The quote refers to a trial electronic stop and account procedure run by the British Transport Police. That trial was run properly in that the PACE code was amended to permit it.

“The pilot also showed that those stopped or stopped and searched rarely requested a written record of the stop.”

That’ll be interesting.

And this Cambridge ‘trial’ will have run for about 18 mths?

Meanwhile, the HO will have brought forth their own solution. Nice timing.

(In the PDF of the PACE review, stop and account appears to be called ‘Stop’ or ‘Stop and Search’. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2008-pace-review/cons-2008-pace-review-pdf?view=Binary or, smaller, http://is.gd/w8bi Page 9 )

The list of forces in which this applies does not include Cambridgeshire, even though stop and account recording does not occur in Cambridgeshire.

The pilot areas are: “Leicestershire, Staffordshire, Surrey, West Midlands, Essex, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire, South Wales, West Yorkshire and Thames Valley”.

You are absolutely correct in stating that Tony McNulty’s reaction to the issue was wholly inadequate.

I am still going to try to get a Ministerial statement that it is not permissible for forces to go their own way in regard to the PACE Codes - and promise to keep you informed of any developments in that regard. I will raise it at the next meeting of the PACE Review Board in November.

However it appears this will not give authorisation for the trial which is currently still on going in Cambridge where no stop and encounter receipts are given as a matter of course. This development should provide further leverage for the Police Authority to use to bring Cambridgeshire police back under democratic control.

Dear David,

Thank you for your letter of 6 August to the Home Secretary on behalf of Mr Richard Taylor, of [my address] about the status of the PACE codes. This letter also responds to Mr Taylor’s earlier contact with the department.

The introduction and application of the PACE Codes of Practice are subject to the statutory provisions set out in Part VI of PACE. This requires that the contents of the Codes are subject to public consultation and Parliamentary approval before the Code or any revised Code comes into effect.

It is a matter for the chief officer to determine the operational practices within their force area are subject to the provisions of the law. Whilst the Codes deliberately do not have the status of statute, compliance with their content is recognised by the courts as critical in determining the admissibility of evidence. That is why we will be looking to amend PACE Code A when Parliament returns to enable pilot studies to be carried out in four force areas to provide a receipt in respect of encounters carried out under PACE Code A and to record only information on ethnicity. This is to take forward recommendation 24 of the Flanagan Review of Policing. The pilot sites will be in West Midlands, Surrey, Leicestershire and Staffordshire.

We launched a public consultation on PACE in 2007. The final element of consultation on the PACE Review will be launched shortly but it is clear from the responses and consultation taken place to date that there is strong support for retaining the existing statutory framework with supporting codes. This view is widely shared accross the criminal justice system.

Tony McNulty.

I have made the letter from Tony McNulty available here.

The letter supplies some of the information I had previously requested from the Home Office.

He noted he is still awaiting a response from the Home Secretary.

The police’s reply was written by Jeff Hill on the 28th of August 2008.

The new (to me) information contained within it is:

“This initiative commenced on the 1st of April and was due to conclude on 30th June this year but has been extended further to allow for the completion of appropriate results analysis which will assist Mrs Spence in assessing whether the benefits to the citizen outweigh the loss of performance data in this area. It is anticipated that a decision will be made on the future of All Stops recording mid way though next month. ”

I wrote to Mr Wilkins of the Police Authority to keep him updated. I sent him the salient items of my latest correspondence and said:

I hope the Police Authority will be involved in the decision on the future of All Stops recording to be made in the next week or so.
…
Jeff Hill of the police apparently sees the primary con associated with the scrapping of the form to be the loss of performance data. I disagree.
…
I agree the old form took too long to complete and over-formalised trivial encounters with the police. I strongly support replacing it with a much more streamlined system
…
I do think encounters ought be recorded, and the opportunity to collect statistics though sampling ought be considered.

I have made my letter from Mr Howarth available online via this link.