Supreme Court wants police guidance recast in 'straightforward terms'

Supreme Court judges have expressed their concern about the ‘unnecessary complexity’ created by the increase in legislation and guidance on the use of force by police officers.

In R (on the application of Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct and others, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Stephens, with the agreement of Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows, said that the use of force by police officers is an area of law of ‘vital importance’ to both the public and the police.

They said ‘straightforward terms of the law’ which applies when investigating force used by police officers during the course of their work should be used when keeping the public and police informed.

The comments were made in the final paragraph, under the heading ‘urgent need for clarity’, of a 46-page Supreme Court judgment. That centred on whether the civil or criminal law test for self-defence should be applied in tribunals of police disciplinary proceedings.

The judgment pointed out a hope that it would be possible to ‘recast legislation and guidance’ to ensure it is in straightforward terms of law.

The judges said: ‘Finally, we express our concern at the proliferation of legislation and guidance in relation to the use of force by police officers which has resulted in unnecessary complexity and in obscuring the fundamental principles which must be applied.

‘This is an area of the law of vital importance to the public and to the police. It is essential that the public and the police should be informed in straightforward terms of the law which applies. We hope that it will now be possible to recast legislation and guidance so as to achieve this result.’

Tony Maher, general manager at the Plain English Campaign said: ‘This is a great opportunity to give some guidance in plain English. Unfortunately, each case is so different, and often quite complex, that this is never going to be short and succinct. It is impossible to give advice for every situation. However, it should be possible to reword the fundamental principles so everyone can understand them.’

Solicitor Rubin Italia, at Stokoe Partnerships Solicitors, said any attempt to develop broad legislation and guidelines ‘must be flexible enough to cater to the intricacies’ of cases.

He added: ‘There is no "one-size fits all" approach to such proceedings and it is impossible to provide guidelines which are applicable and universal to all situations.

‘This case may present an opportunity to redraft the principles which underpin the guidance. Clear and pragmatic instructions would help to ensure that both the police and the public have a strong understanding of the boundaries.’

This article is now closed for comment.