The Police Board

Terms of Reference, Role and Method of Operation

Peter Stevens
Superintendent and director of community relations, Scotland Yard. Superintendent Stevens is a member of the Commonwealth Observer Group to South Africa.

and Dianna M Yach
Consultant to the British Police service on issues concerning 'fair treatment', and Co-chairperson in the police-community consultation group for Camden-North London

Published in South African Defence Review Issue No 9, 1993



INTRODUCTION


Since the introduction of the Police Board, there has been a lack of clarity about its role and functions and in particular, its relationship with the Minister of Law and Order and the National Peace Committee. From its inception it has been viewed as a structure with a potentially important role to play in bringing about a better relationship between police and communities. However, questions have been raised in relation to the nature of its accountability, independence and impartiality. All of these doubts have affected the workings of the Board detrimentally.

In view of these uncertainties, a review is currently being conducted into the terms of reference, role and method of operation of the Police Board.

This paper seeks to offer a few thoughts on the way forward. To some degree it parallels the debate on the establishment of an expert Council of Defence for the military which was raised by Cilliers and Mertz in issue no 8 of the South African Defence Review, 1992, pp 16-20.

AIM OF THE POLICE BOARD


The broad aim of the Police Board is to provide a forum for effective consultation between the community and the police in order to improve policing. This is presumably based on the assumption that policing is not a matter for the police alone and must be carried out with the consent of the community and be responsive to its needs. It follows therefore that there must be local and democratically elected oversight of the activities of the police and that those who provide the resources for policing must have a say in the use and distribution of those resources.

To achieve this, certain preconditions must be met which include the following:
  1. Clear terms of reference so that all parties understand their role and responsibilities and the potentialities and limits of their functions.
  2. The composition of the Board must be broadly based so that it reflects as wide a range of community interests as possible.
  3. The work of the Board must be properly resourced so that recommendations can be based on research and so that there is an effective secretariat to document and support its work.
  4. Tangible results must be seen to follow meetings, otherwise there will be a perception that the Board is simply a talking shop with minimal power to influence decision making - for example it must be seen to have an impact on police operations.
  5. Members of the Board will only be able to engage in effective discussion of policing issues if they have access to relevant information. Police should therefore be willing to share information so that meaningful decisions can be reached. They will need to be responsive to feedback which may require change on their part since greater openness will result in greater public scrutiny and possibly criticism.
  6. The Board needs to publicize its work as appropriate to demonstrate openness and encourage local participation.

CURRENT FUNCTIONS OF THE POLICE BOARD


The current functions of the Police Board are as follows:
  1. To consider and to make recommendations to the Minister of Law and Order in regard to policy relating to the training and efficient functioning of the police, with a view to reconcile the interests of the community with those of the police.
  2. To conduct research and call for representations from the public regarding any investigation conducted by it.
Recommendations are to be made public insofar as it is essential in reconciling the interests of the community with those of the police.

The Police Board plays no role in regard to day-to-day functioning (i.e. in the 'operational control') of the police.

INTERPRETATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE


The terms of reference must be sufficiently broad to enable the Board to make a meaningful contribution to policing in South Africa.

The current terms of reference are limited to advice and guidance although this is not explicitly stated. There is no mention of an executive function which presumably is within the remit of the Minister of Law and Order and the police themselves.

The Board appears to be accountable to the Minister of Law and Order despite being the creation of the National Peace Accord. This needs to be clarified. If the Board is to enjoy the confidence of all sections of the community, it needs to be independent of both the police and the Minister of Law and Order. At present it is uneasily positioned midway between the Peace Accord and Government. However autonomous the decision-making process may be, it may convey a different impression to some sections of the community. These perceptions are critical in determining its effectiveness.

THE ROLE OF THE POLICE BOARD


The role is described in general terms. It needs to be made more specific taking into account its evolving functions. If the broad aim is taken to be the provision of a forum for enhancing police-community relations, the Board needs to be empowered to be informed of and to consider, comment and consult on the following (what is offered is not an exhaustive list but contains suggestions for consideration):
  1. The overall priorities for policing and policing style.
  2. The relationship between the police and local communities and their attitudes towards one another.
  3. The particular policing needs of different sections of the community.
  4. Police expenditure.
  5. The criteria for recruitment, training, equipment, modes of operation and deployment of police.
  6. The appointment of senior police officers and civilians and levels of overall police establishment and strength.
  7. Developing a strategy for the prevention and detection of crime.
  8. Problems that arise between the police and communities, to identify their cause, where they arise and to seek ways of reducing such problems.
  9. The pattern of complaints against the police.
  10. The promotion of greater understanding by both communities and the police of the policing needs of the country.
  11. The treatment of suspects and prisoners by police.
  12. Legislation that affects any aspects of policing.
  13. The response of communities and police to important incidents such as major crimes or public order situations.
  14. The dissemination of information on crime, law, powers, rights and duties of police and public.
  15. Any other aspects of policing that may arise subject to the limitations of the constitutional position of the police at present.
The activities of the Police Board should not be seen in isolation. They must be viewed in the context of other recent developments in locally based police-community consultation. Recommendations from local committees should appear on the agendas of the Police Board so that its deliberations are informed by local concerns and experiences. It would then be well-placed to review developments and provide a central and coordinated response.

The Board could also receive reports from the newly developed lay visitors schemes.

To gain grassroots support for its work, the Board may wish to consider issuing a Mission or Values Statement emphasizing its commitment to the provision of a fair, non-discriminatory, accountable police service which has a major part to play in protecting the civil liberties of all members of SA's diverse communities.

The Board will only be credible if it is seen to be active and influential. It follows that Board members must have full access to relevant information. Police must be willing to share information with the Board.

The words of a Home Office circular 2/1985, applicable to consultation arrangements in the UK are relevant in this context:
Community involvement in the policy and operations of policing is perfectly feasible without undermining the independence of the police or destroying the secrecy of those operations against crime which have to be kept secret. Within certain limits, the police should be ready to be as open as possible in their dealings and should be ready to discuss all aspects of police aims and policy including operational matters and the outcome of complaints investigations ... Where appropriate, the police should be ready to give prior notice of their intention to mount major police operations or, if this is not possible, to report on such operations retrospectively...
The thinking behind this is that if Board members feel that their views are genuinely contributing to policing decisions, they will be encouraged to participate fully in consultative arrangements. If however, they feel that their work is regarded as irrelevant by the police, it is likely that they will become disillusioned and lose interest.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD


The Board must reflect a broad cross-section of opinion. It must enjoy the confidence of all sections of the community and the police. Care must be taken to ensure that no one group dominates the proceedings. Balance is essential if the Board is to have any impact. The Chairman should continue to be an individual drawn from the public and not a police officer.

It may be advisable for the National Peace Committee to play a larger role in selecting members of the Board in the future if it is to be seen as genuinely independent.

METHOD OF OPERATION


Wherever possible, the Board's proceedings should be open to the public and the press. This will be more likely to generate confidence in all sections of the community that the forum is active and effective in influencing policing.

It will be necessary for the Board to have a budget to enable it to:
  • be serviced by an efficient secretariat;
  • commission research;
  • inform the public of its work through a newsletter;
  • arrange seminars and opinion surveys;
  • advertise meetings for supporting subcommittees and working parties;
  • etc.
Its relationship with other fora must be determined - for example, LRCs and lay visitors.

It should meet at regular intervals, for example, five times a year. These meetings should link in with the existing strategic planning cycles within the police so that there is the maximum opportunity to influence policing policy. Provision must be made for extraordinary meetings should events call for such arrangements.

MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS


Success of the Police Board will be measured by the following outcomes:
  1. enhanced public confidence in and support of the police by ensuring that policing decisions are in tune with the needs of local people;
  2. improved relations between the police and the public;
  3. greater involvement by local people in working with local police in consultative arrangements;
  4. greater police accountability to local people;
  5. more willingness by local people to cooperate with local police to reduce crime and resolve conflict.

CAVEAT: LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE - OVERCOMING BARRIERS


The above has to be tempered with realism. In the transitional stage there will be barriers that have to be overcome. Experience indicates that apart from allaying fears and concerns arising from the very fact of community involvement in policing, some will come to the table with their own agendas, some will have vested interests, others will be lobbying for their own group's interests. It will be necessary to demonstrate through actions rather than words that the exercise is not merely a public relations exercise. Nor is it designed to override local work at grassroots level. Police may be defensive and overreact to criticism. For all these reasons, it is essential that all those parties cooperating in the police-community partnership agree on how they will work together and that they have a clear understanding of their own roles and responsibilities. It may be necessary to provide a training day in order to develop a shared sense of purpose.

These observations are even more pertinent to a society which has an absence of a tradition of community-based policing.