Policing by consent what is it

England was a constitutional monarchy, with a representative assembly, which meant attempts to build a police force had to secure the passage of the requisite bills through parliament, as well as overcome any public scepticism.

Rowan and Mayne therefore made concerted attempts to secure the legitimacy of their nascent police force in the eyes of the populace. This idea of consent remains fundamental to policing in the UK as well as the countries that adopted this Peelian model, including New Zealand.

So the police have, at least in theory, always been based on a philosophy of policing by consent. It is nonetheless interesting that the New Zealand police have recently reiterated the centrality of these principles to their work and ethos. As well as Commissioner Coster, Police Association president Chris Cahill has directly referenced Peelian principles in emphasising the importance of consent:.

Yet while the police in New Zealand have typically enjoyed strong approval ratings , it is also clear this has differed across various communities. The New Zealand Police is the descendant of the Armed Constabulary that played a role fighting against certain iwi in the 19th-century colonial wars rather than providing them with a citizen-based consensual police system.

I am thankful of this. I am thankful we don't have a national police force or paramilitary policing based on fear. I am thankful we don't automatically bring out the water cannons and rubber bullets. And I am thankful the government is so far resisting calls to bring the army onto the streets. That doesn't mean our policing is perfect or that there aren't questions to answer about the police shooting of Mark Duggan that sparked the riots.

But as a principle I think policing by consent is important and we need to ask why it wasn't enough to prevent or stop the rioting. It pains me to say it, but what we are seeing is the breakdown of society in certain parts of the country. Or rather, a society that has already broken down.

I am not going to speculate as to how or when this started to happen, but the riots demonstrate how society is a fragile thing that requires all of us to feel we belong to it and have a stake in its success. Society works because we consent to abide by its norms. But if, as many of our young people surely feel, it offered us nothing, make no mistake, any one of us could resort to violence for a fare more eloquent analysis of young people's alienation from society, read this in the Independent by Camila Batmanghelidjh, the founder of the charities The Place to Be and Kids Company, who is one person qualified to speculate.

If policing by consent is what sets us apart, the rule of law, by which we avoid dictatorship, theocracy and despotism, is something we share with all democracies and we undermine it at our peril. It would be disingenuous of me to make a direct link between the riots and legal aid cuts. But just as policing by consent is under threat from a detached underclass who have no fear of the consequences of their actions, so the rule of law'will be threatened by the savage cuts to legal aid that will severely curb access to justice.

The very concept of the rule of law, much as policing by consent, relies on the fact 'that individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or a group of individuals'. But if vast swathes of the population feel they have no access to justice through established means then what will happen?

Rather than take their case to court they are increasingly likely to take justice into their own hands.

There are warnings that a third of law centres will close , 18 out of the 56 across the country, creating substantial advice deserts across the country. By removing welfare advice and most debt, employment and housing advice from the scope of legal aid the government will slash the number of claimants receiving help from law centres from , to just 40, Where will the 80, go for advice?

And if they can't get advice, what will they do, just lie down and take it? What would you do? The justice system works because no-one is above the law. Anyone, regardless of their social, economic or political status, is subject to the rule of law and everyone is equal before it.

But what if only the wealthy can afford a lawyer? What if politicians, newspaper editors and city bankers can buy their way out of trouble but the rest of us can be punished for our crimes or are unable to get redress when we've been abused? Where does that leave the rule of law?

I hope that the 'riot cleanup' response to the disturbances is a more accurate reflection of our society and our national character than the rioters. I hope that we will respond to the violence much as Norway responded to the devastating rampage of one madman with a gun, by calling for more social democracy and not less.

To view this licence, visit nationalarchives. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. However, there is no evidence of any link to Robert Peel and it was likely devised by the first Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.