The Police Federation of England & Wales (PFEW) is a staff association representing some 140,000 police officers in the ranks of constable, sergeant, inspector and chief inspector.

SUMMARY

  The PFEW supports the concept of legislation to deal with corporate manslaughter. However, we do have major concerns about the Bill in its current draft form because we consider that:

(a)  the legislation should, on being made, extend to police forces;

(b)  the Bill should not include an "exclusively public function" exemption applicable to police forces; and

(c)  there should be scope for personal prosecution of any individual who was responsible for the "corporate" failings also.

DETAIL

  The extension of the Bill to police forces would provide a strong incentive for forces to take seriously their health and safety obligations. Any failure to apply the corporate manslaughter provisions to police forces might be interpreted as suggesting that health and safety in police forces is not as important as elsewhere.

  We note from the Government's commentary (paragraph 44) that they agree in principle that police forces should be within the scope of the offence.

  It is stated that the Government's intention is that "legislation should in due course extend to police forces". It has taken the Government some nine years to act on the Law Commissioner's recommendations of 1996 to introduce some form of corporate manslaughter legislation. We are also aware of the pressures on the legislative schedule. Accordingly, the PFEW believe strongly that the Bill should cover police forces now.

  If the Government considers that, in principle, police forces should be within the scope of the offence, the legal structure of the police force is insufficient reason to exclude the application of the Bill to police forces. Prosecution of the office of chief constable might well be an appropriate option in extending the legislation to police forces.

  We understand that in response to an earlier draft bill in 2000, ACPO argued that as a matter of principle the police and emergency services should not be covered by the legislation. ACPO argued that "there is a need to ensure protection for those who take on a duty or a role which in turn protects society against life threatening situations and may involve the use of force".

  The PFEW consider such an objection to be misconceived. If a member of a police force is killed on duty, then there should be an examination of whether appropriate steps had been taken to prevent it. The nature of police service is such that, regrettably, taking all reasonable steps may not always prevent our members from being exposed to life threatening risks. Where however there have been material failures to take appropriate steps by senior managers, then the PFEW consider that quite rightly there should be a prosecution.

THE "EXCLUSIVELY PUBLIC FUNCTION" EXEMPTION

  The PFEW also consider that the "exclusively public function" exemption is inappropriate to the extent that it removes most police operational activities from the scope of the Act. We have some difficulty in seeing quite why this should be the case. There is a need, in our view, to emphasise the importance to senior managers within any police force that there be appropriate safeguards introduced to protect members of the public.

  ACPO may consider that this is inappropriate because of what they see as a tension between health and safety legislation and what they describe as the "policing imperative". In our view this misses the point that health and safety legislation does not prevent dangerous tasks being undertaken, but rather requires them to be undertaken as safely as possible. Again it is our view that where there has been an incident involving the death of a member of the public, there should be an examination of whether appropriate steps were taken to avoid the accident/incident in question.

  In practice, when there has been the death of a member of the public, there is sole emphasis on the actions of the police members directly responsible, with little focus on the working conditions in which the incident took place. The adoption of the "exclusively public function" exemption misses the opportunity of emphasising the need of senior police managers to secure that, consistent with the policing imperative, actions are taken as safely as possible.

INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY

  An organisation like a police force (and, indeed, a company) acts through individuals. In the absence of potential criminal liability for individual senior managers (as well as for the police force), there is in our view a weakening of the impact of the Bill. Hence, we consider that these senior managers responsible for the "corporate" failings should also potentially face prosecution.

  In summary, as a staff association we believe that police forces should be covered from the outset within the scope of the Bill, that there should be no "exclusively public function" exemption applicable to police forces and that there should be provision for an offence having been committed by a senior manager responsible for the "corporate" failing.

17 June 2005