Immunities and this may also apply to police officers while on duties on

behalf of the Crown, such as guarding prisoners in court (see also A-G

for New South Wales v. Perpetual Trustee Co. Ltd (1955); Enever v. R.

(1906); R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (MPC) ex parte Black-

burn (1968); R. v. Chief Constable of Devon & Cornwall ex parte

Central Electricity Governing Board (1982)).

Second there is fear of unaccountable power. Dating from the

Metropolitan Police Act 1829 this has led to local police forces rather

than the centralised agency beloved of the police state, and to attempts

to make these forces accountable to the local community. Local police

forces are answerable to their local police authority which comprises a

mixture of local councillors and justices of the peace. The inclusion of

the latter is an illustration of the blurring of the separation of powers, in

that JPs have an uneasy mixture of judicial and administrative functions

among which an interest in police work may be regarded as undesirable.

Third there are concerns for efficiency and, again, accountability,

this time for the spending of government money. The technical support

required by the police is too expensive to be provided without sub-

stantial central government funding with its inevitable con-commit-

ment of central control. Moreover modern crime is no respecter of local

or even national boundaries and electronic communications require

rapid co-ordination between local police areas.

Under the Police Act 1996, which consolidates the Police Act 1964,

and subsequent legislation, counties are the basic police unit in England

and Wales. The organisation of the London police has historically

been governed by special provisions under which the police authority

was the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police of the

Metropolis, who is the equivalent to a chief constable, and Assistant

Commissioners were appointed by the Crown on the advice of the

Home Secretary. By virtue of the Greater London Authority Act 1999

there is now a separate police authority for Greater London with a

similar composition and powers as other police authorities although

the senior appointments remain with the Home Secretary. There is also

346 General Principles of Constitutional and Administrative Law

a special City of London Police Force limited to the square mile that

technically comprises the City. Its police authority is the City local

authority, the Court of Commons Council.

The 1996 Act provides for the alteration of local police areas (s. 32).

This requires the consent of the Home Secretary either after proposals

from individual forces, or on his own initiative following a local

inquiry. Many forces have been amalgamated. In 1961 there were 123

separate police forces in England outside London whereas there are

now 43. There is provision for co-operation between forces (s. 53).

In recent years the search for efficiency and the interdependence of

local police forces has led to the creation of central organisations such as

the National Police Data Bank, and the Mutual Aid Co-ordinating

Centre. The recent creation of the National Criminal Intelligence

Service and the National Crime Squad Service may constitute an em-

bryonic national police force (see Police Act 1997). These bodies carry

out police operations directly operating formally by agreement with

local forces. They are regulated by central boards the membership of

which strikes a balance between a minority of independent persons

appointed by the Secretary of State, and nomination by chief officers

and local police authorities from among their members. There is also

provision for appointment of a ‘crown servant’ and a member of the

security services (see Police Act 1997 as amended by Criminal Justice

and Police Act 2001). Their operational directors, are the equivalent of

chief constables. They are appointed by the boards from a list approved

by the Secretary of State and can be removed with the approval of the

Secretary of State who can also order their dismissal. A Central Police

Training and Development Authority has also been created (Criminal

Justice and Police Act 2001) the objectives of which are decided by the

Secretary of State who can also give it detailed guidance and directions.

The regulation of local forces is split three ways. The chief constable

is in charge of day-to-day policing. The police authority, in London the

metropolitan police authority, provides funds and exercises a limited

policy and strategy function. The Home Secretary exercises policy,

funding and supervisory powers and controls senior appointments.

Thus the police authority must respond both to the chief constables’

operational requirements and to the policy requirements of the central

government. It therefore acts as a transmission belt between the two.

15.2.1 The chief constable

Day-to-day ‘direction and control’ is vested in the chief constable

(in London the metropolitan police commissioner), whose powers and

347

The Police and the Armed Forces

duties have been said to be owed only to the law itself (Police Act 1996

s. 10; R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex parte Blackburn [1968]

2 QB 118 at 136). It appears that no one is politically accountable

for operational decisions taken by the chief constable although, as

we shall see, the central government has substantial power to direct

policing priorities. The relationship between a chief constable and an

individual police officer is not that of employer and employee. As we

have seen, the powers and duties of a constable derive from the general

law and not even the chief constable can order police officers how to

exercise their powers, for example of arrest, in a particular case.

The chief constable has operational discretion but must have

regard to the objects and targets set out in an annual plan made by the

police authority under s. 8 of the Police Act 1996. This plan includes

policing priorities and expected financial constraints. The chief con-

stable must also report to the police authority annually and whenever

required (s. 20).

15.2.2 The police authority

Each police force has a local ‘police authority’. This is a committee or

joint committee of the relevant local authority. It normally comprises

17 members including nine local councillors, three magistrates, and five

appointed by the local authority from a short list made by the Home

Secretary. Thus elected persons form a bare majority over the recipients

of patronage. The political balance of the elected members must reflect

that of the council as a whole (Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001

s. 105). The functions of the police authority depend entirely on statute.

(i) The police authority must maintain an efficient and effective

police force (Police Act 1996 s. 6 (1)). This is a crucial but ambiguous

provision. Some argue that it gives the police authority political con-

trol in the sense that it allows it to specify how policing priorities

should be ordered. The more widely held view is that it only requires

the authority to provide material resources and to fix the budget

for whatever policing policies are determined by the chief constable.

However, s. 7 enables a police authority to impose ‘objectives’ on its

force consistent with any objectives imposed by the Home Secretary

(below). The police authority is required by s. 8 to make an annual plan

setting out its strategic priorities, its expected financial resources and its

proposed allocation of resources. The plan must also have regard to

national objects and performance targets set out by the Home Secre-

tary under ss. 37 and 38 of the 1996 Act.

348 General Principles of Constitutional and Administrative Law

(ii) The police authority appoints, retires and dismisses senior

police officers, that is, chief constables and assistant chief constables.

The consent of the Home Secretary is required (Police Act 1996 ss. 11,

11A, 12). In London, the metropolitan commissioner and deputy

commissioner are appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Home

Secretary. They can be removed by the metropolitan police authority

with the consent of the Home Secretary (Greater London Authority

Act 1999 s. 315, 318; Police Act 1996 ss. 9E, 9F). Other appointments,

dismissals and disciplinary decisions are for the chief constable or

metropolitan police commissioner. There is an appeal to a tribunal

against decisions to retire and dismiss whether by the police authority

or the chief constable (s. 85).

(iii) The police authority receives an annual report from the chief

constable and can also require special reports. However, the chief con-

stable can refuse to provide information if he believes that it would

either be contrary to the public interest or outside the functions of the

authority (Police Act 1996 s. 22). Disputes are settled by the Home

Secretary. Here again there is room for debate as to whether the police

authority should be concerned with matters of policing policy.

(iv) The police authority administers the police fund (ibid. s. 14).

15.2.3 The Home Secretary

Under the Police Act 1996 the Home Secretary has a range of

important statutory powers over individual forces and broadly similar

powers under the Police Act 1997 over the National Criminal Intel-

ligence Service (NCIS) and National Crime Squad (NCS) (above).

These powers do not include the giving of direct operational orders

but could be indirectly used to achieve considerable central control.

The main powers are as follows:

. Consent to the appointments and dismissals of the chief constable

and deputy chief constables. In the case of the NCIS and NCS the

directors are appointed by the boards from a list approved by the

Secretary of State ( Police Act 1997 ss. 6, 52).

. To require a police authority to dismiss a chief constable in the

interests of ‘efficiency and effectiveness’ (s. 42).

. To set objectives (s. 37), and performance targets (s. 38), to issue

codes of practice (s. 39).

. To make regulations about pay, discipline, uniforms, organisation,

training, duties and equipment, welfare and housing.

. To require reports from chief constables, police authorities (s. 43 (1)).

349

The Police and the Armed Forces

. To give grants to police authorities (s. 46). Central government

grant amounts to about 70% of the cost of running a local force.

. To inspect individual forces. For this purpose there is an Inspecto-

rate of Constabulary which makes an annual report which is laid

before Parliament. The Home Secretary can require the inspectorate

to hold an inspection into any force (s. 40). The Home Secretary can

also appoint any person to hold an inquiry into the efficiency or

effectiveness of a force and can give directions as the result of the