Stop and search: will the new Metropolitan Police charter overcome distrust?

Britain’s largest police force has published a “charter” for stop and search, two years after it was severely criticised in an independent review for “over-policing and under-protecting” Black Londoners.

It is the response by the Metropolitan Police to Baroness Casey’s demand for a “fundamental reset” of the tactic, which is widely considered to be used in a discriminatory way against members of ethnic minorities.

The Met says the charter has been put together following 18 months of engagement with more than 8,500 Londoners of all ages, ethnicities and backgrounds.

It includes commitments that officers should use respectful communication and tone when carrying out stop and search, that they will be given improved training and supervision, and that complaints will be handled more effectively.

Sir Mark Rowley, the Met commissioner, said the charter was not about reducing the use of stop and search, but about “doing it better by improving the quality of encounters, informed by the views of the public it is intended to protect”.

Even before the founding of the Metropolitan Police by Sir Robert Peel in 1829, constables had the power under the Vagrancy Act 1824 to search anyone suspected of being “disorderly” or “a rogue and vagabond”. This and similar powers were known as “sus laws” (short for “suspicion”) and contributed to friction between the police and many young Black Britons.

After the Brixton riots in 1981, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 introduced a power to stop and search people if the police had “reasonable grounds” for doing so.

The Macpherson report of 1999, which found that the Met was “institutionally racist”, accepted that stop and search was necessary but called for all stops to be recorded and monitored.

When she became prime minister, she said: “If you’re Black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white.” Previously, as home secretary, she had responded to the increasing use of stop and search by trying to reduce it.

May brought in a Best Use of Stop and Search (Buss) scheme, and reiterated earlier guidance that said that personal factors, including ethnicity, were not reasonable grounds for a search.

The House of Commons Library commented: “A substantial reduction in the use of stop and search powers did follow these reforms, and they appeared to contribute to improved practice among police officers. However, the disparity in stop and search rates by ethnicity did not improve, as searches of white people fell faster than searches of Black, Asian and minority ethnic people.”

“Evidence regarding the impact of stop and search on crime is mixed,” conclude the House of Commons Library researchers. “There is little evidence to suggest that stop and search provides an effective deterrent to offending. Stop and search is more effective at detection, but still most searches result in officers finding nothing.”

They continue: “However, those in policing argue that when stop and search is targeted and conducted in line with the law and guidance, they can confiscate dangerous and prohibited items and do so without undermining public trust in the police. Those opposed to stop and search argue that a history of poor use and longstanding ethnic disparities demonstrate that it is a fundamentally flawed police power.”

It is striking that none of the inquiries into police conduct that have dealt with the subject have proposed abolishing stop and search – but the issuing of yet another set of guidelines, this time called a “charter”, does raise the question of whether the power can ever be used in a way that commands confidence among all sections of society.