For all the controversy that has surrounded him, Sir Stephen House is right in one regard.
Look beyond the arguments over rules, philosophies, statistics and procedures. One thing can be said for certain about the police and stop-and-search: "When you do stop and search it is not about what you do; it is about how you do it."
In a society that depends on policing by consent, that is the very heart of the matter. If officers are to keep us safe from knives, to take a notorious example, it is inevitable that people will be stopped and searched. It is not inevitable that the police should become overbearing, that the innocent should be harassed, that children should be involved, or that the law should be vague.
All of this is easier to propose than enact. To those who demand statutory searches accompanied by the full ritual of rights and stated police suspicions, Sir Stephen offers a warning. If English experience is anything to go by, he argues, what seem to be protections can lead easily to antagonism. Against the supposed informality of consensual stop-and-searches, in the prevailing Scottish manner, there is the risk of confrontation.
The Chief Constable's argument is reasonable, but only as far as it goes. Political arguments over stop-and-search have arisen precisely because consensual informality seems to obey too few rules. Scottish officers, as we have discovered, are vague about the law governing their searches. A lack of definition has led, among other things, to a statistical mess resulting in absurdly inflated figures. But it has also been a cause of public concern over the very use of the procedure.
The first thing required from the Scottish Government review being led by the human rights lawyers John Scott, therefore, is some degree of clarity. Those we pay to enforce the law must surely be given a clear understanding of the law governing their actions. Trust depends on it, and the police depend on trust.
It seems equally obvious that a balance needs to be struck between two competing views of how officers can and should behave. Sir Stephen, though more than willing to operate as required, might regret the loss of consensual stop-and-search. Others contend that there is no reason why searches based on formal "reasonable grounds", in the English manner, should not also be respectful and friendly.
Much of this will depend on police training and attitudes. It is easy to pontificate about those, less easy to say how officers are supposed to remain genial at all times. In fraught and sometimes dangerous situations the police do what needs to be done. They should be sure, nevertheless, of their legal ground and be clear about the behaviour expected from them. Their superiors should be equally certain officers understand what that means.
It seems inevitable that some sort of statutory basis will have to be given to stop-and-search. The "consensual" approach is a kind of fiction, after all, one that ends the instant co-operation is no longer forthcoming. Nevertheless, reform need not mean the wholesale adoption of an English approach that has led, too often, to distrust and rancour.
The best of both worlds, if it could be achieved, would satisfy most people in Scotland. It is a tall order, but the challenge cannot be evaded.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article