Justice for retired PD Finn

Dear Attorney General,

I am writing to you in relation to the sentence imposed by Bromley Magistrates Court in the case of the sixteen year old convicted of stabbing Police Dog Finn and Police Constable Dave Wardell, of Hertfordshire Constabulary.  I am aware that you have  powers to review whether a sentence is unduly lenient and to refer it to the Court of Appeal under section 35 &36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I believe that this case is meritorious of such a review and the sentence is entirely inappropriate. This case has attracted considerable public and media interest and I would request that if this case falls outside your review powers that you instruct a review of the handling of the case, including the decision to have sentencing in the Magistrates Court. Lessons must be learned and given the dangerous role of policing, I would ask that your influence is brought to bear to ensure the appropriate review. 

The sixteen year old defendant was convicted of four offences in connection with with the attack on PC Wardell and PD Finn. The defendant was suspected of having committed a robbery and was approached by the officer and PD Finn. The defendant subsequently stabbed PD Finn several times with an 12 inch knife that he was carrying and then the suspect cut PC Wardell's hands.  Once arrested, the defendant was found to be in possession of an imitation firearm and the 12 inch knife, he was convicted of possession of both of these weapons as well as criminal damage to PD Finn and ABH against PC Wardell. 

The sentencing of the defendant on the 6th June 2017 to four months in a detention centre is extremely lenient and specifically I believe failed to reflect the following factors which relate both to the specific case and wider public policy issues. 

• The real risks posed to the public by the carriage of knives, especially one of this size.    

• The actual violent use of the knife, which should always be especially punished by a court. In this case the attack was particularly savage , PD Finn nearly died after being brutally attacked.   

• Possession of an imitation firearm is a particularly serious offence. Imitation firearms are used to enable serious crime and intimidation and the court should reflect this in sentencing as a deterrent to their carriage.   

• Possessing an imitation firearm also poses real risks for police officers who have to respond to incidents where they are brandished or seen, officers take real personal risks and armed officers are placed in extremely vulnerable positions having to decide, often in a split second if the firearm is real. The discharge by armed officers of their firearms is hugely consequential on suspects, the officer and community relations. The sentencing judge appears not to have reflected in the  sentencing the need to deter carriage and properly punish the defendant.  

• Police officers and police dogs are required to place themselves in harms way to protect the public, they deserve especial protection from the law. Indeed, following assaults on police officers, let alone the savage attack on PD Finn, sentencing should reflect the need to deter suspects assaulting officers and violently resisting arrest. The role of sentencing in deterring crime and protecting vulnerable persons appears to have been overlooked.    

• The impact of this crime on PD Finn and PC Wardell is clearly immense. There is a unique bond between a police dog and their handler, forged by their shared life at home and work and the dangers they face together. PD Finn was seriously injured and subsequently retired. Whilst I do not see PD Finn as property as such, it is worth noting the cost of selecting, training and maintaining police dogs to the public purse and therefore an attack on them has significant financial implications. 

Finally, there is a groundswell of opinion that the sentence delivered to the defendant who attacked PD Finn and PC Wardell was wholly inadequate. The criminal justice system must command public confidence and this lenient sentence has eroded confidence in the criminal justice system.

If on the facts of this case, you cannot refer the matter to the Court of Appeal for review because of the mode of trial, I believe lessons need learned as to why sentencing in this matter was not at the Crown Court as opposed to a magistrates court. The wholly inadequate sentence in this case has caused huge distress to the policing family, animal lovers and the wider public whose trust and confidence in the criminal justice system has been damaged. 

The Paradox of Unarmed Policing

     Why less becomes more...

Much has been written about Great Britain's routinely unarmed police service, most of which is inaccurate, politicised and counter productive.  Policing in Great Britain, especially in large cities is now carried out either by the vast majority of totally unarmed officers or a smaller number of heavily armed officers, in SWAT style uniform and virtually all carrying long barrelled rifles. Neither extreme is effective.

Policing in Britain has resisted the routine arming of policing mostly for political and nostalgic reasons, advocates claiming it makes officers more approachable, trusted and that the civilian character of policing is retained. This assertion is made without any evidence base whatsoever. 

Police services around the world are virtually all armed, many of which are excellent community policing services because of their ethos, professionalism, responsiveness and partnership working. The fact they carry a firearm goes unnoticed by a citizenry whose trust is earned and retained by policing behaviours and standards and not by the tactical tools they have immediately available.

The irony is many of those routinely armed police services would virtually never deploy on foot patrols the heavily armed swat style cops we have seen across the country in recent days since they terrible Manchester bombing (and I have the greatest respect for these fine officers). We will all have seen hundreds of pictures of firearms officers deployed on routine patrol since the Manchester bombing, almost everyone them carrying long barrelled rifles. These deployments are tactically misjudged and worse, strategically counterproductive and here is why.

Image

The public in Great Britain and I suggest most police officers, identify armed policing and firearms officers as heavily armed specialists, always carrying long arms and bristling with equipment. 

This skews an accurate understanding of what routine armed policing looks like, which in almost every country is front line community officers, in normal uniform, who carry a sidearm discreetly. Most never draw let alone fire their sidearm, however when life is in peril, they have the capability to protect the public and themselves.   

These officers are supported by specialists who provided surge capability in times  of heightened threat or specialist capability at specific incidents or operations. 

The fears that a routinely armed police service would make offices less approachable are fuelled by the current style of armed policing we are deploying. 

I visited Belfast this weekend, where the Chief Constable said that he would have additional officers deployed in public areas to reassure and protect the community as part of the national response to the Manchester bombing. I saw community policing and armed policing at its reassuring best. Police officers patrolled Belfast City Centre, on foot and in normal  uniform, but each discreetly carried their service issue Glock 17 handgun. I watched one officer hold a missing child by the hand and another take some alcohol from young people. When your police officers are routinely armed they can be more lightly armed, in regular uniform, solving community problems and you don't rely on the specialist, more heavily armed colleagues to provide all your armed policing service. 

Effectiveness 

Policing in Great Britain is largely unarmed, the daily dangers of this for the police service and public are well know. Quite simply, whether it is a marauding terrorist attack or a Dunblane type attack first responders cannot effectively intervene, we wait for the specialists whilst the deaths toll rises. 

Given the relative rarity of IS attacks but their deadly potential, we will need to be extremely fortunate if firearms officers are close enough to respond in time to attacks in Great Britain. Senior officers will claim they are confident they have reviewed the firearms numbers and we have adequate, but this is nonsense, quite simply an attack can  happen anywhere and at anytime and our first responders are unarmed. 

Any delay is catastrophic. If the terrorists attack a rural location, perhaps a rural school, they will have run out of ammunition long before a specialist is close to arriving.

IS terrorist attacks or thwarted attacks in the U.K. rarely involve high powered  automatic weapons, rather knives, bombs and vehicles are the preferred choice, mostly because automatic weapons are relatively difficult to source in this country. This fact is lost on many police leaders and the government. Routinely arming regular police officers with a sidearm affords them the capability, in extremis, to tackle a threat effectively  and promptly without fatal delay. These officers can be supported by specialist colleagues when required and crucially when the police service needs a surge in armed officers, as during the past week, this can largely be provided by officers in normal uniform providing reassurance and keeping people  safe. This maintains the approachability of the British bobby as opposed to eroding it and reinforces the civilian character or policing.

I pose a final question for police commanders that is squarely within their remit to answer and address. Why do our  armed officers when patrolling in recent days all carry rifles, is this tactically required or even effective?  Is any consideration given to some of the firearms officers simply carrying their handgun, with one of the patrol carrying a long barrelled weapon for cover and enhanced tactical options. Yesterday, I witnessed three firearms officers boarding a busy train, all carried rifles, these seems cumbersome and unnecessary. In crowded urban spaces I remain unconvinced why  group of firearms officers all need to carry rifles,  I am a qualified firearms officer and we would benefit from a rethink and consider each deployment in terms of how many 'long arms' are required per patrol. Image and effectiveness are key.

In conclusion, in a debate often conducted in the extremes we urgently need an informed rethink. Those who want to safeguard the civilian and community style of policing in the U.K. would do well to reconsider routinely arming police officers with sidearms thereby enhancing first responder capability and reducing the resort to heavily armed specialists when we need extra armed patrols. In any case, the current deployment of specialist officers officers on foot patrol, when surges are required as currently, should be immediately reviewed and the default of taking out a rifle because you are trained to carry it replaced immediately with an informed  decision on each deployment. 

The UK has the finest people and police officers in the world, neither are best served by the current routinely unarmed policing service and the paradox that undermines our safety and the community policing ethos we all hold dear.