Schedule 4 - Powers exercisable by police civilians
Police Reform Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Mr John Denham (Minister of State (Police, Courts and Drugs), Home Office; Southampton, Itchen, Labour)
Unfortunately, I was absent from the first sitting that you chaired, Miss Widdecombe, so I should now like to say how pleased I am to see you in the Chair rather than where the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) is sitting in Committee.
The amendments would restrict the powers of escort officers to conduct a search because they will confine the grounds to situations in which escort officers reasonably suspect a person to be in a possession of an object that is likely to cause harm or injury. The Government will resist them because they would hamper the ability of escort officers to carry out their duties. Consequently, there would be little point in designating non-police officers as escort officers in the first place and that would undermine our aim of freeing-up police officers for other duties. There is a good reason why escort officers who have detainees in their lawful custody should have the same powers as constables to search those persons under subsection (6A) of section 54 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and to seize anything found on such a search under subsection (6B) of section 54 of the Act. After all, escort officers are under a duty to prevent people whom they are escorting from escaping and are responsible for the safety of those in their custody.
It is important that an escort officer is able to conduct a search to ascertain whether the person in his custody has on him anything that he could use to cause physical injury to himself or another person, damage property, interfere with evidence or assist escape. The ability should not be restricted by a reasonable suspicion of possession test.
As an example, an escort officer might escort a detained person from one police station to another who might have on them a seemingly harmless item such as a mobile phone, which might be used to assist in organising an escape. Under the amendment, the escort officer would be unable to seize the item, because they would be unable to conduct a search, and because of the nature of the item itself.
An even more serious situation would be when the person being escorted has a concealed knife. The officer might not have reasonable grounds to suspect that a knife is being carried until it has been pulled on him or another person, by which time it is too late.
Given that police officers do not routinely search every person they escort, that raises the question of on what grounds and on what basis police officers who exercise the power carry out a search. In practice, I am told, police officers tend to exercise their PACE powers by carrying out a risk assessment. They would not
search every person, but there would be some in whose case they thought that the risk was higher and a search would be carried out. That seems a reasonable approach. That does not necessarily pass a strict legal test of reasonable suspicion. They would consider the nature of the individual whom they were escorting.
To apply a test, whether to police officers or escort officers, of reasonable suspicion, would unnecessarily constrain their powers. It is far better for those escorting detained persons to have the scope to search whenever they are worried that certain articles might be concealed and about whether articles could be used for any of the purposes set out in section 54(4)(a). That is the position for police officers. There is no evidence that that power is misused or wrongly applied, and I see no basis for a more restrictive approach for civilian escort officers. On that basis, I ask the Committee to resist the amendments.