Is a Policeman wearing a Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protection suit and mask, still legally a "Constable in Uniform" ?
There are several bits of UK legislation which specifically grant powers to a constable in uniform, and not to undercover policemen etc. most notably, the controversial Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 Authorisations.
Power to stop and search44. - (1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-
(a) the vehicle;
(b) the driver of the vehicle;
(c) a passenger in the vehicle;
(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-
(a) the pedestrian;
(b) anything carried by him
.
A "constable in uniform" has a clearly visible Number on his or her shoulders, which can be used by members of the public to help to ascertain whether or not this is a genuine police officer, and to file complaints against any alleged misconduct by such an policeman.
However, when the Police start wearing Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protection suits, gloves and facemasks, several thousand of which appear to be in the process of being procured by the Home Office, none of these normal identifiers are readily visible to the public.
Does wearing such protective equipment mean that a policeman is in no longer legally a Constable in Uniform ?
Since these suits are sold to other emergency services and industrial and military customers, they surely cannot be classed as a unique "Police Uniform" ? Are you at risk of being accused of "impersonating a police officer" if you happen to be wearing a similar protective suit ?
Obviously in an actually hazardous environment, the wearing of these suits is not going to be much of a problem for the, hopefully evacuated general public. However, the vast majority of the time that such suits and masks will be worn, will not be when there is a real risk of contamination, but on training exercises, or in transit to and from a real or hoax or false alarm incident etc.
Wearing a protective facemask and gloves may also have contributed to the accidental shooting of one of the people who arrested during this pre- dawn raid. Quite reasonably, the man who was shot, claims to have had no idea that the armed people dressed in sinister black protective suits and masks, creeping up his staircase in the early hours of the morning, shouting muffled warnings, were actually duly authorised Police Constables in Uniform.
Surely all such Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protection suits need to be clearly marked with Police Contsables' individual identification Numbers ?
As these protective suits become more common, and one has to wonder why the Home Office has not procured sufficient of these suits and masks years ago, since the risks of contamination incidents have been exactly the same for many years, there is a very real risk, that criminals will use them as disguises when carrying out armed robberies or kidnaps etc. by instituting their own fake evacuation cordons and exclusion zones, around their targets.
It is not inconceivable that members of the public will call for Police armed response units to investigate suspicious, unidentifiable people lurking around in black or aluminium coated protective equipment, with which they are unfamiliar, since the Government's Civil Contingencies "resilience" plans do not extend to paying for regular, realistic Civil Defence exercises, which actually involve large numbers of members of the public.
UPDATE:
It appears that some Members of Parliament, or at least their research staff, do actually read Spy Blog:
Written answers Monday, 22 January 2007Home Department
Police Uniform
Nicholas Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a police officer wearing a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear protection suit will be classed as a constable in uniform.
John Reid (Home Secretary)
holding answer 16 January 2007
Yes. An officer in protective equipment which has been officially provided to supplement the police uniform retains the full police powers of an officer in uniform.
Comments
:-)
Posted by: Max Randor | January 4, 2007 5:20 PM
A modest proposal - couldn't this be solved by issuing each constable one black marker pen and instructions to scrawl the word POLICE and his badge number on the back of the suit?
Posted by: Alex | January 5, 2007 10:46 AM
@ Alex - how can you be sure that some of them will not puncture their protective suits that way ?
Some of suits which were pictured in the Forest Gate raid media coverage were matt black, so a standard marker pen might be of little use.
Some protective suits do seem to have appliqué numbers etc., but by no means all of them.
Posted by: wtwu | January 5, 2007 12:57 PM
In the event of this equipment being deployed for real, any pretense of the rule of law will finally be dropped in favour of martial law.
Posted by: Nick | January 11, 2007 1:30 PM
The CBRN suit is part of the police uniform, so I say yes, it is still a Constable in uniform. This is similar to the daft question asked by scrotes, "I've heard you can't arrest me if your not wearing your police helmet"...Sigh.
Posted by: Al | January 15, 2007 7:12 PM
@ Al - if there is nothing to distinguish these Police issue CBRN suits from identical or very similar civilian issue ones, and it is difficult or impossible to hear what they are saying when they have the face mask on, then either the Police Constable is no longer "in uniform" or civilians wearing such suits e.g. other emergency service or industrial workers are "impersonating a police officer".
The general powers of arrest of a Police Constable do not rely on a police uniform, or a police helmet.
Which part of the Terrorism Act Section 44 power of stop and search where it mentions a "constable in uniform" is unclear to you ?
Posted by: wtwu | January 15, 2007 8:42 PM
There needs to be some better identifier than a hand-scrawled "POLICE" and a badge number, because otherwise any random person not connected with the police could write "POLICE" and a real or real-looking badge number on that kind of suit. Yes, that would be impersonating a police officer, but it's not much comfort to the person in the street--or the person who has a couple of strangers creeping up their stair in the middle of the night--to know that if they're impersonating police in order to commit a crime, they can be done for impersonating an officer as well as for robbery, assault, or the other crime they're planning.
Hazard protection suits pre-printed with "POLICE" would be a little better, and the constables could hand-write their badge numbers below, and have the actual badge ready to hand if need be.
Posted by: Vicki | January 16, 2007 1:39 AM
Perhaps Spy Blog is now starting to have a bit of influence with some politicians in Parliament - the original article has been noticed and has led to the Parliamentary Written Question and Answer.
The original story about the 12,000 or so CBRN suits on order by the Home Office, was also due to a UK political blogger:
http://the-daily-pundit.blogspot.com/2006/12/home-office-preparing-for-dirty-bomb.html
Posted by: wtwu | January 23, 2007 5:31 PM