Police raids

[Nicholas Bohm]

At 10:32 03/03/2003 +0000, Brian Beesley wrote:

>On Friday 28 February 2003 21:38, Jeremy Barker wrote:
>
> > > ``Oh well, we've
> > > quashed the warrant, or dropped the charges. You'll have to wait 2 months
> > > before you can have your stuff back''.
>
>There is absolutely no excise for this sort of attitude.
> >
> > Which is why I have long been of the opinion that when the police interfere
> > in any way with a business or individual that is not a target of their
> > enquiries (i.e. is not under suspicion) or operations (for example, if they
> > close off a road for any significant time after an "incident") they really
> > need to provide an open-ended indemnity for any and all losses that arise
> > whether directly or indirectly from their actions.
>
>Indeed.
> >
> > People will say that it will be expensive to do that and I would readily
> > agree.
>
>In principle, I agree too. But it shouldn't be _too_ expensive -
>surelypolicy-makers should be able to manage the decision-making process as
>to how much "crime" we are prepared to tolerate in order to be able to live a
>reasonably normal life. (Back to the old argument - the fact is that there
>really _is_ an acceptable level of crime, or terrorism, since a zero rate is
>absolutely impossible to achieve even if 100% of the country's GDP was spent
>on "security". Just as absolute safety of e.g. the railways is impossible to
>guarantee without closing them all down.)
>
> > However it would be an expense born at relatively little individual
> > expense by the wider community through taxation (which is what funds the
> > police) rather than funded only by the extremely unfortunate individuals
> > and businesses that get caught up in police operations through no fault of
> > their own.
>
>Yes. But instead of leaving it open-ended like that, why not have legislation
>which imposes penalties (at least dismissal) which could be imposed on those
>policy-makers who persistently allow too much collateral damage resulting
>from "operational activities"?  (The sort that do inconvenience the public at
>large or inflict significant damage on innocent individuals or groups of
>people.)

There is some precedent for this general approach.

The police are liable, under the Riot Damage Act (originating in the 19th 
century), for damage caused by rioters, on the basis that they are thereby 
given an incentive to suppress riots.  (Or perhaps for "police" read 
"ratepayers", who paid the claim and funded the police.)

(This probably accounts for the existence of two distinct trends in the 
cases decided on what constituted a riot - cases giving the term a narrow 
meaning, mostly in claims by damage victims; and cases giving the term a 
wider meaning, mostly in criminal prosecutions of alleged rioters.)

Regards

Nicholas

Salkyns, Great Canfield,
Takeley, Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone   01279 871272    (+44 1279 871272)
Fax     01279 870215    (+44 1279 870215)
Mobile  07715 419728 (+44 7715 419728)

PGP RSA 1024 bit public key ID: 0x08340015.  Fingerprint:
9E 15 FB 2A 54 96 24 37  98 A2 E0 D1 34 13 48 07
PGP DSS/DH 1024/3072 public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF