Opinion poll that ‘backed stop and search powers’ had no option to oppose them

The UK Home Office has been accused of using “unreliable” data to back up its claim that “most” of the public is supportive of new suspicionless stop and search powers.

A report published today by the Runnymede Trust, a race equality and civil rights charity, rubbished the Home Office’s claim that 77% of responses to its public consultation on so-called ‘serious violence reduction orders’ (SVROs) were supportive.

SVROs are new orders introduced under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 that give police discretionary power to stop and search specific people at any time, in any public place, without the need for ‘reasonable suspicion’.

Following a public consultation in 2020, the Home Office claimed it had “listened to the voice of the public” and that 549 responses showed the “majority” of the public backed introducing the new orders.

But Runnymede’s report points out respondents weren’t given any option to oppose new policing powers altogether. Their only options were to back new policing powers, or to back the amendment of one of four different sets of old policing powers. The group also says the sample size was “relatively small”.

The five options were “yes”, “no, section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should be amended”, “no, section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 should be amended”, “no, criminal behaviour orders should be amended” or “no, knife crime prevention orders should be amended”.

Shabna Begum, interim co-CEO of the Runnymede Trust, said the question was “framed in a way to seek approval and confirmation rather than offer genuine opportunity to choose an alternative”.

“This follows an extremely concerning pattern of the government using polls to manufacture public support for policing policies, using questioning which is often misleading and relies on assumptions about the efficacy and credibility of these policies, when the evidence overwhelmingly shows they do not work and are in fact extremely harmful and discriminator,” she told openDemocracy.

Begum said it was particularly alarming at a time when public support for the police was “at an all time low”.

Holly Bird, policy and research officer at the police monitoring group StopWatch, told openDemocracy that “at best, the government has taken some creative liberties in their interpretation of the SVRO consultation responses – at worst, their portrayal of public opinion on SVROs is dishonest and manipulative”.

Bird said the government’s claim to have “listened to the voice of the public” was “ridiculous” based on such a small sample size.

Runnymede’s report found that while online respondents were limited to choosing closed option answers, people who contributed to the consultation by email appeared to show much stronger opposition because they were able to provide answers outside of the multiple choice options.

The orders, currently being piloted in Merseyside, Thames Valley, West Midlands, and Sussex, have been heavily condemned by police monitoring and civil rights groups.

Runnymede’s report warned that “in new and concerning ways, SVROs will enhance the powers of the gangs matrix and joint enterprise”. Under the rule of joint enterprise, a person can be jointly charged with the crime of another if they are socially connected. A thousand young people, disproportionately Black, were sent to prison under this doctrine in a ten-year period. It has also resulted in bystanders or people involved in minor offences facing charges of murder or manslaughter because they were believed to be socially connected to others. The Metropolitan Police gangs matrix was a list of suspected gang members that disproportionately targeted Black men, and was a year ago found to be unlawful after a legal challenge by Liberty and UNJUST.

Experts warned that SVROs are likely to go in the same direction as the previous powers, relying on “little more than a set of racist stereotypes”. Under SVROs, a person who is with someone in possession of a blade, or who was present when an offence was committed using a knife, will also be issued with an order if it is found that the individual knew, or ought to have known, about the crime.

John Pegram, a member of Bristol Copwatch, also expressed concern that SVROs could “potentially lean heavily like other powers do towards racist discrimination. In particular, towards young Black men and people of colour”.

‘Severely anxious, frustrated and mentally unwell’

As a mixed-raced man who has been stopped over 50 times by police officers in his life, Pegram emphasised the trauma caused by racial profiling and continuous interaction with the police.

Runnymede’s evaluation of evidence and data surrounding the newly introduced SVROs backed this up, and found “statistically significant relationships between uses of police stop powers and a range of detrimental health and mental health outcomes, including anxiety, self-harm and increased suicide attempts among searched individuals”.

Bird said: “As the proposed legislation stands, it is far too easy for courts to grant an SVRO against an individual – even someone who has never carried or used an offensive weapon can be made subject to these invasive and punitive orders.

“As SVROs give police officers free licence to harass anyone subject to an SVRO on an unlimited and discretionary basis, it is likely that certain individuals and groups will be repeatedly targeted, fuelling distrust between police and communities, and causing significant mental, emotional, and possibly physical damage to individuals subject to an SVRO. We are particularly concerned about the effects of SVROs on already over-policed and over-criminalised groups, especially young Black men.”

Marley, a music producer, rapper, public speaker and youth outreach worker from east London who was interviewed for the study, said he was only in his 20s but had already been stopped and searched over 100 times by police. This, he said, has left him “severely anxious, frustrated and mentally unwell”.

“It makes you feel belittled,”he said, “especially when you’ve got an officer that you don’t even know and he just treats you like shite… It makes you feel anxious, it makes you feel like you fall into a headspace [where] you’re fighting a world by yourself.”

He added: “I’ve got to take extra precaution, with my body language, with my mannerisms, so there won’t be any bias against me… Really and truly I should be able to go out and just live my life.”

While the government claims that SVROs are being introduced to reduce levels of knife crime, Bird said: “It’s clear to us that emboldening the police through the creation of new powers is not the way to tackle the important social issues that people care about. Rather, the introduction of SVROs and other powers is a tired political gesture with the aim of demonstrating the government’s ‘tough on crime’ credentials.

“If the government really cared about addressing real social issues and keeping people safe, they would explore the kinds of community-based solutions that have been proven to work, including investment in housing, healthcare, and other social services.”

Kevin Blowe, campaigns coordinator at Netpol, echoed this: “SVROs are a knee-jerk reaction to media headlines rather than a solution to society’s problems and will weaken already limited safeguards against routine police harassment.”