Dear Mr Chris Hobbs,
I was googling myself recently (something I very rarely do, oh no by jove) and on the first page there was link to your article "Armed Police Off Our Streets? posted on 28 May this year.
The article was highly readable and most thought-provoking but I'm bound to say I was a bit stung by your robust criticism of my Guardian letter of 20 May, which I was surprised you described as "inflammatory." Since most of the stuff I write is dull to a fault I went back to the letter to see if I had perhaps overdone it.
(By the way, my long term collaborator and fellow veteran barrister Anthony Heaton-Armstrong was co-signatory to the letter but for some reason the letters editor missed his name off the original email in which the letter was sent. The first on-line version also missed it but they amended it on 21 May to include him as second author.
Anyway, looking at my letter I'd have to take issue with you about your description. I was merely seeking to show that Neil Basu - but more particularly and surprisingly the silk who advised him (whose identity I believe I know; he's a friend of mine) - had misconstrued the legal rights of firearms officers vis a vis their position when questioned. Firearms officers may not like to hear it, but if questioned under caution as suspects they don't have an absolute right to confer with anyone during the interview process, except obviously a lawyer. On the other hand, if not under arrest they could hardly be restrained from communicating during the interview with a colleague by mobile phone say. The point is that if it were thought that any attempt to confer might impede justice the investigators would have the preventive power of arrest. I can't imagine you'd disagree with that proposition, which is after all trite law.
Again, an officer who was questioned as a witness and who it was believed had relevant information about the incident in question but who was refusing to co-operate unless he or she could confer would be liable to arrest and prosecution for obstructing a constable in the execution of duty. Again, I can't imagine you'd disagree: it's trite law. It's entirely understandable that firearms officers - who, as you correctly say, frequently put their lives and certainly their sanity on the line - do not like this state of affairs. One can well sympathise with them that handing in their certificates may be their only option.
The nub of the letter of course is that since the Met Police commissioned Portsmouth research indicates that there is no evidential benefit from conferring and conferring provides an opportunity for concoction, opposition to the proposed IPPC ban is unwarranted. Neil Basu can't have it both ways. As a Met Police Commander I would argue that he's bound by research commissioned by and not disavowed by the Met chiefs (though we don't believe they were all that chuffed by it)..
However, you rightly (if I may say so) pose the question whether the Portsmouth research is in fact all-embracing and conclusive in every situation. It wasn't clear from your article whether you had read the research.I assume not, as you say that it would be interesting to learn exactly how the research team reached their conclusion. If you go to the online version of our letter, the papers are cited with their links. Well worth a visit.
The academics Hope and Gabbert, who have long provided research for the police nationally, would I think concede that their findings on conferring are counter-intuitive. It may be of interest to you that until they produced their somewhat surprising results I was strongly of the opinion that cross-cueing, as "pooling recollection" in police-speak, is technically known, was potentially an important and valuable aide memoire and, provided it was properly monitored through for example audio or even video recording, was an eminently acceptable practice. In this I had long taken issue with Anthony who was against it, which was a bit awkward considering we have been writing on this topic together for nearly 30 years! It was only the Hope/Gabbert findings which won me over. But I'm bound to say I still have my doubts.
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.