Police during Emergency of 1975—77

15.24 The brazen manner in which the police were misused during the emergency of 1975—77 to subvert lawful procedures and serve purely political ends is brought out in Chapter XV of the Interim Report II dated 26th April, 1978, given by the Shah Commission of Inquiry, which is reproduced below :"15.16 The Commission invites the Government's attention pointedly to the manner in which the Police was used and allowed themselves to be used for purposes some of which were, to say the least, questionable. Some Police officers behaved as though they are not accountable at all to any public authority. The decision to arrest and release certain persons were" entirely on political considerations which were intended to be favourable to the ruling party. Employing the police to the advantage of any political party is a sure source of subverting the rule of law. The Government must seriously consider the feasibility and the desirability of insulating the police from the politics of the country and employing it scrupulously on dudes for which alone it is by law intended. The policemen must also be made to realise that politicking by them is outside the sphere of their domain and the Government would take a very serious view of it.15.17 In this context the Commission can do no better than quote from one of the speeches of Sir Robert Mark, the ex-Chief Commissioner of Police, London. Its relevance for 'the Police of our country is self evident. Sir Robert Mark says :—'Our authority under the law is strictly defined and we are personally liable for the consequences whenever we invoke it. We play no part in determining guilt or punishment and our accountability to the courts, both criminal and civil, to local police authorities, to Parliament and to public opinion is unsurpassed anywhere else in the world. In the legal and constitutional framework in which society requires us to enforce the laws enacted by its elected representatives, the most essential weapons in our armoury are not firearms, water cannon, tear gas or rubber bullets, but the confidence and support of the people on whose behalf we act. That confidence and support depends Hot only on the factors I have already mentioned but on our personaland collective integrity and in particular on our long tradition of constitutional freedom from political interference in our operational role. .Notwithstanding me heavy responsibilities for the policing of England and Wales given to the Home Secretary by the 1964 Police Act, it is important for you to understand that the police are not the servants of the Government at any level. We do not act at the behest of a minister or any political party, not even the party in government. We act on behalf of the people as a whole and the powers we exercise cannot be restricted or widened by anyone, save Parliament alone. -^ It is this which above all else determines our relationship with the public, especially in relation to the maintenance of public , order, and allows us to operate reasonably effectively, with minimal numbers, limited powers and by the avoidance of force, or at least with the use only of such force as will be approved by the courts and by public opinion.''To sum the position up for you in easily understandable and practical terms, a chief officer of police will always give the most careful consideration to any views or representations he may receive from his police authority, be it Home Secretary or police committee, on any issue affecting enforcement of the law, whether public order or anything else, but in England and Wales it is generally for him and him alone to decide what operational action to take and to answer for the consequences. In the case of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis his exercise of those responsibilities will no doubt be all the more scrupulous in that he alone of all chief police officers enjoys no security of tenure and that subject to parliamentary approval he may be removed by the Home Secretary.'I emphasise this because while the police place great importance on their constitutional freedom the significance of their accountability should not be overlooked as a counter-balance to any improper use of it'.15.18 The Commission feels that what applies to the police applies in equal measure to the Services as a whole. The politician who uses a public servant for purely political purposes and the public servant who allows himself to be so used are both debasing themselves and doing a signal disservice to the country."