself in favour of introducing more localism, through the direct election of police chiefs.

These, and other related issues, look likely to feature in the consultation currently taking place on Policing in the 21 Century – open until 20 September. It is unlikely that ACPO will ever disappear: however, a fundamental restructuring of how policing is co-ordinated at the national level could well be on the cards. ®

ACPO defuses impending photo row with police forces
Clarification clarified. Clear?
By Jane Fae Ozimek • Posted in Policing, 10th September 2010 10:01 GMT

Just two weeks since they clarified their position on the law regarding photography, the Association of Chief Police Officers last night issued a short note further clarifying its clarification.
This follows the recent exposure by The Register of a widening gulf between ACPO and local police forces over the question of when it is permissible to seize film or cameras as part of a criminal investigation.
The issue arose as we reported on an incident over the bank holiday weekend in Brighton. Sussex Police seized film from a photographer attending an anti-fascist protest as potential evidence of a violent crime.
This they did this using powers granted to police under Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (pdf).
Yesterday, however, we noted a possible conflict between Sussex Police's use of the law in this way and recent guidance (.doc) sent to Chief Constables by Andy Trotter, Head of ACPO’s Media Advisory Group, which stated: "Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order."
This created something of a stir down in Sussex, leading their head of media relations, Nick Cloke, to observe that this was "new ground" and as far as he was aware "untested legally".
It would appear that at this point alarm bells started ringing at ACPO HQ, and late yesterday afternoon we received a further communication from ACPO. A spokeswoman told us: "We have clarified our guidance note to forces, however, as this does not affect the legal right of officers to seize photographic equipment in certain circumstances, such as during the course of a criminal investigation.
"While it is the job of police officers to be vigilant, to keep an eye out for any suspicious behavior and to act accordingly, we have been very clear in expressing our view that the taking of photographs is not normally a cause for concern. Whether s.19 PACE was used appropriately in the case in question would ultimately be a matter for Sussex."

More to the point, Trotter’s freshly updated advice has been re-issued and now reads: "Once an image has been recorded the police have no power to delete it without a court order; this does not however restrict an officer’s power to seize items where they believe they contain evidence of criminal activity."
For those readers too busy to play compare and contrast, the original guidance stated that the police have no power to confiscate recorded images, whereas the clarified guidance explains that they have. Clear? ®

the original guidance stated that the police have no power to confiscate recorded images, whereas the clarified guidance explains that they have. Clear?