Thousands of civilians granted power to issue fines

A growing number of civilians are being granted police-style powers allowing them to issue fines and demand personal details from the public.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law...ssue-fines.html

 

More than 2,200 workers including council wardens, security guards and countryside rangers are being given the powers, through which they can levy fines of up to £80.

 

The so-called Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS) was derided by senior Tories when in opposition, but the number of people empowered by the scheme has swollen by a third in the past year.

 

Police and civil liberties campaigners have raised concerns over the accountability of civilians signed up to the scheme and the advance of Britain's surveillance state.

 

Simon Reed, vice chairman of the Police Federation, said: “I’m sure that the public would have huge concerns knowing that we have people walking around in this pseudo-enforcement role without proper accountability and legitimacy.”

 

Under the scheme, councils, NHS trusts and private sector companies can pay a fee of a few hundred pounds for Home Office accreditation via their local police force.

 

They can then get employees accredited for as little as £32 per person, with each required to undergo a training course and receive a special badge from their police force’s Chief Constable.

 

In addition to issuing fines for misdemeanours such as dog fouling, graffiti and dropping litter, the accredited civilians are also entitled to take people’s names and addresses and seize alcohol from under-age drinkers. It is an offence to refuse their demands.

 

However, they have no power to detain or arrest individuals and must call police for assistance if they suspect someone of a criminal offence.

 

The scheme was criticised by Tories in opposition, with Dominic Grieve QC, then the shadow home secretary but now the Attorney General, accusing the government of a "staggering complacency towards the extension of surveillance".

 

But the number of people signed up to the programme rose from 1,667 at the end of 2009 to 2,219 last year, Home Office figures disclose.

 

The figures, released following a request by the Daily Mail under the Freedom of Information Act, also showed the number of approved organisations allowed to enrol individuals on to the scheme rose more than 60 per cent over two years, from 95 in 2008 to 153 at the end of last year.

 

In March this year, Scotland Yard gave 15 private security guards the limited policing powers to operate around Victoria coach and railway stations in central London, one of Britain's busiest transport hubs.

 

CSAS, which was introduced under the Police Reform Act 2002, was set up to give civilians working in the community more powers to deal with the public.

 

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "Creating safer communities isn't just a job for the police, it's about all of us taking responsibility for the areas where we live and working with the police to challenge and tackle low level crime and anti-social behaviour.

 

"CSAS is about public and private bodies working in partnership with the police and making the most of relationships and organisations already operating within the community and contributing to community safety.

 

"Accredited persons assist the police and the public in dealing with low-level crime and disorder.

 

"CSAS frees up valuable police time, allowing officers to respond to more serious crime, and providing a localised partnership approach to keeping the public safe."

 

But in opposition in August 2008, Mr Grieve said: "The public want to see real police on the streets discharging these responsibilities, not private firms who may use them inappropriately, including unnecessarily snooping on ordinary citizens.

 

"This is a consequence of the government's obsession with policing on the cheap as well as their staggering complacency towards the extension of surveillance."

 

There are huge concentrations of accredited civilians in some areas – including 366 in Essex, 223 in Gwent, and 124 in Cleveland.

 

In Merseyside, Bedfordshire and Cumbria, by contrast, the police forces do not operate the scheme at all.

 

Nick Pickles, director of civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, told the Daily Mail: “In some cases this appears to be policing on the cheap, in others it is downright ridiculous. The Coalition should recognise the risk this scheme poses to civil liberties and urgently act to curtail it.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sounds great... Just pay £32 quid and you get a badge and are empowered to basically legally mug people..... No need for all that pesky training at Hendon Police college or studying law for 6 years and becoming a judge or anything..... Naaaaaaaaaaah......

Bloody hell! We're closer to V For Vendetta than I thought we were!

 

Seriously Grim - I can't get over how much I like this film. I've watched it three times already!

 

Kath

Bloody hell! We're closer to V For Vendetta than I thought we were!

 

Seriously Grim - I can't get over how much I like this film. I've watched it three times already!

 

Kath

 

I'm actually thinking this is more like A Clockwork Orange.... You know, when Alex's Droogs become recruited as "police"...

 

To say that this is potentially open to abuse is an understatement... They seem to forget about the "dodgy clampers" who were charging motorists an arm and a leg.... Unbelievable.. The Tories saw the abuse there, but dont seem to grasp the sheer scope for abuse here.... -_-

I can't say I have any recollection of this being introduced in 2002. That just shows how easy it can be for governments to introduce bad laws without anyone noticing. However, it also raises a serious problem with the system. The article says that it is an offence to refuse to pay the fine or to give your name and address. But how many people know that? If I was confronted by someone with a badge demanding to know my name and address and, perhaps, ordering me to pay a fine, I suspect I'd refuse. But apparently I would be committing an offence.

 

I'm all in favour of tackling the problem of litter. However, if people are able to issue fines on the spot, they need to be clearly identifiable and the general public need to know these powers exist.

I can't say I have any recollection of this being introduced in 2002. That just shows how easy it can be for governments to introduce bad laws without anyone noticing. However, it also raises a serious problem with the system. The article says that it is an offence to refuse to pay the fine or to give your name and address. But how many people know that? If I was confronted by someone with a badge demanding to know my name and address and, perhaps, ordering me to pay a fine, I suspect I'd refuse. But apparently I would be committing an offence.

 

I'm all in favour of tackling the problem of litter. However, if people are able to issue fines on the spot, they need to be clearly identifiable and the general public need to know these powers exist.

 

You and me both... I'd be very interested to know how the hell something like this is going to be regulated... And who exactly the public could complain to if they wanted to report possible abuse and/or fraud...