AFTER THE CIRCUS OF GOLD MEDALS WE`LL RETURN TO REALITY

It is gratifying to note that amongst the hysteria of gold medals at the Olympic circus damning observations of courts` efficiencies or lack of them are becoming increasingly frequent. This will cause a certain discomfort where it is overdue. It has taken some years for the inevitable daily problems in our courtrooms of which every court practitioner is only too well aware to become the stuff of media comment. The Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons report in May highlighted the continuing breakdown in the courts` system.  Since the coalition`s 23%  budget reduction for "Justice" in 2010 and annual reductions since then it was hardly rocket science to predict that back room "reorganisations" would soon percolate to the actual courtroom. The oft repeated comments by the Tory government and its lackeys that reducing inter alia police numbers, courts, legal aid provision, CPS lawyers and interpreter services as a result of all these budget cuts could be overcome by increased efficiency has been shown for what it is; a rash decision with no consideration for the future of our justice system.

What a blessing it is for government every four years when news headlines of gold medals  displace stories of political and market turmoil:a modern example of  following  Nero`s initiative of the circus to distract the plebs. At least this time the cost paid was  for the agrandisement of a fallen Brazilian president and not for the vanity of an erzatz political chamelion who felt the hand of history on his shoulder.

Although Mrs May might be going for gold in the Brexit negotiations current problems are not the end of the decline in judicial services still to come. Anybody who thinks otherwise is in for surprises or shocks depending on their support for current policies.

TO ARREST OR NOT TO ARREST? THAT IS THE QUESTION

"Have you ever been arrested?"  Not an everyday sort of question but exactly the sort of question that can be on an application form for eg some types of insurance, a job, a visa or another inquiry where personal integrity is a pre requisite.  This is not so surprising as there has to be a prima facia case of law breaking. To quote the appropriate government website, "To arrest you the police need reasonable grounds to suspect you’re involved in a crime for which your arrest is necessary." According to Citizens` Advice..........

 

When can the police arrest you

Police can arrest you if they have a valid arrest warrant. There are also some situations where they can arrest you without a warrant. These are where:

• you are in the act of committing certain offences
• they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you are committing certain offences
• they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you have committed certain offences
• you are about to commit certain offences
• they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you are about to commit certain offences.

The police can also arrest you if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you have committed or attempted to commit any offence, or if you are committing or attempting to commit any offence, but it is impractical or inappropriate to serve a summons. However, they can only do this if one of the following conditions applies:

• they do not know, and cannot get, your name
• they think you have given a false name
• you have not given a satisfactory address. This means an address where the police can contact you
• they think you have given a false address
• the arrest is necessary to prevent you causing physical injury to yourself or others, suffering physical injury, causing loss or damage to property, committing an offence against public decency, or causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway

• they have reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to protect a child or other vulnerable person. 

So  far so clear.............However when a former Chief Constable admits that she told officers to "arrest first" and investigate later when dealing with rape cases one has to be concerned.  Presumably this instruction was based on the notion that victims have always to be believed in the first instance; a policy which, thankfully, is beginning to be perceived as misguided at best and oppressive at worst.  

Such was the operating procedure of the recent incumbent as Surrey Chief Constable.  Whether or not similar orders are still operating under the new Chief of that force cannot be ascertained from its website. That former Chief Constable now heads the National Crime Agency where as is the fashion all major departments are now "commands". On May 16th she made what I presume was her policy speech  in her new post.  In her opening she included ,"How do we build public confidence and avoid appearing distant from the public? And how can we ensure that we are always acting with the public’s consent? " 

My answer to her questions would be to admit that her policy in Surrey was flawed. 

JUDGE SWEARS TO ENFORCE THE LAW

Following on from yesterday's`s post about the crown court judge who responded to a defendant`s volley of four letter insults with a backhand return worthy of the centre court at Wimbledon it appears, surprise surprise, that a complaint has been served  at the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.  No doubt this is but the opening  in a prolonged contest.

LEST YE BE JUDGED

I have opined previously that magistrates are more likely to feel the wrath of authority for perceived minor infractions than their full time brethren.  What would happen if a J.P. swore at a defendant in court  doesn`t bear thinking about.  So it will be interesting to find out if a complaint is made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office concerning HH Patricia Lynch QC and her robust response at Chelmsford Crown Court in the face off what can only be described as abusive language from a low life scum.  The newspaper headlines themselves might be enough for her to be asked questions. What I do know is that if a magistrate responded similarly s/he would be lucky if the JCIO merely issued a reprimand.

DAVID LAMMY M.P. AND REVIEW OF LEGAL BIAS

It is disturbing that it appears that many black people are looking to America to discover their binary relationship in being black and British.  But perhaps it is not surprising.  How many generations did it take for Anglo Saxons to consider themselves English, Normans to become anglicised, French Huguenots to "become British" or Irish navvies to consider themselves British of Irish heritage.  In America countless millions of Italian, Irish, Jewish and Scots Americans celebrate their origins even at the tenth generation removed. But they were all white or almost white skinned.  My own visits and sojourns to the deep south leave me in no doubt that there is still a deep division between white and black Americans.  So why is it in that direction that some black Britons look for inspiration in their aspirations when the degree of racial harmony in this country puts America and other places to shame? 

David Lammy is a black politician who throughout his career has seemed to  to ride on the backs of two horses at once attempting to balance between the left and the right. He is currently   leading a review of the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales to investigate evidence of possible bias against black defendants and other ethnic minorities.  He is certainly no shrinking violet........is any politician?  He has issued more than one interim account of his work this being the latest. When he comes to his almost inevitable conclusion one would hope that his work is better researched than those of the newest black grouping to wrap itself in the folds of Americans who have very good cause to justify their slogan of "Black Lives Matter".  Fullfact.org   have corrected some numbers from the British "Black Lives Matter" organisation.  In such contentious circumstances it is essential that statistics are fact checked to the "n"th degree before publication.  

And a final word on Mr Lammy; his voting record on E.U. matters is open to doubting his true affiliations.  In 2007/8 he was apparently a supporter of integration within the E.U. but was mostly absent on E.U. connected votes since then.  He was, however, the first M.P. to publicly announce his support for a second referendum after the result was announced on June 23rd.  He has been quoted as saying, "63% of the electorate did not vote for Brexit". Using the same arithmetic almost 60% of his north London constituency did not vote for him in the 2015 election. He was elected!  I would hope his aforementioned review which is certain to cause some headlines when published is on firmer foundations than his numerical reasoning. 

CULTS AND THE PATHOGENICITY OF SUPPOSED HATE CRIME

On July 14th  I posted on the disturbing policy of Nottingham Police on what it constituted as hate crime and a detailed further report on July 27th of the calamitous effects on a young school girl of that force`s totally inappropriate and possibly unlawful use of its powers of arrest and detention.  The policy and the atrocious behaviour subsequently are caused by a combination of centring a justice system around a so called victim and seeking offensiveness however inocuous and only in the eye of that "victim" as a hate factor to be sought out as the witchfinder general saught his prey in the 17th century. 

This week an article in the Spectator clearly reveals the reality of a body politic which has been infected by a policy virus which has been zealously transmitted to police and prosecutors   alike.  As with all such plagues in history it will eventually sow the seeds of its own destruction when the infected hosts become too few to sustain its pathogenicity. But by that time countless lives will have been damaged or worse.  When western society is experiencing the politicisation of cults in the form of Trump, Sanders and Corbyn followers who worship the man before the politics and who are supposedly adult in status all we can do is hope that like the Beetlemania of teenagers of another era it will pass and  ideas will eventually prevail over personality. 

JEREMIAH AND NEW JUSTICES OF THE PEACE RULES

Whilst in office I tended not to attend events arranged by the social committee.  Generally I liked and/or respected my colleagues but there were exceptions as I suppose there are in all similar gatherings. But when it came to bench meetings I rarely missed the three or four times a year evening.  Apart from the formally constituted annual election meeting the other two or three in the year usually allowed a wide range of discussion  around an agenda often used for that very purpose.  That was until HMCTS took control and the Justices` Clerk, not the affable and familiar Deputy, assumed a greater role in the proceedings.  Indeed I well remember an occasion when that J.C. told the bench chairman as I was on my feet that the particular topic and point raised was not a matter for the bench.  He was told exactly where his authority ended.  Such occasions might now be stymied. On July 31st  Justices of the Peace Rules 2016 came into practice. Within these rules  amongst other things regarding bench meetings it is written:-

7.

Justices for an area shall meet no less than once per year between 1 April and 31 March to carry out the purposes in paragraph 8.

            8.

The purposes of Bench meetings include:

a). enabling justices to liaise with other bodies to share information relevant to the

work of the magistrates’ court;

b). representing the views of Justices (principally through their Chairman or Deputy Chairmen) including to the Judicial Business Group and other governance groups of justices;

  c). making recommendations to the relevant body responsible for training for inclusion in an annual training plan and any training necessary to ensure that Justices maintain their competence;

 d). providing a forum for training agreed under the training plan.

By stipulating the minimum single meeting required (the election meeting) it is likely that many benches will abandon the idea of having any other meetings throughout the year.  Thus there will be less opportunity for  bench  members to discuss matters important to them but not necessarily contained within the above parameters.  This will increase the power and influence of HMCTS and reduce yet again the ability of individual justices to have some control of their judicial career.  

I hope I`m just a Jeremiah making noises off stage but I doubt it. 

THE UNACCEPTABLE WORDS OF A DISTRICT JUDGE

All members of the judiciary must follow strict protocols in their words and behaviour inside and outside the courtroom. These protocols apply equally to members of the Supreme Court as they do to every Justice of the Peace. With judges in particular the bible they must observe and the advice and/or instructions to which they must adhere is the Guide to Judicial Conduct. From s.8 of that document the following is of interest:- "A judge should refrain from answering public criticism of a judgment or decision, whether from the bench or otherwise. Judges should not air disagreements over judicial decisions in the press".

Last week at Kirklees Magistrates Court a lay bench of J.P.s disposed of a charge of racially aggravated threatening behaviour............a very woolly offence which in some circumstances can be conjoured up over a very minor and spontaneous atypical verbal outburst........by the imposition of a 12 months conditional discharge. From the report which has only the barest of details it appears it was another example of a police officer milking a situation for all it was worth.  Nevertheless West Yorkshire branch of the Police Federation made a big splash about what they described as, "an utter joke of a sentence".  As the police trade union there was nothing exceptional about its opinion being put into the public domain.  What followed was indeed exceptional.  The same offender, earlier this week on August 3rd, appeared before District Judge Michael Fanning at Huddersfield Court on charges of breaching court orders.  During that hearing the judge commented, "He got a conditional discharge and I can’t see how when you commit a racially-aggravated offence in these circumstances for which you were convicted in your absence. It seems to me that it was dealt with very lightly". 

It is my strong opinion that by criticising disparagingly  in front of the offender in a public courtroom the sentence previously handed out to him by the lay bench  this judge has brought the law into disrepute.  I hope the chairman of the bench in West Yorkshire has the cajones to complain to the Senior Presiding Judge on behalf of all his/her colleagues.

EBB AND FLOW OF RUSSIAN PAGE VIEWS

I don`t know whether I`m pleased or not that the sudden influx of page views from Russia  last weekend seems to have passed.  Currently it is unlikely that the daily numbers of the comrades will reach three figures.  Such is a graphic example of the ebb and flow on the world wide web.

SILENT WITNESS & AN IGNORANT GOVT. MINISTER

Yesterday I posted on the words used by a High Court judge during a hearing within the family division.  Perhaps it is only politicians as a group  who should care more for their public utterances.  When ministers of the crown offer their opinions especially outside Westminster they should be doubly mindful of what they say.  When the minister is one of the few remaining former barristers (Kenneth Clarke MP is another) still flaunting in his biographies the courtesy title of Queens Counsel awarded to members of that profession purely as a result of being elected to parliament and certainly not as a sign of recognised excellence, a practice quite correctly discontinued about 25 years ago, we gain a glimpse of the inner man.   Notwithstanding that background the Hon.....oops......Rt Hon gentleman is now Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice. Recently he made an official visit to Liverpool Crown Court where he commented on the improvements taking place within the courts` system.  Amongst other things in a report in the Liverpool Echo he was quoted as saying, “This court is one of the first to use new technology, which allows cross-examination of a witness, which is recorded in advance. “It means they know that they have given their evidence and that is that. It gives them a sense of closure. “They have already had a horrible experience. To come to court and have to live it again and experience cross-examination, which could be very long, was difficult."  This all very laudable.   As is the current fashion he appears to place "victims" at the centre of the justice system; a practice that will be seen in time as great endeavour but highly misplaced.  However, of more significance, he goes on to say, "Sometimes the jury cannot agree on a verdict and you can then have a retrial, when they had to go through it all over again. “We don’t need to when we have already got their evidence pre-recorded."

Think about that. The necessity of a re-trial as he is discussing is because a jury cannot agree a majority verdict. And that in itself indicates that the evidence presented is not sufficient to erase that shadow of doubt in the minds of at least three jurors.  The logical next step is that the evidence of witnesses at a re trial should be further cross examined to remove any lingering doubts before another jury.  The very idea that the same video being presented to it which might have left unanswered questions at the previous trial should simply be replayed on the second occasion is frankly nonsense. Indeed it is more than nonsense.  It is an abrogation of the function of a trial by jury.  For such an opinion to be propounded by the minister responsible is a travesty.  Once again the arrogance and ignorance of a senior politician is before us for all to see.   

HIGH COURT JUDGE HAS LOST HIS MORAL COMPASS

Long before my occupation of the middle chair I came to the conclusion that legal advisors and lawyers  were often unaware that the language they were speaking was almost unintelligible to the court users to whom it was addressed. When I was authorised to occupy the middle chair I was in a position to remedy these failings.  Lawyers mildly chastised along those lines invariably accepted with good grace and usually a smile that my interruption was merely to speed up the process for all.  Pointers in the other direction whether of substance or style were usually of more substance.  Criticism of a High Court during proceedings is a rare event.  However outside the courtroom it obviously has no legal effect but the ramifications can be explosive.  Mrs Justice Hogg and the Ellie Butler case was an example.  

Another High Court judge of the family division, Mr Justice Holman, made remarks in a recent case that seem to have been largely overlooked. A Saudi father  has kept his  British daughter in a cage for four years at his home in Jeddah.  Whatever the rights and wrongs involved, (a report is available here,) the judge did nothing to enhance the reputation of British jurisprudence when he said, "We have to be careful about asserting the supremacy of our cultural standards."

It is just this levelling down of the basis of our legal and cultural heritage which I find nothing less than nauseating. Taken to its logical conclusion we must assume that in the judge`s mind there is no moral, legal, cultural, historical or religious basis for the way in which we conduct or attempt to conduct our society in what we consider the most satisfactory manner for the benefit of all of us. Mr Justice Holman might be a High Court judge but if these comments are a reflection of his thinking processes the Appointments Committee missed a trick granting him the honour and privilege of occupying that most prestigious of chairs. He has lost his moral compass.

HIS LORDSHIP WAS TOO IMPORTANT TO SUFFER COURT DELAY

We are all equal before the law or so we thought. I would opine that equality is not limited to the accused, whether king or commoner, being granted a right to a fair trial to be judged by his peers but also to other witnesses without whom there would be no system of justice in which we could have confidence.  

As with many institutions there are timetables for the working of our courts.  These are drawn up months, weeks or days in advance depending upon the detail involved and allowing if and when possible for last minute adjustments.  These timetables or listings  by their very nature must allow for variation  and adaptability.  For trials at  magistrates` courts witnesses are generally required to attend at 9.30am or perhaps 10.00am for morning sittings and 1.30pm or 2.00pm for those in the afternoon.  Depending upon the circumstances of the day the bench will decide the order of priorities when dealing with more than a single matter listed for a sitting.   These decisions will depend upon the time previously allocated for the matter(s), witness readiness, advocates` preparedness, advice from legal advisor and any other circumstances deemed important.  Whilst witnesses and defendants are expected to attend there is generally no compulsion upon the former except in the relatively few cases when a witness summons has been served.  

Last Tuesday at Highbury Corner Magistrates` Court in north London a certain Lord Glasman was in attendance as the prosecution`s chief witness in a trial in which it was alleged that the accused had attempted to rob him of his briefcase.  However for reasons unknown the trial did not proceed at the time listed; presumably 10.00am.  His lordship being a very important man with an appointment to participate in a meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England and others decided, after being kept waiting over an hour to be called, that his meeting was more important than the trial and left.  As a result the trial had to be  been adjourned until August 9th. Obviously there is a cost to his lordship`s inabilty to monitor his diary and schedule his time appropriately.  Other witnesses might have had their time wasted. A CPS prosecutor and a defence lawyer have had their preparation time wasted and the accused is required to endure a (extended?) curfew until the new trial date.  In simple terms this supposedly important personage has placed his personal responsibilities ahead of his civil duties as a responsible citizen.  

And what of the hundreds of witnesses daily who attend trials at magistrates` courts?  Do they not suffer the frustrations of being kept waiting?  Do they not allow for delay in their timetables?  I can understand that an ordinary working man or woman unfamiliar with the courts and their systemic problems of delay might be caught short in their personal schedules eg in matters of childcare or responsibilies to employers but in this case we are dealing with a highly educated member of the House of Lords.  

IMHO he is a disgrace to that House and a man whose arrogance to the court is just another example of the disfunction between the ruler and the ruled.  Indeed he is so self important that he hasn`t spoken in parliament for almost three years.  It is unknown whether or not the defence will table a wasted costs order at the close of the proceedings. 

PUTIN`S PROPAGANDA

Just when you think it`s safe to go back in the water along comes a shark.  Yesterday I pondered on the multitude of page views from Russia and today in the Times the headline`s all about Ruskie propaganda.  Has this blog been selected by Vladamir P. and his henchmen to provide an insight into and subsequently subvert the judicial system?  I would suppose my late Ukranian grandfather would comment that nothing changes east of the Dnieper. 

RUSSIAN VIEWERS//HURRAH FOR BLOGSPOT TRANSLATOR

Over the last few days I`ve noticed that an increasing number of page views of this blog originate from Russia.  Yesterday there were close on one thousand.  This is puzzling.  Is a certain V. Putin putting his watch dogs on the blog?  Does it pose a threat to the Kremlin?  How can the occasional rants by a somewhat cynical perhaps confused capitalist with libertarian leanings and memories of a council house upbringing attract such observers?  Maybe this is just a flash in the proverbial pan and my Russian readers will find somewhere else to augment their English language lessons.  I say hurrah for blogspot translator.

MANDATORY CUSTODY FOR COMMON ASSAULT ON ULSTER POLICE

The Police Federation of Northern Ireland is a unique organisation in the U.K.  Its members are permanently armed and 18 years after the Good Friday Agreement still face threats rare in the rest of the country. Whilst the degree of misconduct amongst PSNI is probably no better or worse than on the mainland inquiries into shootings resulting in death seem rare.  Assault on police  on the other hand are not  uncommon.  According to a FOI request "in the financial year 2014/2015 there were 2,866 assault offences where the victim was a police officer on duty."  The Police Federation of Northern Ireland is arguing that a custodial sentence should be mandatory for every offender convicted of an assault on their members.  Their request to Stormont makes clear that even those convicted of common assault where no harm occurs should suffer that mandatory jail sentence.  There cannot be a single J.P. or criminal lawyer who is unaware and/or has no experience of the most perfunctory "assault on P.C." being brought to court on the flimsiest of evidence.  The good burghers of Stormont should think carefully before acquiescing to this request.

NOTTINGHAM POLICE SHOULD BE HELD TO ACCOUNT

On July 14th I posted on Nottingham Constabulary`s zealous new approach to "hate" crime.  After all what better way is there for a police force to demonstrate its intentions and abilities to protect the citizens of "Robin Hood Country"  than grabbing hold and clinging on to the current policing bandwagon and making jingoistic sounds of catching outlaws emanate loud and clear from its press department?   Now, after one headline,  all the world can see the true ineptness, incompetence and simple bullying that lie just beneath the smooth exterior of its temporary chief constable who, in the coming days or weeks, will no doubt endeavour to justify her position whilst her boss who left last month gets a sun tan in Cyprus whilst policing that notoriously crime ridden area known as the British Sovereign Base Area, Akrotiri and Dhekelia.  

A 16 year old pupil living within the compass of Notts Police was wrongly accused of bullying, dragged from her classroom and imprisoned in cells at Mansfield police station and refused contact with her parents who travelled to that venue to see their daughter.  I won`t re-state the events as the episode is reported here in sufficient detail for any dispassionate observer to conclude that the behaviour of said police force was nothing short of disgraceful and a flagrant abuse of power. 

This courageous girl has waived her right to anonymity so that her case can be be discussed in the public domain. The question is how many other cases of arrogant and possible unlawful police behaviour in Nottingham and elsewhere remain secret?

LATERAL THINKING FOR THE JUSTICE SECRETARY

I have no doubt that Michael Gove`s dismissal from his post at Justice is viewed with disappointment by many, including this observer, notwithstanding the short lived Shakespearean history that preceded it.  It is to be hoped that his successor will lend her mind to the truly awful state of our prisons.  

Custodial sentences are of course the result of sentencing policies signed into law by parliament.  When magistrates` courts were empowered to impose custody suspended that disposal became increasingly common.  In 2005 about 6,000 offenders were subjected to suspended custody orders in the courts of England and Wales.  By 2015 that number had risen to over 49,000.  No figures are available for disposals subsequent to breaches of such orders. Thus sentencers at magistrates` courts in some matters have a choice whether or not to fine offenders, impose community service orders, to impose immediate custody or custody suspended (SSO) or a combination. In the case of this man the disposal was a SSO. There is no mention in the report of any previous convictions but it is inferred his driving record was clear. The fact that immediate custody was not the disposal indicates that the bench did not consider that that final resort was in his interests or that of society.  However, let us assume  indeed that the offence was a one off.  The almost maximum hours of community service imposed will in actual fact be unlikely to provide any useful benefit to his community and the hours finally employed will be much fewer than the 280 imposed owing to various bureaucratic obstacles.  Apart from his disqualification from driving his liberty and freedom of movement  have been unaffected.  Some might consider that is appropriate.  I do not.  There should be a provision for part time and/or weekend loss of liberty commensurate with the offence.  Of course that would entail the availability of accommodation suitable for purpose.  It surely is time that the outdated attitudes to sentencing at present can be replaced by innovative projects without succumbing  to Howard League and its "no prison sentences under 12 months" policy.  I suppose lateral thinking or its modern term, "thinking out of the box" would be required.  I await the new Lord Chancellor`s initiation into the job and hope that she`s not relying on the hyperbole of her press office to see her over the line.

HIGH HURDLES FOR J.P.s` BEHAVIOUR

I am now a retired magistrate on the supplemental list.  Contrary to my non use whilst active, since my retirement I have used the J.P. suffix but very occasionally on my letterhead when I have considered it appropriate so to do for personal or business reasons.  Having survived the potential wrath of the powers that be for six years as a blogger I was surprised to note that a fellow J.P.  retiree   on the same supplemental list has been sacked. Being a  not infrequent reader of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office website I cannot recollect any previous case similar. With scant information available detailed comment is impossible but it does demonstrate that even for old codgers there is a point at which actions or behaviour become unacceptable to the authorities.  Having had some letters published in The Times using the J.P. suffix as an indication of interest in the legal matter under discussion I note also the reprimand handed out to an active magistrate whose apparent failure to self censor or sub edit her letter to a national newspaper has put her in judicial hot water. My third and last comment on recent activities of the JCIO concerns a J.P.  who used the suffix when making a character reference for a party to court proceedings. This case is particularly poignant for me personally.  One of my closest and most scrupulous former colleagues, a barrister,  was removed from the magistracy for a similar act.  A supporting statement for an individual involved in legal proceedings has only as much significance as the personal, intellectual, social and/or moral standing of the supporter. The now forgotten terms of passport application attested to this.  It is my humble opinion that such an action which has caused this J.P. to be found guilty of misconduct is perfectly legitimate within reasonable caveats and is undeserving of the permanent debasement of his magisterial character. 

For many years I have considered that magistrates who are part time unpaid junior members of the judiciary are required to jump  tougher behavioural  hurdles than judicial civil service   employees.  These latest statements reinforce that opinion.

TOO MANY CHIEFS OR NOT ENOUGH INDIANS?

On 25th July 2013, shortly before my previous host site was taken down, I commented on the numbers of serving police officers in England and Wales and the ratios of how the various ranks were proportioned.



4.86 constables/sergeant
3.26 sergeants/inspector
3.49 inspectors/chief inspector
2.2 chief inspectors/superintendent
2.24 superintendents/chief superintendent
1.82 chief superintendents/ACPO rank



I have no knowledge of the internal workings or management of large organisations but it does seem that the police are top heavy at the higher ranks of chief inspector and above.

Current figures are for 2015:-

Thus the ratio of ranks is now:-



5.17 constables/sergeant
3.36 sergeants/inspector
3.44 inspectors/chief inspector
2.02 chief inspectors/superintendent
2.43 superintendents/chief superintendent
1.68 chief superintendents/ACPO rank

Are there too many chiefs and too few indians? The numbers above indicate a constable:ACPO rank of 493.78. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable than I can comment on the significance of these numbers?