Annual Report 2005
Contents
Chapter I:
Standing Committee P, the watchdog providing an overall view of the police
system
Introduction
The organic law of 18 July 1991 on monitoring police forces and
intelligence services and on the Coordinating Body for Threat Analysis [i] introduced specifically external monitoring
of the police by an independent and neutral body: Standing Committee P.
In particular, Standing Committee P monitors the way in which efficiency,
effectiveness and coordination are achieved and the way in which fundamental
rights and freedoms are respected during police work. It tries to carry out its
missions in an objective and transparent way that benefits both the authorities
and citizens. Its area of responsibility covers all police forces, judicial
police officers and personnel as well as any other individuals responsible for
investigating and recording crime.
Over recent years, with the police and security situation in a constant state of change, Committee P has faced new challenges, resulting both from the steady rise in the number of questions and complaints received from citizens and police officials and from the increase in the number of missions entrusted to it by the authorities. In view of this, Committee P has taken a number of initiatives to further enhance its efficiency and effectiveness.
For example, the beginning of 2005 saw a shake-up of the existing strategic planning procedure to bring it into line with the expectations of Parliament and the public. The mission statement and strategic objectives underlying Committee P’s new approach were reassessed for the next three years and enshrined in the 2005-08 Strategic Plan. Committee P has thus organised all of its activities in such a way as to obtain an exhaustive, ongoing and up-to-date image of the police and their work. The whole way the Committee operates should contribute to this watchdog role. The revised mission statement and the strategic objectives are now centred around four main components: (1) the watchdog role, (2) handling complaints, (3) judicial inquiries and (4) internal operation (see diagram below).
(1) As regards
the Committee’s watchdog role, the strategic objectives consist of
optimising the police watchdog which performs ongoing monitoring and
assessment of the situation, development and impact of police operations by:
(1) revising and redirecting the process of beeldvorming (i.e. gaining an overall picture) in terms of
methodology and input, (2) introducing an improved monitoring cycle for
inspection inquiries whilst moving towards greater involvement of the relevant
authorities, (3) improving the
quality and regularity of the external reporting process and (4) improving
follow-up of recommendations in order to contribute more effectively to
necessary changes within particular forces.
(2) As regards handling complaints,
the strategic objective is to continue to develop and optimise the handling
of complaints relating to police work within the framework of the watchdog’s beeldvorming. This means:
(1) giving priority attention to complaints regarding structural problems
associated with efficiency, effectiveness and the failure to respect individual
rights and freedoms, (2) helping to safeguard and, if necessary, improve
complaint handling and processing procedures within the police and
(3) trying to enhance the input flow of information concerning the outcome
of complaints handled by the police.
(3) As regards judicial inquiries, the strategic objective is to focus
priority attention on conducting judicial inquiries in areas that generate
useful information for the Committee’s watchdog role and require particular
expertise or are of a sensitive nature.
(4) Finally, as regards internal
operation, the objective is to
ensure a constantly high-performing organisation geared towards excellence in a
positive working atmosphere.
Diagram: Key components of the mission statement
[Translation of terms in diagram above: External information, WATCHDOG, INSPECTION INQUIRIES, ANALYSIS, Internal operation, EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION, democratic, community-oriented, honest, POLICE, Judicial inquiries, Complaint handling]
With the agreement of its parliamentary support committee, Committee P decided to return to the original idea of an annual report covering the period corresponding to the parliamentary year and to be submitted on the first day of ordinary session of the Chamber of Representatives and the Senate. The report on which this summary is based also covers aspects relating to the last part of the 2005-06 parliamentary year, based on the progress of Committee P’s various inquiries, analyses and activities. For most analyses, a summary is given of the state-of-play in June 2006, as far as this is known.
Committee P submitted its 2005 annual activity report to Parliament in early October 2006. The report was approved by Committee P’s special support committee within the Chamber and can be viewed on the Committee P website: www.comitep.be.
Relations with international human rights monitoring bodies
Committee P’s mission to protect the fundamental rights of citizens in the context of police work makes it an important Belgian partner for international human rights bodies, notably the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT), the Human Rights Committee, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) [ii] .
The diversity of information currently possessed by the Committee and the expertise in assessing failings in the police system which it has built up over the past 10 years in its capacity as a global police watchdog make it a reliable source of knowledge and of some use to the international bodies responsible for monitoring respect for human rights.
The main inspection inquiries in this area which Committee P launched or continued in 2005 and 2006 relate to the following issues in particular: (1) racism, discrimination and diversity, (2) holding cells and incarceration in police cells, (3) incidents in custody and (4) human trafficking and prostitution. The findings of the latter three inquiries have been used in study documents on each of these issues, published by Committee P.
In 2005 and 2006, Committee P was asked by the departments of Justice and Home Affairs and of Foreign Affairs to contribute to various periodic reports, including: (1) the periodic report submitted by Belgium to the United Nations Committee against Torture in accordance with Article 19 of the International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and (2) the periodic report submitted by Belgium to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in accordance with Article 9 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Committee P received a visit from the CPT delegation in
April 2005 as part of its work to monitor the treatment received by
individuals deprived of liberty by the police. This was the CPT’s fourth
periodic visit to
In February 2006, the Department of Justice asked Committee P to help respond to a request from the Council of Europe Secretary General for information on Belgium’s system for monitoring deprivations of liberty not recognised by officials of another state. The request was made to the State Parties of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as part of work by the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to compile a report on the alleged existence of secret detention centres in Council of Europe member states in the context of a report on detentions by the United States in Guantanamo Bay.
Committee P is continuing its work on several fronts to ensure better respect for citizens’ rights and freedoms in the context of police work. To achieve this, it works closely with the authorities and police forces but also strives for optimum and transparent partnership with international monitoring bodies by supplying high-quality information and opinions and exchanging points of view.
Coordinating Body for Threat Analysis
Committee P had the chance to voice its opinion concerning the
government initiative to set up a Coordinating Body for Threat Analysis (OCAM/OCAD)
in the wake of the threat analysis bill. The Committee noted that a number of
the bill’s provisions would impact on the way it operated. In addition, a
number of amendments were made to the organic law of 18 July 1991, under which
the remits of Committees P and I were radically expanded to cover a whole new
area, namely the joint monitoring of a special body for tackling terrorism and extremism.
In view of this, Committee P felt it necessary to submit a number of
comments to its parliamentary support committee and through it to Parliament.
Its observations focused largely on the following aspects: the fact that
Committees P and I were be jointly responsible for monitoring a body headed by
a member of the judiciary; the fact that the Chamber and Senate would have no
right of initiative to order an inquiry on OCAM/OCAD; the problem of the repeated
allocation of new tasks to Committee P and I without corresponding additional
funding; and finally the fact that the Investigation Department would have no
right of initiative for taking action in relation to OCAM/OCAD.
Regrettably, however, most of Committee P’s observations were not taken into
account.
Nonetheless, in collaboration with Committee I Committee P will do all it can to ensure that Parliament’s wishes are carried out as effectively as possible with the existing monitoring tools. It goes without saying, however, that the quality of the monitoring will be directly proportional to OCAM/OCAD’s willingness to cooperate. Committee P therefore calls on the future director and deputy director of OCAM/OCAD to establish a dialogue with the two committees in a spirit of constructiveness and cooperation. This can only benefit all the institutions concerned.
New powers for Committee P in respect of private security
The law of 10 April 1990 governing private security, as amended by the programme law of 27 December 2004, assigned a number of new powers to Committee P in respect of monitoring security services and officers who work for a publicly-owned public transport company.
Good communication with the public is vital when subcontracting to private partners tasks previously performed by the regular police services as part of their monopoly, particularly when it involves breaking the latter’s monopoly on the use of force. Clearly the public must be informed of the difference between the police on the one hand and security services and firms on the other, as well as of their respective powers.
Care must be taken not to create confusion among the public by the use of uniforms and vehicles that are difficult to tell apart from those of the regular police (cf. Article 8 of the law of 10 April 1990 governing private security). As regards the use of handcuffs and defence sprays, care must also be taken to ensure that the quantitative conditions for use and monitoring of use are the same as those imposed on the regular police.
Uncooperative attitudes to inquiries and monitoring within the police
Transparency and accountability are among the core police values instituted by Parliament in
1998 and apply to community policing, intelligence led policing, integrated
operation and support. In practice, however,
Following the recent publication of the Police Code of Ethics, we feel than an
urgent change is needed, particularly on these key issues, in the culture and
values of the police force as a whole, with regard to internal and external
monitoring, both national and international.
According to some authors, the approach taken in police work towards the
‘external’, i.e. anything ‘perceived as a threat’, any type of external
inspection or monitoring, is characterised - in different respects, at
different levels and to differing degrees - by silence, secrecy and solidarity.
Thus, on more than one occasion Committee P has noted not only traditional
shortcomings, such as the failure to pass on legally required information
(either on time or at all), but also delaying tactics extending to the very
highest levels of authority, betokening in some cases an indifferent or
careless - if not disdainful - attitude towards external monitoring.
Cases of direct, confrontational opposition have been rare, but not
non-existent, not to mention the silences in response to legitimate queries or
questions from Committee P or its members.
As regards police ethics, therefore, the challenge is not limited to
changing certain rules and implementing the Police Code of Ethics in the
immediate term; it is also about changing police culture and ensuring
compliance with the new values clearly imposed by Parliament, particularly in
respect of accountability and
transparency.
There is also a need to move beyond what are too often purely defensive
attitudes to build a new police structure that is both democratic and
accountable, so as to further enhance its effectiveness and the public’s
confidence in the police.
Inspection and follow-up inquiries
The global, integrated monitoring performed by Committee P is based largely around the three main areas of concern set out in the organic law of 18 July 1991 on monitoring police forces and intelligence services, namely protecting the human rights guaranteed individuals under the Constitution and the law and coordinating the efficiency/effectiveness of the police as defined under Article 3 of the organic law of 18 July 1991.
Inspection inquiries can be divided up into four major categories based on
the nature and scope of the monitoring and the aims of the inquiry. Thus
inquiries may relate to: (1) human rights protection and police efficiency/effectiveness, (2) police
coordination and efficiency/effectiveness and (3) the efficiency of
individual police forces. The fourth category comprises: (4) inquiries
that are not directly or sufficiently clearly related to any of the previous
three categories.
In addition, these various inquiries may be either specifically thematic
inquiries or follow-up inquiries focusing on an organisation and the way it
operates (global/integrated or specific), with a view to the implementation of,
amongst others, the law of 5 August 1992 on policing and the law of
7 December 1998 creating a two-tier, integrated police service, or
alternatively, over and above these, of the New Municipal Law, the Code of
Criminal Procedure or other specific legislation or regulation governing or
attributing a police power and thus impacting on police practice. The latter
type of inquiry is essentially based on inspection inquiries (in the strict
sense), audits or pre-audits, quick
scans, follow-up inquiries or inspection/monitoring of internal
monitoring with respect to global, integrated monitoring activities, etc.
Between 1 January 2005 and 30 June 2006, Committee P managed or conducted 90 inspection inquiries (in the strict sense) of which 26 were launched during that period. Some inquiries were launched at its own initiative, usually as a follow-up to analysis of other data resulting from a complaint or series of complaints, etc., some at the request of Parliament or of administrative or judicial police authorities.
Holding cells and confinements in police offices
As in previous years, visits were made to the holding cells of a number
of police stations in 2005 and early 2006 by Committee P’s
commissioner-auditors and the standard check
list completed for each inspection. Cells at 31 stations in Flanders, 22
in Wallonia and seven in
The virtually uninterrupted inspection of cell complexes by Committee P since 1997 has led many corps commanders to overhaul their facilities, update their internal guidelines and impress upon their personnel the importance of respecting individuals’ basic rights when under arrest. However, a number of problems continue to arise, in some cases repeatedly.
As has many times been stressed, deprivation of liberty is an extreme
measure which should only be applied in those cases specifically defined under
the law. It is up to the police command structure – at every level – to ensure
that any arrests made, whether administrative or judicial, meet the criteria of
legality and appropriateness. Monitoring of judicial police officers and
administrative police officers is not conducted in the same way or with the
same thoroughness across the board.
Although such cases are marginal, there are still instances of police officials
depriving an individual of his or her liberty with the deliberate intention of
inflicting an immediate punishment for wrongful behaviour, on the assumption
that the individual in question will probably escape subsequent punishment by
the judicial authorities (who are alone entitled to take such action).
Deprivation of liberty is therefore seen as a means of exerting pressure, a
coercive measure or a sort of premature sentence.
Nor is it rare for police officials to deprive an individual of his or her
liberty simply for insulting a police officer. Such offences may warrant an
official report and subsequent punishment but do not in themselves
automatically justify judicial arrest. In other words, individuals are too
often placed in cells without the public prosecutor’s office being informed,
and the senior judicial or administrative police officer, if informed (either
straight away or subsequently) of the incarceration, will not always put an end
to it.
Likewise, in cases of public drunkenness, the practice of systematically
incarcerating intoxicated individuals in municipal jails is unwarranted, unless
they are felt - following a medical examination, where appropriate - to
represent a danger for themselves or others.
Despite the progress made in this area, Committee P feels that
there are still a number of points requiring clarification by the authorities.
These relate in particular to: cell infrastructure and facilities and the
relative comfort to which individuals under arrest are entitled (access to a
clean WC, clean blankets, a meal, etc.), supervision and the need to check
in person on the state of arrested individuals (presence of an alarm system,
inspection rounds, video surveillance of cells, etc.), calling in a doctor and
covering the costs of medical intervention.
Without prejudice to the different working groups currently looking into the issue, and in the absence of any real initiative from federal officials, clear and precise guidelines must be circulated in every police zone so that everybody is aware of the procedures to be followed.
Body searches and police arrests
A number of cases handled by Committee P in recent years have
revealed the habits of some police personnel during body searches performed in
accordance with the law on policing.
In the case of most complaints on this subject examined by the Committee, it
was not possible to substantiate the allegations. Nonetheless, whether proven
or otherwise, certain types of behaviour crop up more frequently than others in
complaints. An inventory of such inappropriate behaviour and the ‘abnormal’
circumstances in which some body searches take place should help to focus the
attention of the relevant authorities on certain aspects of the problem, with a
view to drawing up a code of conduct for the future.
Over recent years, Committee P has noted a number of areas for improvement, as well as certain failings and abuses during body searches and/or arrests, by both the administrative and judicial police. It therefore decided to launch an inquiry to determine, amongst other things, the causes and circumstances surrounding these abuses and shortcomings. One of the phases of this inquiry involved examining the lesson materials used in police academies and the memos and guidelines issued in a number of police zones and within the federal police. A knowledge test was then carried out among trainee police inspectors nearing the end of their academy training and among trainee police commissioners.
This inquiry confirms comments made in our previous two annual reports regarding knowledge, assimilation and application of the law on policing. It reinforces our desire to take a closer look at the training given to trainee police officers and to police officers themselves, in both core subjects and more specialised areas. When the exercise was repeated in 2005, the results were better but they also demonstrated the need for further efforts from all partners involved in the training process.
The issue of training is eliciting special attention and interest from
both officials of the integrated police service and the relevant authorities,
and Committee P has taken part in some fruitful discussions on the issue.
Committee P believes that a regulatory measure on the various norms and
standards on training should be introduced as soon as possible. It would be
advisable for training and lessons to be monitored by a component of the
integrated police service and inspected relatively regularly by an independent
body such as the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police, for
example.
Refoulements and repatriations
An inspection inquiry into repatriations has been under way since 2003-04. The investigative tasks of Investigation Department P in this area are relatively limited. It should also be noted that the Home Affairs Minister specifically assigned the task of monitoring repatriation to the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police (AIG). Each year, the AIG produces an ad hoc report on the issue for the Home Affairs Minister.
In 2005, no incident or shortcoming was recorded
during attempted removals by LPA/BRUNAT (Brussels Airport police). Recorded
complaints were up slightly on 2004 but in absolute terms the number remained
relatively low, even negligible, compared with the total number of attempted
removals.
Despite the absence of recorded shortcomings in 2005, LPA/BRUNAT
has adopted a raft of organisational measures, in particular: (1) better
management of the luggage and possessions of individuals being removed,
(2) the introduction of ‘quick
release’ restraint devices and (3) optimised cooperation with
SNBA and the Immigration Service (OE/DVZ).
In 2005, as in previous years, we can conclude that LPA/BRUNAT handled removals in a professional manner. It has also made attempts to anticipate implementation of the Vermeersch Commission II’s conclusions; it has always avoided individual blunders and has taken the necessary organisational measures to optimise the efficiency and effectiveness of the removals policy. To support the initiatives taken by LPA/BRUNAT, FPS Home Affairs should officially inform the federal police of the Vermeersch Commission II recommendations taken into account and of their implementation.
Application of MFO-1
A one-off judicial inquiry conducted in 2002 by Committee P’s Investigation Department following the escape of a prisoner during transfer revealed shortcomings in the use, recording and exchange of prisoner-related information: as a result, it was impossible to assess how dangerous the prisoner was or how great the risk of escape. Committee P decided to launch a broader inquiry into the matter with a view to improving information flow, in accordance with ministerial circular MFO-1. This will enhance the safety of the police and prison personnel responsible for the transfer of prisoners and reduce the risk of escape during transfer.
The inquiry, which took place in two phases between late 2002 and November 2005, confirmed that a number of partners were involved in the information flow concerned, in particular: the local police zones, the district information hub (CIA/AIK), the prisons, the administrative coordinating directors (DirCo’s) and judicial directors (DirJu’s) and the federal police directorates (DGA/DAO-DGS/DSB-DST). Based on its observations regarding each of the partners, Committee P has reached the significant conclusion that threat assessment in 2005 is often too limited to the local level: what is still lacking is a joint threat assessment using information from the federal police, the police zones and the Directorate-General for the Enforcement of Sentences and Measures. This is illustrated by the fact that: (1) local detectives and federal judicial investigators are not particularly aware of the threat issue, since they are only partially involved in transfers; (2) the information in SIDIS (the computerised detention system) is of little use for operational police purposes; (3) there is no agreement regarding the most suitable place to encode information on escape risk in the national database (BNG/ANG); (4) the so-called ‘long memo’ form, which is useful and very widely used at local level, is not included in individuals’ prison records or kept on computer at the Directorate-General for the Enforcement of Sentences and Measures; (5) ‘IGO’ forms (containing details of any anomalies concerning prisoners and their means of escape) are only used internally within the prison system and are not passed on to the police.
Coming back to MFO-1, which prescribes a comprehensive approach, Committee P believes that - as well as (repeatedly) highlighting the importance of the above-mentioned factors, for the police and prison administration alike - a supralocal management system, currently lacking, is vital. As part of this, a single computerised consultation platform must be set up in the medium term, in which all partners can contribute relevant information. In the meantime, the Directorate-General for the Enforcement of Sentences and Measures and the relevant directorates-general of the federal police need to consult regarding the transmission of the above-mentioned forms and their storage for operational use. Committee P will monitor progress in all these areas and report back on the situation in two years’ time.
Interaction between bailiffs and the police
Committee P has undertaken an initial general analysis of
collaboration between bailiffs and the police.
A number of problem areas emerged. In particular, these included the following:
It would seem that, despite the statutory provisions on the subject, the scope
of the police’s remit for assisting bailiffs remains unclear, particularly with
respect to physical intervention. The problems revolve around preventive action
versus capacity planning, the
scope of the physical intervention, whether or not to sign bailiffs’ documents,
intervention relating to custody of children, the (limited) possibilities when
it comes to providing bailiffs with information and dealing with bailiffs’
writs deposited at police offices. The following is of note: an analysis of
complaints reveals that a police official playing an active role while
accompanying a bailiff creates confusion in the mind of the citizen; payment
via the bailiff is felt to run counter to prevailing rules of professional
conduct, and the police view the task of assisting bailiffs as a chore.
Based on the idea that assisting bailiffs can benefit community
policing, Committee P feels that a) it would be advisable to hold a
broader discussion in order to situate this task within the police system
(performed by a neighbourhood constable? specialists? intervention teams?) and
b) the task needs to be dealt with in a structured way during training.
Payment via the bailiff should be scrapped. Initiatives to conclude district
protocol agreements between the various players involved should be imitated.
Checks on travellers in establishments providing accommodation
In connection with its inquiry on international police collaboration, Committee P was informed of the fact that the legal provision regarding checks on travellers staying in establishments providing accommodation were not being systematically and uniformly complied with in all police zones. The Committee therefore decided, in June 2005, to launch an inspection inquiry into the matter, and sent a questionnaire to all corps commanders in the country’s 196 police zones asking them how their force carried out checks on travellers. Where checks were not carried out or had been discontinued, they were asked to give the reason(s).
Of the 196 police zones questioned, 178 (90.81%) replied within the deadline. 124 heads of zone – around 70% of those that replied – said that they regularly checked registration forms. However, the procedure is not systematic in all areas and the way checks are performed varies from zone to zone. A total of 54 corps commanders – around 30% of those that replied – said that they never (or no longer) check traveller registration forms. The reasons given were many and varied.
Our attention was drawn to an exchange of letters between the Minister
of Justice and the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Local Policing. The
Minister of Justice said there was a need to modernise the law of
17 December 1963 and its implementing decree to incorporate the
possibilities available in the computer age. This could involve the
accommodation manager registering travellers electronically and transmitting
the data electronically to the police force responsible for the checks. Since
the local police is directly involved in applying this legislation, the
Minister of Justice consulted the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Local
Policing to find out what he felt about amending the legislation in this way.
The view of the Standing Committee on Local Policing is that the question
should be whether or not to keep the legislation, which in practice the police
no longer apply or are unable to apply. That said, if it was decided to keep the
registration requirement, the Standing Committee thinks that the modernisation
should take the form of a digital registration by the accommodation managers
combined with automatic checks in the BNG/ANG.
Committee P deems that the current legal framework offers police
forces a safe, discreet and effective way of checking travellers, with a view
to both preventive and repressive action. Although the inspection inquiry
highlighted a number of difficulties in the practical application of the
legislation on traveller checks and, above all, an insufficiently uniform and
systematic approach within Belgium’s different local police zones, this does
not detract from the fact that traveller checks are a clear legal obligation.
Any amendment to the legislation should therefore be examined in advance in the
light of the principles set out in Article 45 of the Convention
implementing the Schengen Agreement, as ratified by the law of 18 March 1993, namely the obligation on hoteliers to register
travellers and police checks in this area. Consequently, there can be no
discussion at national level of whether or not to keep this mechanism, which some consider outdated.
Information gathered
from the State Parties to the Convention
implementing the Schengen Agreement shows that, although traveller registration
within the Schengen area seems to be carried out regularly in most of the
countries questioned, police checks on traveller registration forms are not
conducted uniformly or systematically, usually due to lack of time and
resources.
In this general context, Committee P feels that it might be useful to
launch a discussion on this issue within the EU ad hoc working group responsible for implementation and
follow-up of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement and at the same time to look for
joint practical solutions.
Controlling prostitution and tackling human trafficking
In 2005 Committee P took another look at police monitoring of prostitution and human trafficking in the Brussels Capital Region. This subject is of interest not only to Committee P but also to the authorities. By means of interviews and other processes, the Committee was able to update its overall picture of these phenomena.
In terms of the overall picture, the human trafficking division was found to recognise the importance of training as part of a phenomenon-oriented approach. Thus, at a meeting with police training centre officials in 2005, it offered to incorporate a ‘victims of human trafficking’ module into the basic training, as part of the unit on ‘dealing with victims’. Worth noting in this context is that since the entry into force of the law of 10 August 2005 any person, including any Belgian or EU citizen legally resident in Belgium, may be classed as a ‘victim of human trafficking’. In addition, the human trafficking division is already taking part in a number of existing training initiatives on human trafficking.
As regards the approaches taken to the phenomena, where a distinction
should be made between managing local prostitution and tackling human
trafficking, Committee P recommends, in the light of circular
COL 10/2004 from the Board of Public Prosecutors, that the liaison
magistrate at the public prosecutor’s office of first instance should invite to
his two- or three-monthly consultation on tackling prostitution and human
trafficking not only the players mentioned in COL 10/2004 but also any
individuals and services which he believes may make a useful contribution to
the relevant investigations and legal proceedings. Committee P is thinking
in particular of the Immigration Service (OE/DVZ) and the Special Tax
Inspectorate.
In addition, Committee P recommends that the above-mentioned circular,
which views the prostitute as a victim, be strictly complied with, where its
implementation – by means of checks, for example – would result in an accurate
logging of information in the CIA/AIK. This would not always appear to be the
case at present. In its actions the police must strive for a balance between
measures to tackle human smuggling and protecting the human rights of victims.
As much evidence as possible should be collected, especially as this may help
to flesh out our overall understanding of the phenomenon of human trafficking.
This is vital for developing a strategy on prevention, proactive action,
repression and aftercare.
Human smuggling
In March 2004, Committee P questioned the federal public prosecutor’s office, Eurojust and Europol on their expectations regarding the approach to human smuggling and the degree to which the Belgian police were meeting them. This was followed in early January 2006 by a brief follow-up inquiry in the form of interviews with a number of key witnesses. The aim was to gauge the progress on various initiatives and to assess the use of technical resources, as well as the coordination, collection, processing, analysis and dissemination of information.
The findings of the follow-up inquiry were very positive concerning the police’s contribution to the fight against human smuggling, with the federal public prosecutor’s office, Europol and Eurojust very satisfied with the situation. All the police players involved were found to be developing well thought-out, ongoing and integrated initiatives to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of the approach to human smuggling. Consequently, Committee P - which has produced a study document containing a detailed overview of its inspection inquiries on the police’s approach to human smuggling, human trafficking and prostitution - has now concluded its work on this issue for the time being.
The fact that - as Europe is very much aware - human smuggling is a cross-border phenomenon that moves relatively freely from one country to another and one form to another (trends towards fake marriages, forged papers, etc.), Committee P insists on the importance of ongoing investment to tackle the phenomenon and ensuring that sufficient resources are made available to investigate new phenomena (mainly related to individuals residing in Belgium illegally). This is especially true today, when tackling human smuggling inevitably and increasingly involves cooperating with neighbouring countries.
Central Technical Interception Facility
Two judicial inquiries conducted by the Investigation Department in 2004, one arising out of the other, and relating to Article 314a(1) of the Criminal Code (CP/Sw.), brought to light a number of anomalies regarding the management of administrative data on telephone tapping and/or observations, not only among telephone operators but also at the Central Technical Interception Facility (CTIF). Committee P conducted an inspection inquiry to determine the causes of these anomalies. In 2005, the Committee expanded the inquiry and continued its work at the federal police CTIF.
Committee P locates the shortcomings at four levels, namely:
(1) the federal police CTIF, (2) the telephone operators involved in
the case, (3) the legislation and (4) monitoring of the way tapping
legislation is implemented. Committee P believes that, at least outside a
judicial framework, there is currently inadequate monitoring of telephone case
files at the federal police CTIF and of the files kept by telephone operators.
Give the major democratic and financial stakes associated with organising a
telephone tapping or observation, some kind of monitoring is urgently needed.
In this context, Committee P does not think it desirable for the time
being to make the CTIF check all invoices issued by telephone operators for
tasks carried out on behalf of FPS Justice. The Committee seriously questions the
legality of the ministerial circular on legal costs in telephone-related cases,
which assigns this task to the CTIF.
The new computerised database TANK, an administrative tool designed to provide, in a few moments, an overall real-time picture of all active measures (interceptions and observations) under way in Belgium, could also be put to good use here. One current disadvantage of this database is that, because it contains no operational results from the observations or interceptions conducted, it is not possible to link the information it contains to the data possessed by the different telephone operators.
Improper or suspect consultation of databases
Committee P is particularly concerned to tackle the flouting of rules by police officials. One example of this is the improper consultation of databases, for instance by looking up information on individuals - relatives, friends or otherwise - for reasons unrelated to the official’s work. Committee P investigated two related cases on this issue in 2005.
The investigation pointed clearly towards a flouting of rules on the use of IT applications available to police officials. In a substantial proportion of the cases investigated, no justification could be given for checks on the private individuals concerned in police or external databases; in many cases, databases seemed to have be used improperly for private reasons.
In light of this observation, Committee P recommends supplementing the existing legislation with a specific provision outlawing imposer use of the information available to the police.
In addition, the Committee emphatically reiterates its previous
recommendation to make it compulsory to fill in the ‘reason for consultation’
field in the portal. Besides acting as a preventive, this would make it
impossible for individuals suspected of improper database use to claim that
they have forgotten the reason for the consultation.
All this does not obviate the necessity for general training in this area:
personnel must be made aware of the need to respect the privacy of both
citizens and colleagues. Managerial staff must carry out regular checks on
database use rather than limiting their role to the formal procedures for
adding to the BNG/ANG.
Discrimination within the police
Over the years Committee P has endeavoured to monitor problems of discrimination, intolerance, racism and xenophobia within the police and among police officials. It made another concerted effort on the issue in 2005. In particular, it examined the follow-up to the diversity action plan and its associated projects (e.g. setting up a diversity network and developing forms of external cooperation, including with universities) in regular consultation with the federal police’s Equal Opportunities Unit.
The Committee found that the action plan had been further developed in many areas and had undergone constant changes, based - amongst other things - on a more realistic implementation schedule. Committee P is not opposed to such changes, provided the original targets remain the ultimate aim and an integrated approach is maintained. Worth noting here is the fact that funding the planned actions can be problematic due to a sometimes insufficient budget. Pilot project managers should once again describe how the impact of the action plan is being measured. Meanwhile, the Directorate-General for Personnel’s Internal Relations Department (DGP/DPI) should produce a document containing more detailed descriptions of actions that have been delayed or postponed. In the interests of clarity, as regards staff management etc., it is recommended that the plan be presented in an integrated way by the Directorate-General for Personnel.
Amongst other things, the possible need to continue with pre-entry training will be assessed. Financing for this training from the Fund for the Promotion of Immigrant Policy may be stopped. In this framework, the operation of the diversity network – now well on course, with its members chosen and its communication tools being gradually introduced – may be assessed.
Local and central arms registers
Committee P notes that the central arms register, responsibility for which was transferred to the federal police in 2001, has lacked the capacity to carry out all its missions ever since it was set up.
A follow-up inquiry into the storage of arms and ammunition in the
police zones showed that a large number of police weapons may not be logged in
the central arms register.
In Committee P’s opinion, regular inspections are urgently required, both
by superior officers and by the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local
Police.
Interpolice crime statistics
As part of its work on crime statistics, Committee P in 2005 compiled a review of the current situation with regard to the interpolice crime statistics, an area of justifiable interest to Committee P’s parliamentary support committee. This updated previous follow-ups from 2003 and 2004.
Through interviews with the director-general of the Directorate-General for Operational Support (DGS) and the director of the national database (BNG/ANG), amongst other means, the following issues were examined, in order to elucidate the situation regarding the compilation of crime statistics: (1) overall and general developments as regards entering data into the BNG/ANG; (2) initiatives to improve the compilation of crime statistics: these fall mainly within the 2004-07 national security plan and relate to the strategic topic on the management of operational information and common telematics within the integrated police service; (3) the circumstances in which crime statistics are compiled: this involved examining whether they are usable in a policing context and whether they meet the police’s needs; and (4) practical implementation of the measures contained in the national security plan, more particularly those aimed at setting up a quality management system for operational and statistical information. It should be noted that a number of initiatives previously launched by the Directorate of the National Database (DSB) as part of the information quality management system were found to have ended, either because the situation had improved or for other practical reasons.
As things stand, we can assume that the integrated police service in 2005 has reliable figures for five successive years (from 2000 to 2004). As a result, trends within types of crime can now be detected and reported and we can put an end to the constantly recurring argument about simplistic comparisons between two - potentially atypical - reference years (the two most recent). Committee P believes that simply noting a difference between two figures which in themselves do not constitute reliable data is meaningless. The aim should rather be to identify real trends without explaining them: a neutral operation, provided it is underpinned by reliable statistics.
Despite this positive development, a warning needs to be sounded. Taking into account the inevitably limited nature of the information contained in the recorded crime figures, a more systematic and regular approach is needed when it comes to estimating the number of unrecorded incidents for some of the most relevant types of crime in Belgium, a factor that must be borne in mind when considering the published figures.
Astrid
In 2003 the Astrid inspection inquiry was launched with the aim of "monitoring and evaluating the operation of the ASTRID communication system for use by the police and, by extension, the security services in general. This monitoring leads on from the inspection inquiry into the handling of calls to the emergency number 101". In concrete terms, its aim is to reveal the benefits of the Astrid communication project and when and how the system can be optimised. The evaluation should focus on better coordination between police forces and more effective and efficient policing.
2005 saw visible progress on implementing the Astrid project within the integrated police service: the players involved appear to be realising the indisputable benefits of the system, in terms of both radio resources (safety, reliability, discussion groups) and of the CIC and CAD communication and dispatching centres (support, coordination, follow-up, policy tool).
Nonetheless, in overall terms it must be said that implementation proper
is still quite slow in spite of various statements of intention by the police,
statutory initiatives (help with costs, neutral call-takers, secondments, etc.) and cooperation between ASTRID,
the company responsible for the system, and the federal police. It is also true
that the system is still far from running at maximum capacity, all the more so
as bottlenecks in the system continue to occur on an almost daily basis.
Consequently, it is not yet possible to say when the full Astrid system - which
will undoubtedly contribute to more efficient policing - will be up and
running.
That said, there has been progress: all the information and communication
centres (CICs) were operational by the end of 2005 (some only partially) and
many ways of improving the system have already been identified. Furthermore,
all the partners involved in the Astrid project are willing to help iron out
the problem areas. The very costly nature of the project makes continual
monitoring of all partners all the more necessary, so that more efficient and
effective integrated policing can be achieved and maintained.
Initial reaction to the "2005-08 zonal security plans" report (CGL)
Committee P has received the federal police’s statistical report on the 2005-08 zonal security plans, produced by the Directorate for Relations with the Local Police (CGL). In it, the CGL analyses the zonal security plans with respect to methodology, strategy, organisation and deployment, the latter covering two topics: zone agreements and capacity.
In 2005, Committee P examined the report in the context of its own mission statement, as set out under Article 1 of the organic law of 18 July 1991, and identified the relevant issues (with respect to democracy within the police, police integrity and community policing). It then indicated a number of areas where further work could be undertaken on these issues in the future.
Railway police
In June 2004 Committee P analysed the complaints it had received concerning the service provided by the federal railway police (SPC). As these were numerous, the Committee decided to launch a comprehensive inquiry into the operation of the railway police, encouraged by the willingness of the SPC’s head to examine the operational problems of his division, especially the work climate and atmosphere.
Committee P’s analysis resulted in a report examining the way in which the SPC carries out its tasks, how it organises its dealings with partners, infrastructure and logistics, HR management and private security on public transport. In addition, a list was compiled detailing areas where improvements would lead to better policing. Some were operational factors, others related to personnel or infrastructure and logistics.
SPC management was found to be aware of the problems charted by Committee P. Initially, it would like to analyse the situation and attempt to remedy the most acute problems. Anything else will depend on whether or not additional skilled personnel are made available. Committee P will monitor progress between 2006 and 2009.
Road police (WPR)
In 2002 Committee P decided to conduct an inspection inquiry into the operation of the road police’s provincial traffic units. More specifically, the aim was to assess the impact of current traffic unit staffing levels, infrastructure and equipment on road safety in general and in particular within the operational scope of the division and its staff.
Based on site visits and interviews with traffic unit staff, the conclusion was reached that major efforts have been made over recent years to optimise safety equipment, bridge staff shortages and modernise the car fleet. However, further investigation and/or follow-up was felt to be necessary and Committee P will continue its work in this area in 2006-07.
Use of dogs by the police
Committee P has dealt with a number of cases relating either to the use of dogs by the police or the way in which some dog units within both the local and federal police allegedly operate. The Committee therefore decided to launch a thematic inquiry on the issue.
The inquiry revealed that canine support has undergone radical reform in recent years. This has involved much more than simply adjusting to the new police structures. The Directorate-General for Operational Support and the Canine Support Unit set up a working group, not simply to undertake a comprehensive structural review but also in a bid to standardise training and practices and to introduce common working principles. The reform is thus also intended as a move towards greater professionalism, with the Canine Support Unit now developing a policy geared towards quality and partnerships.
The Canine Support Unit must undoubtedly continue down this path and further concretise its measures by introducing (already planned) changes as part of a cycle for managing implemented strategies. The shortage of trainers must be remedied, failing which the quality of police academy training will suffer. To help with this, attachés could be recruited at the academies or trainer pools created for these institutions. Also, the use of dogs within units created as part of the management of public areas through dialogue must be approved.
Action by special units
Committee P has analysed a number of cases relating to special units. These comprise the services of the federal police Special Units Directorate (DSU) and those local police services that are referred to or considered as such.
In 2005, Committee P recorded a total of 10 complaints relating to such services, seven inspection inquiries and three judicial. The complaints related to police actions during ‘intensive’ house searches or special arrests on the public highway. The six cases regarding ‘intensive’ searches were investigated in an inspection capacity: three involved the police entering the wrong address. Of the four arrest-related cases, three were judicial inquiries and one an inspection inquiry.
Following investigation, four of the complaints proved unfounded. Three were substantiated and three others are still being investigated. Two of the three substantiated complaints related to ‘intensive’ house searches, where the investigation department had provided the wrong address.
Committee P considers that too few complaints regarding special
units were made in 2005 to draw any significant general conclusions.
Nonetheless, since one of the cases analysed involved the arrest of the wrong
individual and three related to police entering the wrong address, very careful
monitoring of the deployment of special units is required.
Also, in such a sensitive area care must be taken to prevent local police corps
from making injudicious use (often as a
result of inadequate selection and training) of techniques, methods (or
types of methods) and/or evidence associated with special units.
Storage of firearms and amunition on police premises
In an inspection inquiry conducted in late 2002 and 2003, a number of
cases pointed to problems regarding the storage of firearms and ammunition on
police premises: on occasions, these involved theft or misuse of police arms.
Committee P therefore decided, as an initial step, to examine how local
police corps are accountable for the way they store and safeguard their
firearms and ammunition and to conduct a series of preliminary checks at local
police level. In connection with this, Committee P deemed it expedient and
necessary to extend the investigation to cover some federal police units.
Accordingly, in late 2005 the (decentralised) federal police, or divisions
thereof, were questioned in order to obtain a general idea of the arrangements
taken to prevent the misuse of the arms assigned to them under the law. At the
same time follow-up visits were made to a number of local police zones to
ascertain how the situation had changed in the meantime.
As regards the federal police, it was found that the commissioner had issued standard, clear and consistent guidelines on firearm management. However, in most locations visited these were not adhered to. It also emerged that not all personnel were aware of the existence of these guidelines and there was no evidence that compliance with the guidelines was systematically checked. Further, a major safety/security risk was detected in a number a number of specific locations where arms are still being stored in office furniture or clothing lockers. This is an unacceptable practice.
The conclusion, therefore, is that the federal units visited are in the same situation as the local police zones were in 2003. Due attention must be paid to this issue (not the case hitherto) and investments made in safe and secure storage cabinets. It is also unacceptable that not all firearms are logged in the central arms register. These are, after all, compulsory requirements.
The local police, meanwhile, was found to be making up lost ground. In
the past few years most zones have introduced standard regulations, invested in
individual weapon cabinets or incorporated these elements into a newly built
police station.
That said, a periodic check has revealed that internal regulations are often
not complied with.
The AIG has been assigned to work on the issue.
From police auxiliary to police agent
In recent years, Committee P has more than once examined the powers of ‘police auxiliaries’ and their deployment in the field. Problems identified have included the lack of consistency between the legal provisions governing the statutory framework of auxiliaries and the failure of some corps to comply with the requirements regarding the proportion of auxiliaries in the workforce. Police auxiliaries have sometimes been misled regarding certain types of powers or have assigned powers to themselves.
The law of 1 April 2006 on police agents, their powers and
working conditions reflects the government’s desire to extend the role of
police auxiliaries thus freeing up officials with police powers to concentrate
on what is often termed ‘real police work’. The term ‘agent’, as used below,
refers to those individuals known as ‘(police) auxiliaries’ prior to the
aforementioned law.
These extended powers in no way affect the distinction under Article 117
of the law on the integrated police service between ‘officials with police
powers’ on the one hand and ‘(auxiliary) police agents’ with limited police
powers on the other. Under the new
wording of Article 58 of the law on the integrated police force, the powers of
the latter would be essentially limited to: (1) the provisions of the
policing law of 5 August 1992, which henceforth apply to them; (2) the
powers assigned to them in the fields of road traffic policing and monitoring
compliance with municipal bylaws; (3) recording road traffic accidents and
their consequences and drafting official accident reports;
(4) performing ID checks on individuals who have committed an offence.
Besides the amendments to the law of 16 March 1968 on road traffic policing, the law of 18 February 1969 on measures for the implementation of international treaties and instruments relating to transport by road, railway and waterway and the law of 7 December 1998 on the integrated police service, auxiliaries’ powers were extended by: (1) making a number of provisions of the law on policing applicable to police auxiliaries, notably Articles 7 (on operational management), 25 (on the allocation of administrative tasks) and 45 (on the geographical extent of powers); and (2) specifying the nature and conditions of auxiliaries’ work in a new subsection comprising new articles 44/12 to 44/17.
The fact that ‘police agents’ are not classed as ‘officials with police
powers’ but do fall within the police framework remains a complicating factor
and does little to aid understanding. In the past, Committee P has been
somewhat sceptical about the need to expand the powers of ‘police agents’
beyond road traffic and local bylaws. Now that these powers have actually been
expanded by law, the discussion no longer seems relevant.
Back in 1995, Committee P noted the confusing nature of the regulations
governing police auxiliaries’ working conditions. Much progress has since been
made. The legislation, particularly that regarding road traffic and municipal
bylaws, leave no doubt as to the ratione
materiae powers of police agents.
That said, some areas remain unclear or, at the very least, changes that
we would have liked to see applied in the field have not been implemented. For
instance, police agents apparently no longer have the power to record
violations of provincial bylaws; they are no longer required to present ID and
are no longer bound by Article 44/1 of the law on policing concerning the
collection, handling and forwarding of information and data. A regulation on
fitting handcuffs would also have been desirable given current supervision and
detention powers, which can give rise to the use of handcuffs.
In this respect, Committee P believes that a set of general rules is
required within the law on policing, aimed at the operational framework in its
entirety.
As regards traffic policing, Article 29(2) of the law of 16 March 1968
on road traffic policing has been
amended so that police agents can record decriminalised parking incidents,
until a date set by the King. This means that police auxiliaries for the first
time have fiscal powers (application of a payment or tax relating to
decriminalised parking), which is to say the least unorthodox.
This is only an interim measure and we hope to see it replaced as quickly as
possible.
Naturally, such incident reports do not have the same probative force as is
provided for under Article 62 of the law on road traffic policing.
It is important to remember that the powers of police agents are
limited.
This means that past observations made by Committee P that too many zones
tolerated patent violations linked to police auxiliaries’ (now police agents’)
powers and even incorporated them into their corps’ operational procedures are
still relevant, although such violations have become much less flagrant.
This situation not only generates legal uncertainty with regard to the public
but also requires increased awareness by members of the command structure, who
must realise that they may be at least partly liable for any damage or other
consequences resulting from the actions of agents acting outside their powers.
In some cases, the overstepping of powers may theoretically result in the agent
or his or her superior being prosecuted.
As has been stressed by the former Standing Committee on Local Policing
and also, on more than one occasion, by Committee P, greater powers for
police agents must be accompanied by additional training, in-service training
and/or changes to recruitment criteria. Failure to implement this would
prejudice the quality of community policing, some aspects of which are or will be
performed by police agents.
The obvious question here is to what extent these additional training
investments are justified given the ever smaller difference between agents and
police constables. It is not difficult to imagine these changes resulting in a
grey area (even greyer than at present) within which the powers of police
agents will be overstepped, either by individuals or by corps.
Secondary activities
Given the challenges involved with the revision of the regulations governing police officials’ working conditions, as well as the lack of interest in the secondary activities undertaken by some police officials, Committee P deems it necessary to return to this issue once again.
Standing Committee P wanted to understand how police forces apply the
principles contained in the provisions on secondary activities undertaken by
personnel of the integrated police service. To this end, it questioned all the
local police zone chiefs together with the federal police commissioner in a bid
to identify all the dispensations granted and the types of activities
authorised by the competent authorities.
From the answers received, it was not possible to ascertain the scale or scope
of the phenomenon. However, what did emerge was the fact that the law and
ministerial guidelines are sometimes interpreted in diametrically opposite ways
by the local police authorities and the federal police commissioner, the
commissioner taking a stricter approach to the awarding of dispensations.
Dispensations were granted by local authorities in the north, centre and south
of the country – usually following a favourable recommendation by corps
commanders – for secondary occupations which, in Committee P’s view, could
compromise police interests.
Undertaking certain lucrative secondary activities could, in the long run, detract from the individual’s main job and create a confusion of roles in the mind of the public. Indeed, this problem is mentioned in the Police Code of Ethics. Committee P believes, for example, that a police officer who also works as a waiter and is therefore liable to receive tips on top of his wages will not be able to behave towards his ‘customers’ with the required impartiality when discharging his duties as a police officer.
Committee P re-questioned chiefs of zones where such secondary activities had been authorised. The chiefs replied that the local authority alone was empowered to grant dispensations and that they could only give a recommendation, which was not necessarily followed. Although the number of police personnel granted dispensations for secondary activities seems relatively limited, some police officers have outside jobs without the knowledge of their superiors, which is against the law. The number of such unreported cases is likely to be significant.
Committee P once again calls on authorities and corps commanders to take a hard line on staff members who break the law and urges them only to issue favourable recommendations on dispensation requests if the secondary activities fall within the categories listed in the ministerial guidelines. Finally, mayors and police boards should take a more cautious approach when ruling on dispensation requests and only award them if they are certain that the independence and impartiality of the personnel concerned will not be compromised.
Sponsoring members of the integrated police service’s operational framework
The sponsoring of police officers for non-work related activities is not a new phenomenon. Given the specific nature and scale of the issue, as well as the lack of interest shown in it by some officials and authorities, Committee P felt it appropriate to open a thematic inquiry, and subsequently a follow-up inquiry, on this subject.
Strictly speaking, Article 130 of the law of 7 December 1998 creating a two-tier integrated police service forbids such practices since paragraph two of the article stipulates that: "it is forbidden for staff members to solicit, demand or accept gifts, bonuses or benefits of any kind, either directly or through an intermediary, even outside the context of their duties but on account of said duties." There is no escaping the fact that not all corps commanders interpret this provision in the same way. Indeed, some believe that the article contradicts the philosophy of community policing which advocates greater police involvement in local activities.
For its part, Committee P feels that police officers who derive a personal interest from sponsoring, which enables them to undertake an individual activity, runs counter to the spirit of Article 130 of the above-mentioned law and also to professional ethics. By contrast, sponsoring for police officers belonging to a non-profit association, school committee, cultural group, etc. for activities organised by that association or group strikes the Committee as being perfectly acceptable, provided certain conditions are met.
Support persons
Under the law, support persons must be in place to deal with problems of harassment and violence at work. The federal police and most police zones have a support person and a risk prevention advisor but few police forces have undertaken a risk analysis concerning situations that could give rise to workplace violence or harassment. However, those risk analyses that have been carried out resulted in specific measures in 80% of cases within the federal police and in over 50% of cases in the local police.
Overall, such incidents are all on the increase; however, differing
trends have been observed depending on the type of incident and organisation.
Harassment has declined in the federal police but increased significantly in
the local police. The same is true of violence. However, the range of measures
being taken are likely to solve these problems, both in the immediate and long
terms, in accordance with the objectives of the Onkelinx Law.
That said, it is unfortunate that effective prevention policies do not yet
exist at all levels, the preference being to tackle cases as and when they
arise.
Further, to ensure that support persons can supply high-quality assistance for
all problems brought to their attention, there should be a move to create
informal exchange networks between local and federal level to develop the
professional capacity of support persons by exchanging experiences and good
practice.
Police websites
The aim of the analysis was to assess improvements to the different websites of the integrated two-tier police
service following our detailed report on the subject. The inquiry, which
initially focused on whether appeals for information posted on the Gendarmerie
and judicial police websites were accurate and up-to-date, was expanded to
include the integration of the various websites of the integrated police
service into a single police portal where information would be easily
accessible to the public with no unnecessary repetition.
In the light of the "Police websites" inquiry, whose findings were
published in Committee P’s 2004 activity report, the director of the
Directorate for the Operation and Coordination of the Federal Police (CGC) invited Committee P to attend the first plenary meeting of
the Management Committee and Functional Internet Platform on 26 September
2005, the purpose of which was to present the final draft of the operational
framework to those involved with the police’s Internet presence. With the new
police portal up and running, a meeting was held to outline the latest project
developments in complete transparency.
There is no doubt that the development and application of an operational
framework have greatly improved the federal police’s websites.
We have not seen the same level of progress on local police sites. However, it
must be said in the Standing Committee on Local Policing’s defence that
coordinating 196 police zones is a totally different scale of task from that
associated with the federal police forces and directorates-general. It should
also be remembered that many local police websites are linked to and managed by
municipal administrations over which the Standing Committee on Local Policing
has no real authority.
Nonetheless, the apparent rivalry on Internet-related matters between the
Standing Committee on Local Policing and the federal police is a cause for
regret.
Given the rather strained relations between the CGC and the Standing Committee
on Local Policing, the question of the management of the police.be and politie.be
domain names would appear to be still unresolved.
Public-private interaction
In recent years, the trend towards privatisation of certain public sector segments has also affected security policy. As a result, individuals with police powers may, as such, fall within the scope of Committee P as police watchdog. In principle, their operating methods are examined in the same way as those of the regular police, in the light of the Committee’s three core missions, namely to monitor a) the efficiency and effectiveness of the police, b) their coordination and c) respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Give the recent changes to the regulations on private security, in particular the awarding of special powers to public transport security officers, there is an urgent need to develop the conceptual framework within which the principles governing public-private sector relations will be defined. Considering the (potential for) controversy in this area, it is only sensible to establish a suitably solid theoretical foundation on which to proceed.
Security services are currently being set up within publicly owned public transport companies, notably the national rail company SNCB/NMBS and the Brussels transport company STIB/MIVB. Armed with observations made over the past few years on issues such as uniforms, accessories and vehicles (difficult to distinguish from those of the police, despite explicit outlawing of such confusion by the law on public and private security), Committee P will monitor their progressive introduction, focusing in particular on the way they interact and collaborate, not just with the police but also with the security sector in the strict sense of the term (B-Security, for example). It will also examine the use of force by these security services.
Global
and integrated monitoring of the police
Standing Committee P carries out its missions via different channels, including by investigating complaints and reports of police misconduct. Within the limits of the law of 18 July 1991 on monitoring police forces and intelligence services, Standing Committee P handles complaints and reports of police misconduct which it receives relating to the operation, behaviour, actions or failure to take action of the police and police personnel. It should be noted that the Committee is not an ombudsman and the idea behind its creation was not, in principle, to resolve the individual problems of complainants.
Standing Committee P’s aim is to promote the effective operation of a democratic, honest and community-oriented police service. In accordance with the law and the clearly expressed will of Parliament, Standing Committee P is not in principle or principally a complaints service and therefore its complaints policy is geared, within the limits of the law, to monitoring of the police, rather than to satisfying the requirements of individuals lodging complaints or reports of police misconduct. Hence, while Standing Committee P is deeply committed to collecting and recording complaints and reports of police misconduct, its focus at all times is on its core activities. In other words, the Committee does not investigate complaints or reports of misconduct which could clearly be investigated just as well, if not better, by another department with a better understanding of the circumstances of the case. This said, Standing Committee P does monitor all the complaint handling systems, vouchsafing the settlement of each and every complaint and overseeing the final outcome.
Committee P’s complaints policy is geared towards the efficiency of its own complaint handling system and that of the police. In addition, it aims to achieve a maximum output in terms of complaints analysis as part of its global and integrated watchdog role.
The aim of the complaint handling process is – within the limits of the law and the missions and powers of Standing Committee P, in particular its watchdog role – firstly, to monitor respect for fundamental rights and freedoms; secondly, to identify shortcomings in terms of coordination; thirdly, to monitor the effectiveness of the police; fourthly, to ensure that complaints not handled by Committee P are dealt with properly; and fifthly, to collect data for the purposes of overarching complaints analysis and reporting.
Because handling complaints and reports of misconduct brought against the police is not one of Standing Committee P’s core tasks, only one component of its role as a monitor of police efficiency, the emphasis is placed on speed and efficiency. This ensures that monitoring, the Committee’s core activity, remains the priority at all times. In accordance with this, Standing Committee P applies a general rule whereby all complaints and reports of police misconduct which it receives are recorded and then, in some cases, forwarded for further investigation to the most suitable department based on pre-established criteria. These criteria relate to the nature of the incident, the type of investigation, the identity of the complainant and police official(s) involved and the police service/force concerned. In general, complaint investigations are referred to the Committee’s own Investigation Department, in accordance with the principles of specialisation and subsidiarity.
Standing Committee P has produced a standard complaints form which is available at its reception desk and on its website www.comitep.be. This form will also be recommended as a temporary solution for use by the police.
The Committee has
decided to change the way it records complaints at its reception desk and to
scrap the duty office manned by members of its Investigation Department,
excepting as necessary in specific, clearly defined cases.
As a rule, individuals who come in person to the Committee’s headquarters to
lodge a complaint or report misconduct will no longer be received by members of
the Investigation Department. Complainants will not therefore systematically or
automatically be heard by a commissioner-auditor. Instead, they will be
informed at the reception of the different ways of filing a complaint against
the police and finding a solution to their grievance.
As per Article 14a(1) [iii] and (2) [iv] of the law of 18 July 1991, all complaints and reports of misconduct directly lodged with the police forces involved are brought to the attention of Standing Committee P, so that it can fulfil its supervisory function. In addition, information which the various authorities are required to supply to Standing Committee P under Article 14(1) [v] and (2) [vi] and Article 26 [vii] is also added to the database.
This information is entered in the same way as that from complaints and reports of misconduct lodged directly with Committee P. An internal working group is currently reviewing the procedure for handling and recording complaints and reports of misconduct in the light of a updated strategic plan.
The information received by Standing Committee P relates not just to
incidents and actions themselves but also to the subsequent appraisal thereof
by the police disciplinary authorities and the judicial authorities. As it is
not yet possible to combine all this information automatically via the
database, a certain amount of data has to be looked up manually. This is
sometimes hampered by the fact that different information reaches us at
different times. Here too work is under way, the aim being to allow an incident
to be tracked from a to z, from the time it is first reported through its
processing by the various authorities to the final outcome. This is important
in order, for example, to check whether or not a correctional ruling was
followed up by a disciplinary procedure. The same follow-up is useful for the
disciplinary aspect prior to correctional treatment.
It should be emphasised once again that
most complaints and reports of misconduct are allegations and it is therefore
wrong to assume that every complaint or report of misconduct included in our
statistics is legitimate.
The complaints and reports of misconduct, as well as the information
that corps and authorities are required to pass on, are necessary to allow
Standing Committee P to gain an idea of police operation in general or that of
a particular force or official. This information is supplemented by the
Committee’s own investigations and data exchange with inspection services such
as the General Inspectorate of the
Federal and Local Police and individual zone inspectorates.
Since information is not always reliable and/or has been subject to prior
interpretation, collecting as much data as possible is important in order to
minimise the effect of inaccurate and/or erroneous information.
In view of this, it is remarkable
that despite years of being urged to supply accurate information (even if it
means saying that there is nothing to report) some corps are still failing to
provide any information at all or are providing it late or in an incomplete
form.
Standing Committee P received information on disciplinary matters from
101 corps. 127 corps sent the Committee an information report in
accordance with Article 26; 155 corps supplied information on complaints
lodged with them (these corps and forces include the federal police).
As regards the judicial
authorities, Standing Committee P received information from every court of
appeal judical area. Interestingly, the judicial area of Liège handled far
fewer cases than the others.
In previous annual reports we have commented on the reporting and
compulsory supply of information by public prosecutors’ offices, as provided
for under the law.
On this issue, the parliamentary support committee remarks the following: "The support committees emphasise that
the principal task of Standing Committee P, a committee created by Parliament,
is to ensure that the police retains its place in our democratic system. In
this context, they insist that all authorities that are legally obliged to
provide the Committee with the information it needs to perform this task should
comply strictly with their obligations in this area."
One public prosecutor’s office failed to supply the Committee with any information at all. Regrettably,
Standing Committee P is still obliged to conclude that both the quality and
quantity of information transfer varies from one public prosecutor’s office to
another. Furthermore, information is generally supplied in response to an
express request or demand from Standing Committee P and not as a matter of
course, as required by the law of 18 July 1991.
The designation or description of
the allegations contained in the complaints and reports of misconduct takes no
account of the outcome of the subsequent investigation. Reports of misconduct
made in accordance with Article 14(1) and (2) ,
Article 14a(1) and (2) and Article 26 of the law of
18 July 1991 must initially be recorded using the original designation
and description. In other words, the allegations of incidents or actions are
described as initially reported. Naturally, a given complaint, case
or report may involve more than one incident, breach or shortcoming and the
allegations are put through a quality control.
They are then subjected to further investigation, either judicial or
non-judicial, during which the
information forming the subject of the report is also processed, irrespective
of the outcome of the investigation. If, for example, a judicial inquiry ends
in a case being dismissed, this does not mean that the information involved -
the circumstances forming the basis for the inquiry - cannot be assessed with
respect to the individual or organisation concerned, within the limits and scope
of Standing Committee P’s remit.
The facts as they emerge after the inquiry can be used to take decisions, such
as whether to impose disciplinary sanctions, undertake an assessment, express
congratulations, take internal measures, issue instructions, new or additional
guidelines, etc. unless a judgement or ruling is issued in the wake of a
judicial inquiry.
Complaints and reports of police misconduct in 2005 - figures
Analysis of the complaints and reports of police misconduct reveals
another marked rise in the number of complaints and information reports
relating to criminal acts. Meanwhile, the number of judicial inquiries
conducted by the Investigation Department rose slightly, in line with recent
trends.
As such increases have been observed over five successive years, a new analysis
and benchmarking are urgently needed.
The number of complaints has risen steadily by over 20%. In 2005, 2,221
complaints and reports of misconduct were lodged directly with Standing
Committee P. Marked rises were seen in the following categories: actions that
bring the police into disrepute, actions relating to neutrality, police failure
to take action, unfair treatment, actions during house checks, formalities in
traffic cases and management of own personnel.
Divided up into larger groups, the following types of complaint were significantly up on 2004: indefinable complaints, from 70 to 110; actions relating to the image of the police, from 19 to 29; complaints relating to neutrality, from 76 to 116; complaints relating to the failure to take action, from 81 to 102; unfair treatment, from 79 to 116; complaints for action during house checks, from 7 to 17; complaints regarding traffic-related assistance, from 17 to 58, and complaints relating to personnel management, from 8 to 15.
However, when considering the rise in the number of complaints it should be remembered that by no means all complaints were found to be legitimate or admissible. 272 complaints (12%) were outside the scope of Standing Committee P’s authority; in 10 cases the complainant was untraceable and in 47 cases the complaint had already been lodged with another department or body.
The number of judicial inquiries assigned to the Committee’s Investigation Department is still rising by an average of 4% per year. This rise can be explained by a number of major additional missions relating specifically to the judicial districts of Antwerp (10), Namur (12) and Nivelles (15 more inquiries than in 2004).
The number of information reports relating to a crime or offence committed by a member of the police (information that must be passed on under the terms of Article 26 of the law of 18 July 1991) rose sharply between 2002 and 2003, by almost 50%, indicating a greater willingness to report such behaviour. However, 2005 also saw a rise in this area, with figures up 13% on 2004, in spite of the drop in reports from some judicial districts such as Antwerp (-72), Ghent (-10), Bruges (-9) and Oudenaarde and Hasselt (-8). Rises were observed in the districts of Brussels (+145), Liège (+41), Dendermonde (+10) and Namur (+7).
Analysis of the number of reports by police officials against other police officials (Article 26) and the number of judicial inquiries by the Investigation Department for each judicial district shows that, whereas in 2004 Antwerp had the highest percentage (29.75%) of Article 26 reports as a proportion of the total number of reports of misconduct received, it was topped in 2005 by the Brussels district with 33.22%. The district of Liège accounted for a tenth of all reports of misconduct, up 4% on 2004, with the district of Mons representing 8.07%, unchanged from 2004. As regards judicial inquiries, almost half (49.74%) of inquiries conducted by the Investigation Department related once again to the district of Brussels. Although this is a drop of almost 3% compared with 2004, Brussels continues to take up a great deal (too much, indeed) of the Investigation Department’s capacity. Next after Brussels comes Antwerp, with 6.53% (up 2% on 2004), and Nivelles, with 6.17%, also up on 2004 (by 2.5%).
Although here too we must remember that not all reports of misconduct are substantiated and some double counting may occur, a recurring figure of over 1,200 reports of misconduct annually involving prosecutable offences should make the relevant authorities and officials pause for thought.
According to recorded figures, reports received by Standing Committee P on the basis of Article 14a(1) included 1,943 complaints from French speakers and 2,371 from Dutch speakers. Complaints filed directly with the police related to the following issues, in descending order of frequency: objectionable behaviour (148), failure to draft a report (136), aggressive attitude (129), error in carrying out duties (116), overstepping power (110), inaccurate reporting (102), lax or negative attitude when carrying out duties (97), failure to take action (87), actions that bring the police into disrepute (58), rudeness (61), failure to report (53), bias (43) and abuse of function (29).
The reports received by Standing Committee P on the basis of Article 14a(2) show that 514 disciplinary sanctions were recorded in the local police and 187 in the federal police. Most of the latter occurred in the General Reserve unit (DAR) (28), the Directorate of Transport Police (DAC) (32) and the federal judicial police (formerly the judicial service district) (44).
The bulk of disciplinary sanctions in 2005 related to the following misdemeanours: actions that bring that police into disrepute (33 while on duty, 46 while off duty); erroneous reporting of hours worked (36), mainly arriving late (27) and leaving early (38); errors in carrying out duties (57); consuming alcohol while on duty (58); lax or negative attitude when carrying out duties (27); integrity (19); availability and unauthorised absence (12 and 26 cases respectively); lateness in carrying out official requests and drafting official reports (21); refusal to obey orders (18); violence against people and property (18) and failure to discharge administrative formalities in the event of illness and absence (16).
What is striking in 2005 is that the incidents that crop up most often in complaints are not the ones for which most disciplinary action was taken. In disciplinary cases, the emphasis tends to be on violations with material consequences rather than on breaches of citizens’ rights.
The publication of the Police Code of Ethics may help to ensure that violations of other values receive more disciplinary attention.
2004 saw an improvement in the quality of the information forwarded by
some local police corps, and there is no obvious explanation why this trend did
not continue in 2005. Every corps is regularly informed (every six months) of
the information that Standing Committee P requires and regular feedback is
given on the results.
Corps are also required to send certain data to other bodies so there is no reason why they should not send a copy to
Standing Committee P or else inform it that the information is not available.
With the clear obligation to supply information in force for so many years
(10), pleading poor organisation or inadequate resources constitutes a serious
affront to reality. The figures must therefore be approached with a certain
amount of caution as the picture they paint reflects only three-quarters of the
police service. It should be noted that information from the federal police
reached Standing Committee P in full and on time.
The relationship between the number of offences and the number of
complaints remained stable over the period 2003-05 with an average of 1.6
offences per complaint.
This contrasts slightly with the recorded rise in offences (up once again, by
16%). Recorded offences in judicial inquiries fell, while the average number of
offences per inquiry was 1.
Offences constituting a serious violation
Falsification of official reports, statements and other documents: An initial observation is that
there is a marked downward trend in the area of judicial inquiries. This trend
is confirmed by the complaints received directly by Committee P. The issue
was already highlighted in the 2004 annual report, which informed readers that
the figures relating to falsification of official reports during judicial
inquiries did not tally with the other data, such as complaints.
The offences often relate to fraud linked to personal loans and insurance.
Increasingly common, too, is reporting the theft of a vehicle in order to
pocket the insurance premium. The police officials involved were sentenced by
the courts. A second series of offences involve false reporting of hours worked
or using fuel for private journeys. This usually also resulted in disciplinary
measures.
Finally, there is a third category of offences where on-duty police officials
are accused of taking down false statements in cases such as disputes between
neighbours, divorces or when providing assistance to bailiffs. A newer
phenomenon, but one already dealt with in previous annual reports, involves the
disputing of official reports by individuals who, when imprisoned, realise the
implications of their statements and file a complaint against the detectives
questioning them. All such complaints are thoroughly investigated but none of
the inquiries conducted in 2005 revealed any indication of falsehood.
Corruption: A slight rise was observed in the number of incidents classed as corruption. Most such offences relate to alleged contacts with the world of prostitution and trafficking in women. One allegation reported explicit links with the Russian mafia, five related to links with towing companies and the same number to police officials recording a particular place of residence or issuing ID. Corruption of a more personal nature involved undeclared labour, using clothing points to buy civilian attire and helping out friends involved in traffic offences.
Violence against individuals and property: In terms of figures, this category stands head and shoulders above the rest, with a rise recorded for the umpteenth year in a row. The only exception was for complaints lodged with the police, reflecting the fact that people see no point in complaining directly to the corps concerning the use of violence. Violence was allegedly used during incarceration in holding cells and police cells, arrests, incidents of domestic disputes and domestic and partner violence, when assisting bailiffs and during demonstrations and public order maintenance activities.
Racism: Overall, allegations of racism rose slightly due to the increase in the number of criminal investigations and complaints. In its 2005 annual report, the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism published a 10-year overview (1995-2005) of complaints by sector. In the police sector, the number of complaints has been falling since 1995: in 2005, complaints against the police formed 9% of the total, compared to over 17% in 1995. In its analysis, the Centre noted the following: "In the ‘police’ category, 46% of complaints relate to poor treatment or bullying. 17% of incidents occurred during police identity checks." In 10 of the racism-related cases submitted in 2005, the Committee decided that there was no concrete evidence or else insufficient grounds for grievance; in 13 cases, no error or shortcoming was detected; four cases were passed on for examination by the Investigation Department and two to the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police. 23 investigations were assigned to the internal inspectorate or internal watchdog of the corps concerned.
Misappropriation: Allegations of misappropriation were up overall, in particular with regard to judicial inquiries. This may well be partly to do with the Visa cards case in Antwerp, which is still fresh in the memory. In almost all cases, the circumstances surrounding the misappropriation related to the individual’s role as a police official: erasing data from the police IT system, failing to comply with official requests then covering them up, fraudulently issuing and pocketing traffic fines, attempting to obtain overtime, night work and other payments without being entitled to them and misappropriating police property. Regarding the latter offence, it should be noted that relatively few police personnel were ultimately proven to be guilty.
Arbitrary deprivation of liberty: The drop in allegations is due mainly to a decline in the number of complaints on this subject filed directly with Standing Committee P. Examination of the circumstances surrounding those deprivations of liberty resulting in a case file reveals that the most frequent situation involves the police depriving individuals of their liberty for a short or longer period of time following a traffic violation. Following analysis of the actual circumstances, we cannot escape the impression that deprivation of liberty is still too often being used as immediate punishment for an individual’s attitude towards the officer taking the report.
Use of a weapon: These cases relate not just to the use of firearms but also of pepper spray, telescopic truncheons and the possession of personal weapons. Fortunately, firearm incidents are rare and weapons control is generally good. However, the Committee remains concerned at the still frequent incidence of suicide by police officials using their own police weapon.
Breach of domicile: Most allegations in this area were made following house searches during which the police either targeted the wrong building or had not requested authorisation in the absence of a court order. There were also complaints following the breaching by an ex-partner (the policeman concerned) of an order not to enter a property. Another category of complaint concerned people who felt that police officials had gained access to their property in an inappropriate way.
Judgements and decisions issued against members of the police forces - Article 14(1)
The judicial authorities forwarded a total of 114 orders,
judgements and decisions involving legal rulings for criminal (and in some
cases civil) offences issued against 150 police officials and agents. Of
the 150 rulings, 11 orders were issued by an investigative court.
These were either procedural orders (referral to the sentencing court or
nonsuit) or a ruling on the merits of the case (deferral of sentencing or
internment).
The 139 judicial decisions issued by courts involved a prison sentence (in some
cases suspended or conditionally suspended), community service (in some cases
suspended or partially suspended) or a fine, a combination of the three, a
simple statement of guilt, deferral of sentencing or an acquittal.
Compared with 2004, when only 98 judicial decisions were forwarded, an
additional 52 decisions reached the Standing Committee P in 2005. This is a
significant increase. The Committee finds it very hard to explain this rise,
although self-evidently there can only be two main reasons: either more police
officials are being prosecuted and sentenced, or the judicial authorities are
complying more effectively with the obligation to forward information
prescribed by the law of 18 July 1991 on monitoring police forces and
intelligence services. Of course it may be - is most likely to be - a
combination of the two.
The observation made in Standing Committee
P’s last two annual reports that the data are not always reliable would appear
to still hold true, although this situation improves year on year, as testified
by the marked rise (of over 50%) in the number of judicial decisions forwarded.
This said, the figures for the judicial area of Liège do not (indeed cannot)
reflect reality, so no relevant conclusions can be drawn respecting that judicial
area. For a judicial area comprising nine districts, it is impossible that
only four decisions were issued. One order issued by examining magistrates
was forwarded from the district of Liège, and one police court judgement each
from the districts of Verviers and Arlon. From all the other districts in
the Liège judicial area, not a single decision had been forwarded by the day
counting took place.
Nor can we always be sure about the other districts. The fact that no judicial
decisions were apparently issued in either Turnhout or Hasselt, and only one
police court decision was forwarded from Leuven, justifies some doubt as to
the completeness of the figures forwarded.
In view of this, the Committee stresses once how absolutely vital it is that
it knows about all the judicial decisions issued, not just for the purposes
of its own work but also so that it can correctly inform Parliament and give
feedback to police forces and authorities. This information is also crucial
for gaining an understanding of the prosecution policies of the country’s
public prosecutors’ offices with respect to crimes committed by police officials.
Police authorities and police chiefs can then conform to this vision.
Standing Committee P intends to contact officials at the public prosecutor’s
office on this matter with a view to maximising the comprehensiveness of information.
Analysis of the figures reveals that police officials in the judicial areas of Ghent and Antwerp cannot expect much leniency when the facts of the case are proven, since only one acquittal was recorded for the two areas together. However, Committee P has the impression that this has more to do with the prosecution policy of the public prosecutor’s office than with courts’ assessment of cases. It would seem that the public prosecutors’ offices in the aforementioned judicial areas only prosecute a police official when they are almost 100% certain of success, i.e. in open-and-shut cases.
Also noteworthy is the high number of sentencing deferrals
awarded to police officials: 36 of the 139 sentences. This is a substantial
proportion: 26%, or one in four police officials.
When we compare this percentage with the normal percentage of sentencing
deferrals awarded to ‘ordinary citizens’, we can only conclude that police
officials seem to enjoy extremely favourable treatment. In 2003, 4.4% of
sentences were deferred; between 1994 and 2003, the average number of deferrals
as a percentage of all criminal sentences was 4.72%.
In our 2004 annual report we highlighted the great leniency shown towards police personnel who overstep the mark. At present, there are almost grounds for claiming that a ‘policy of tolerance’ exists towards the ‘bad eggs’ within the police force. An overly lenient approach not only sends out the wrong message to the police official concerned, i.e. that what he or she has done is "no big deal" but, more seriously, it sets the wrong example for other members of the police, especially the younger ones, who are led by experience to believe that even committing a crime is no serious matter. After all, sentencing deferrals (like community service or statements of guilt) mean almost complete impunity in all other areas and hence the sentenced police official carries on working in the police with very little fuss at all.
Importance of police status in determining sentences
Judgements handed down by the police court seldom, if ever, refer to the
individual’s status as a police official. By contrast, correctional court
judgements and court of appeal rulings almost always consider the defendant’s status
as a police official when sentencing. In the majority of cases, this works out
in the official’s favour and the argument of social rehabilitation is generally
used. However, even earlier on in the process, at the referral stage, we see
the same phenomenon at work in the investigative courts.
As we said in our previous annual report, judges sometimes refer to the
disciplinary sanction already imposed, or even, in many cases, to the
possibility of a future disciplinary measure (which does not always materialise,
quite the contrary), in order to justify their sentence.
However, there are also a few decisions, admittedly a minority, which Standing Committee P is much more inclined to support, in which the defendant’s status as a police official acts as an aggravating factor.
What we can say is that, whereas in the 2004 annual report there was still a certain balance between the positive and negative decisions, it is clear that police status now works very much in defendants’ favour when the subject of criminal proceedings, particularly as regards the final judgement.
Standing Committee P is extremely concerned about the no doubt
unintentional or unwitting policy of tolerance towards police officials who
commit crimes serious enough to be deemed worthy of prosecution by the public
prosecutor’s office or investigative court. No fewer than 120 police
officials received criminal sentences in 2005, up by almost 35% on 2004 (88
sentences) and by a sizeable 106% on 2003 (58 sentences).
Truly disturbing, in Committee P’s view, is the policy of tolerance which
some magistrates appear to be applying towards police officials who overstep
the mark. Further, we would note that in some cases the justifications for the
sentences imposed are rather brief or even non-existent.
Types of crimes committed by police officials
Misuse of police databases for personal ends: In our day-to-day handling of complaints, we are still seeing too many instances of police officials consulting police and non-police databases in contravention of the principles of legitimate and proportional use. A typical case is where, in the event of marital problems, a police official makes fraudulent use of his or her position and powers by consulting police or other databases in connection with purely private matters in which he/she or a close relative or friend (spouse, girlfriend, etc.) is involved. The main sources consulted are the National Register, the number plate register kept by the Vehicle Registration Service (DIV) and the National Database (BNG/ANG). Other cases involve searching the ISLP (Integrated System for the Local Police) for statements made by a particular party (against a police official or an acquaintance).
Abuse of the power to charge with an offence: Police officials who abuse their power to charge with an offence are unable to offer the necessary guarantees of integrity and reliability and as such have no place in the police service.
Traffic violations: Typical examples are alcohol intoxication and,
to a lesser extent, drink driving and fleeing the scene of an accident. It is
striking that very high alcohol levels are being recorded but that in the vast
majority of cases police judges do not take into special consideration the fact
that the defendant is a police official.
Decisions tending towards leniency cannot be endorsed. In general, police
officials do not receive harsher punishments from police courts than do
ordinary citizens. This in itself is a noteworthy fact, but given the
importance of driving in our society, the non-stop government drink driving
campaigns, the fact that the ordinary police devotes over 50% of its capacity
to traffic safety and enforcement and the fact that the police are themselves
responsible for traffic enforcement, one would expect a tougher line to be taken
against police officials who commit traffic offences (in particular, driving
while intoxicated, drunkenness, refusing to take a breathalyser or blood test,
being uninsured and fleeing the scene of an accident).
Nothing, however, could be further from the truth, so once again a policy of
tolerance is to some degree being operated.
Forgery in the form of false official reports: This offence crops up time and time
again. It would appear that some police officials cannot resist abusing their
police powers and status to write false official reports, usually for personal
reasons. It is clear that tough action needs to be taken to counter this.
One particular application relates to the tricky issue of ‘falsification’ of
official reports to protect the identity of informants. This question arose in
two decisions by two different correctional courts, and two diametrically
opposed approaches were adopted. Naturally, the desire to protect an informant
is a valid reason for not including all information in an official report.
However, in our view this can only be considered acceptable when applying the
special investigative methods (cf. Article 47c ff. of the C.I.Cr./Sv). Such a procedure is not to be compared
with a deliberate distortion of the truth, which goes further than simple
omitting certain details.
Sex offences: As a general remark, it is striking that some police officials not only commit serious offences but also continue to commit them over a period of time, as if they consider themselves in some way unassailable. It may be a good idea to include instruction on this issue in police training.
Language laws: An interesting case involved an emergency call which was not given the appropriate and expected response because of the police dispatcher’s refusal to speak French.
Use of violence: A still common offence, with incidents up 100% on last year (from 12 to 24 prosecutions), is that of assault and battery by the police, sometimes resulting in incapacity for work. A typical scenario is where a person who claims to be a victim (and has in some cases actually called the police) ends up being the victim of a heavy-handed police response. The judgements and decisions also reveal that much suffering and unnecessary violence could have been avoided by a more professional police response and, in particular, by better communication. In many cases, no explanation whatever is given during body searches or arrests, which quickly results in incomprehension and a - sometimes physical - escalation of the situation. Many problems could be avoided by a little more communication.
The (relative) harshness of sentences
We have already said that the ‘bad eggs’ within the police force (a
reasonable term, given that prosecuted police officials number 150 out of a
total of 38,000) are dealt with too leniently by the courts.
The 2004 annual report noted that judges took account of previous disciplinary
sanction in order to justify a more lenient criminal sentence. This continues
to be the case.
Additional structural observations
Old titles: The majority of judgements and decisions are still (cf. 2004 annual report) using the terms ‘gendarme’, ‘police officer’, etc., making it often impossible to ascertain the exact rank of the police official concerned. Even magistrates from the public prosecutor’s office continue, in their letters to Committee P, to refer to ‘gendarmerie sergeants’ and ‘deputy police commissioners’. Moreover, it is very often difficult to tell from the decisions or the accompanying letters from the public prosecutor’s office which police force the defendant belongs to.
Refusal to cooperate with the inquiry and failure to appear: Police officials sometimes consider it unnecessary to appear before the judge. This occurs regularly in police cases (traffic offences and standard offences such as public drunkenness) but occasionally also in correctional cases.
Sanction for patently false complaints: From time to time, in its analysis of legal decisions, Standing Committee P comes across instances of patently false complaints being filed for which a system of sanctions and/or redress ought to be developed to compensate police officials whose names have been unfairly dragged through the mud or who have been wrongly subjected to legal complaints of one kind or another. The procedures currently available to wrongly accused police officials are the familiar options of pressing charges (and in some cases bringing suit as a civil party before the examining magistrate) for slander and defamation or launching civil proceedings. However, these procedures are inefficient and, more importantly, usually take far too long. It may be worthwhile considering a legislative initiative.
The constraints of the ‘reasonable timeframe’: The acknowledged slowness of the judicial process takes a toll on the policy of prosecuting and sanctioning wrongdoing police officials, with far too much time passing between offences being committed and the final assessment or sentencing. The defence then invokes the ‘reasonable timeframe’ at the last minute, allowing the police officials in question to escape punishment. This is a most regrettable state of affairs.
Follow-up
of the responsible and transparent implementation of the laws of 7 December
1998, 5 August 1992 and other specific laws relating to police tasks and powers
Reception
The reception function of local police is one of the pillars of community-oriented policing. Since citizens’ first contact with the police is generally made in this way (either by telephone or in person), it has a direct bearing on the overall image of the police. However, there is no escaping the conclusion that many corps commanders tend to underestimate the stress involved in this type of work and may not be doing everything they can to facilitate it.
Committee P has highlighted a number of
‘problem situations’ that affect the public’s perception of the quality of the
work performed by the zonal police.
Thus, some police officials continue to adopt a working strategy according to
which a police zone primarily serves its own inhabitants, and it is not rare
for complainants to be referred to another police zone. More generally, there
is sometimes a problem of ‘real-time communication’ between response teams and
reception services: a citizen is ‘received’ by a working patrol only to be referred
- for a specific and probably justified reason - to a reception office. This
becomes problematic when it is done systematically and purely as a matter of
course. Similarly, Committee P regrets that some police officials simply
adopt a ‘next customer please’ approach: in a number of zones, citizens have
complained of a failure to prioritise and organise waiting times, so that
people wanting to find out a simple piece of information are kept waiting a
long time.
On another tack, virtual reception of customers (e-government) – not widely used when the new police structure was first introduced – has been developing rapidly in all police zones over the past few months and zones are opening up by creating their own websites that can be accessed around the clock. This, however, must not replace direct contact with the public.
To ensure a quality service, it would be a good idea for police zones to develop instruments or indicators for measuring the reception offered to the public. Police zones should also place more emphasis on reception processes in their zonal security plans, ensuring that adequate funding is made available in this area. Besides being made more accessible, police stations need to become reception facilities that look both safe/secure and welcoming. The location of police stations must be clearly indicated and alterations to infrastructure are needed in some places. Finally, reception personnel should be selected first and foremost according to a specific profile (voluntary work, innate ability to empathise with others, recognised professional knowledge, ability to analyse a situation objectively, familiarity with internal processes) but also based on special joint training or a rigorous psychological selection process. It is therefore vital that corps commanders prohibit stop-gap solutions, such as placing a member of staff on the reception desk because there is nothing else for him or her to do at the time.
Police support for the victims of crime
Victim support, like reception of the public, very often represents citizens’ first contact with the police.
Based on its inquiries and analyses, Committee P has identified the following problem situations: (1) the relationship between the supporting police officer and the judicial authorities; (2) the lack of interest shown in this task by some police officers when a specific victim support service exists; (3) the quality of reception in general; (4) the lack of specific guidelines in some key areas such as intrafamily violence and dealing with ‘marginal’ individuals in general; (5) the scope for action by the police officer responsible for victim support.
The following general conclusions can be drawn from the inquiries and analyses: (1) Minimum standards are being attained and cooperation agreements are being concluded in this area. Such measures must be encouraged where this is not the case. (2) More targeted regulations are needed for specific issues, in particular intrafamily violence. (3) The scope for action by police officers responsible for victim support and their relationship with the judicial authorities and other colleagues should be made clear. (4) Special training using case studies is most definitely needed.
Police intervention
Citizens usually
experience police intervention in stressful situations and at difficult times.
It is therefore vital for effective operation as well as for the image and
legitimacy of the police that the intervention takes place in the best possible
conditions, with police action being rapid, appropriate and in line with the
philosophy of community policing.
Emergency calls must be handled swiftly, coherently
and in a problem-solving spirit, and surveillance activities carried out
effectively. The criteria used for examining this issue include: response time
(dispatching time, arrival on the scene and the intervention proper); the
quality of the intervention; the completeness of the intervention (information
at outset, aftercare); the suitability of patrol locations; the (active)
guidance offered to citizens, visibility and accessibility.
From the point of view of the general public, the strengths of police intervention in Belgium generally seem to be: an easily reachable 101 service and relatively short arrival times, without too much ‘filtering’ of call-outs. The weaknesses are the routine execution of interventions, the associated pressure (cf. also the plethora of inappropriate call-outs, suggesting insufficient filtering), the quality of the service provided and, finally, links and integration of tasks with other departments, which would enable a more problem-solving approach (cf. absence of projects in the intervention section of the zonal security plans).
Committee P has started work on an analysis focusing in particular on the following: response times, Astrid, information management, intervention methods and use of skills.
Response times
Between 2001 and 2005, Committee P was informed of 112 complaints relating to response times, i.e. the time between the call coming in and the police intervention. These were examined on a case-by-case basis. Analysis of these cases shows that non-intervention or late intervention are more often due to problems with the availability of teams than to practical prioritising. All citizens expect immediate assistance, especially from the police.
Effective police communication concerning both intervention methods and priorities would certainly help to clarify the situation and ensure greater understanding from the public.
Astrid
As part of the inquiry into the operation of ASTRID (All-round Semi-cellular Trunking Radio communication system with Integrated Dispatchings), the following observations have been made with respect to the basic police function of ‘intervention’.
Since the introduction of the information and
communication centres (CICs), the police zones have handed over their
intervention policy to the CICs. These cover: (1) managing events;
(2) managing teams and their missions; (3) planning a response and
strategy based on instructions issued: instructions are required for each of
the 450 potential event types and sub-types and standard responses are
developed for each type.
A system of this kind has the advantage of allowing police zones, amongst
others, to incorporate the zonal security plan into their intervention policy
by linking, say, a given set of instructions to a given event. This may vary
from one zone to another. The CICs could also take into account the specific
assets of the intervention team (e.g. a member who speaks Arabic, another who
specialises in environmental issues). All these possibilities are not yet being
fully exploited. If the CICs were to perform dispatching for the police zone,
this would optimise coordination between intervention teams, even across
provincial borders.
The CICs also keep statistics for each police
zone, in particular regarding the arrival and actual intervention times of
response teams. Every three months it is supposed to report these to the police
zone, which can then adapt its intervention policy accordingly (number of teams,
new guidelines, training, etc.).
Meanwhile, operational input and the updating of the intervention policy
require a lot of work and account for much of the capacity of the CIC staff
involved. The system also depends heavily on the ability and reactions of the
call-takers, who have to ask callers the right questions in order to correctly
ascertain the type of event involved. There is also the risk of dispatchers
developing a routine approach over time, not reading the instructions
pertaining to each event and, consequently, failing to perform certain tasks.
Ongoing training within the CICs is a means of tackling this. Indeed, it takes
an average of two years for a dispatcher to acquire the necessary skills
profile.
The police zones need to understand the benefits of this system and the high standard of interventions possible using this coaching method. The recruitment, selection and training of staff (call-takers/dispatchers) are all success factors here. Adequate investment in input capacity at the CICs is key to enabling sound implementation of the intervention policy. Since the CICs have specialist inputters, Committee P recommends that the police zones’ dispatching activities be performed by the CICs.
Information management
Not all police corps use are exploiting the full possibilities of the ISLP (Integrated System for Local Police) and some aspects of the system are not being used as they should be. For example, Committee P has observed that the police zones are not always able to provide details of which police officials dealt with a particular dispute. Also, a lack of structured information exchange between intervention and neighbourhood police was noted on several occasions. In a number of cases, it has turned out that the neighbourhood police were aware of a problematic situation completely unknown to the intervention police and the dispatching centre that sent out the team. This can sometimes have unfortunate consequences.
Committee P recommends that steps be taken as soon as possible to enhance use of the existing possibilities offered by the ISLP and to set up an information exchange system between the different police services involved.
Intervention methods
It should be clear to everybody that police action is not only governed by what is legal but should also take account of concepts such as legitimacy, appropriateness, proportionality, efficiency and equal treatment towards all members of the public. However, particularly among young police officers involved in interventions, legality takes precedence over all other aspects and sometimes constitutes the only framework of reference.
In view of this, improvement is needed in terms of the mentoring system but also in the form of more structural management, particularly regarding the composition of teams.
Use of skills
The legal framework is one of the
pillars of police intervention and as such must be properly known. Through its
annual and other reports, one-off publications and articles, Committee P
tries to contribute to this knowledge by raising awareness on the issue.
Clearly, however, this is not enough. It is primarily in the workplace that
compliance, or failure to comply, with the legislation needs to be monitored.
Regular checks are urgently needed and the key role played by senior officials and
executive-level staff, in particular middle-ranking officers, needs to be borne
in mind.
Gathering and processing of administrative police information
Following on from its previous
inspection inquiries on maintaining and restoring public order and peace,
Committee P wished to conduct an analysis of the gathering and use of
administrative police information during a public order event known as ‘bomspotting’, held on 16 April
2005.
The event in question was interesting for a number of reasons: (1) It was
held at three sites simultaneously, located in different parts of the country
(SHAPE headquarters in Casteau, NATO headquarters in Brussels and Kleine-Brogel
airbase). (2) It was necessary to gather information from foreign police
partners regarding the possible presence of foreign participants.
(3) Real-time monitoring of demonstrators at the three sites and their
respective movements was required. (4) Coordination at federal level was
crucial given the simultaneous nature of the events. (5) It was necessary
to collaborate with the State Security Service and the General Intelligence and
Security Service of the Armed Forces (SGR/ADIV).
All coordinating directors,
both French-speaking and Dutch-speaking, were consulted, in order to obtain
as accurate an idea as possible of the initiatives they were taking to boost
the gathering of administrative police information for this event.
A variety of good practices were identified on this occasion, including the
creation by the Directorate of Administrative Police Operations and Information
(DAO) of a national research programme, which has been consistently applied in
each district based on local agreements and circumstances; ‘structural
meetings’ to exchange available administrative police information and to deal
with announced and/or planned events that could impact on public order; the
creation of networks of contact persons from the various services involved to
discuss issues relating to administrative police information but also to
dispense information sessions on particular problems; and one-off working
meetings with various partners (federal police coordination and support service
(SCA/CSD), federal judicial police (PJF/FGP), district information hub
(CIA/AIK), the State Security Service and/or the SGR/ADIV) to decide on the
division of information collection tasks.
The coordinating directors (DirCo’s) and police zones affected by the event also attended a number of coordination meetings held at FPS Home Affairs’ Crisis Centre Directorate-General (DGCC/ADCC). Administrative police information relating to bomspotting was supplemented by operational messages liked to the use of Hycap (i.e. officers available ‘on loan’ when required).
The DirCo’s seem satisfied with the information collection and processing methods employed in their respective districts. Generally, Committee P has noted real commitment by the decentralised services to fostering this search for information, and on the day of the event a special effort was made to gain an overview of the different demonstration venues across the country in order to supply real-time information to the DirCo’s concerned.
Finally, various IT applications such as Argos and Nemesys are being developed and introduced in police zones and/or the central and decentralised services of the federal police in order to optimise the flow of administrative police information.
Public order in general
Committee P has adopted a specific approach to the police’s public order function based on proactive police monitoring. A number of events and actions underwent structured and systematic observation and documents relating to the preparation, implementation and assessment of these events were analysed. The resulting observations help to provide a realistic image of current police practice and the problems the police may face, supplementing the information we derive from our handling of complaints and from our inspection inquiries.
These inquiries into the police’s public order function highlighted a number of difficulties at various levels: (1) use of restraint in practice: routine approach with safety shortcomings, a lack of guidance and organisation in the field, a lack of dialogue with the citizen(s) involved; (2) the use of restraint and the use of force (including the means used to apply this): discrepancies between theory and practice, unwarranted use of balaclavas, use of unmuzzled dogs and sometimes excessive use of force after an individual has been brought under control; (3) lack of consistency between preparation/briefing and implementation, still too frequent absence of debriefings and assessments; (4) no visible implementation of the heavily recommended and promoted concept of managing public areas through dialogue.
Committee P believes that police forces
must undertake assessments for learning purposes and must hold a minimum number
of briefings and debriefings with officials from the various forces and
functions.
The concept of managing through
dialogue, the problems
encountered in applying this concept and the gap between theory and practice
regarding the use of restraint and force (including the means used to apply it)
will be further investigated in order to ensure a better harmonisation between
police training and practice.
We should not forget, either, the importance of leadership and responsibility
in the field, in terms of both police policy when organising events and actions
and also specific training, which in practice deals very little with this
aspect.
Supervision and management of football events
Committee P responded to the request of the Home Affairs Minister by launching an inspection inquiry into pubic order maintenance [viii] at football matches. The inquiry focused on a) the policy on charging with offences and b) the allocation of human and material resources. The Committee will continue to monitor this issue for another two years by means of a follow-up inquiry.
Hooliganism is a national and international problem so it seems clear to Committee P that measures to tackle the phenomenon should be taken more at federal than local level. To achieve this, the spearheads of federal policy should be made official (or more official, as the case may be) and, above all, binding.
It would also be wise to refine the role played by spotters based on the experiences acquired by the two football units. Committee P believes that in general spotters should adopt a more active role, both in the overall process of maintaining order and at judicial police level. Senior officials involved in supervising and managing events should also receive proper training in the area.
In addition, it is recommended that the following points be included in general training or the two-day annual Hycap training programme: (1) maintaining order at football matches; (2) cooperation between spotters/officers on the ground and officials from the public order units; (3) communication between police and event participants; (4) the progressive use of restraint and force.
Local investigation
In recent years, there has been no specific Committee P examination of the local investigation function as such. Although a number of inquires have been conducted, in particular concerning the way local investigation department operates in certain corps, these focused more on the running and management of the function rather than the function itself. In fact, conducting an inspection inquiry in this area is a delicate task since it must not be allowed to develop into monitoring of the public prosecutor’s office, which lies outside Committee P’s remit.
Nonetheless, it is possible to identify a number of problems associated with the function, including: coherence between the different entities within the corps, knowledge and skills, use of the local investigation department for non-local cases, increased autonomy, working with informant managers within the local investigation department, and so forth.
Some local investigation staff are required to
undergo functional judicial training and it may be helpful to calculate how
many local investigation staff have yet to receive this training. Although the
zones visited are meeting or exceeding the required standard, it is clear that
the amount of time spent by local investigation staff on other force activities
correspondingly reduces the time available for investigation work which could,
as a result, dip below the standard.
Although the term ‘local’ investigation department does not mean, in our view,
that its work should be confined within the boundaries of the zone, care must
be taken to ensure that it does not become a lightweight form of the federal
judicial police because a judicial authority has (or feels that it has) more
sway over the local investigation department than over the FJP.
The local investigation department must retain its distinctive features, even remain to some extent isolated, and we should not lose sight of this fact.
As regards the management of informant managers, a more systematic and methodical approach is needed, although this is a problem relating to the functioning of the local investigation department as such. The MPR/BOM legislation on special investigation methods launched, or accelerated, a movement which in the short term may result in more professional work with informant managers within the local investigation department. The sharp increase in the number of informant managers at work partially illustrates this phenomenon.
The main concerns, conclusions and recommendations formulated by Committee P in the light of its work in 2005-06 may be summarised as follows:
Strategic and policy choices
Towards a more truly community-oriented policing: Although there are still some differences of opinion between the zones, we are pleased to note that the federal level has realised that a) the intelligence led policing approach must be aligned with the general community policing approach and b) the federal police must operate within the framework of this community-oriented policing, in which it has an important role to play.
Towards greater transparency: Working towards more community-oriented police, at both federal and local level, also requires greater accountability on the part of the various players involved, who must answer in complete transparency not only to the authority immediately above them but also to Parliament through external monitoring.
Towards genuine, integrated, high-quality operation: Coordination issues at different levels and loyal support for integration mechanisms must be top priorities for police and political decision-makers. In this connection, it should be noted that by and large the involvement and commitment shown by the federal police is moving in a positive and constructive direction. However, not all areas of the local police are displaying the same level of involvement and commitment, or are not doing so equally effectively.
Astrid, the information and communication centres (CICs) and the district information hubs (CIAs/AIKs) are vital cogs and mechanisms for ensuring better and greater security in all areas. In this context, due attention must be paid to the quality and professionalism of CIC and CIA/AIK staff, who must be provided with suitable training.
Towards better guidance for police officers in the field: The quality of some primary (judicial) processes and tasks and some official reports, for example, may be regularly classed as mediocre. In some cases, official reports and hearings have become routine acts with no sense of individuality. This can cause problems in the event of prosecution.
Committee P believes that one
of the underlying causes of this situation is the lack of supervision and/or coaching in this area.
Middle-ranking officers have a key support and monitoring role to play, under
the supervision of the senior officer. Thorough checks, with more and better
follow-up, would be beneficial with respect to a number of police documents and
actions (drafting official reports, checks and body searches, use of force,
etc.).
Lessons should be learnt from this and passed on to all relevant parties within the corps. Under the ultimate responsibility of the corps commander, functional managers and middle-ranking officers should also perform regular checks on the consultation and use of police databases. In this particular area, personnel should also be given general guidance impressing on them the need to respect the privacy of citizens and colleagues. They should then be coached and monitored accordingly.
Implementing and refining the structures imposed by Parliament: Since the launch of the reform, the administrative coordinating directors (DirCo’s) have not really had the chance to express all their potential or to contribute their expertise to the integrated operation of the two tiers of the police service. Following the reorganisation of the federal police, it will be up to the new commissioner to ensure that the DirCo’s fully assume the role which they can and wish to play.
The creation and implementation of a new standing committee on local policing of the kind intended by Parliament (i.e. truly representative) is undoubtedly capable of producing major improvements in the context of the integrated operation and alignment of the local and federal levels.
Committee P would also like to see a let-up in the succession of minor and major reforms, interim assessments, final assessments, re-assessments and appointments which, in both the federal police and in many police zones, have led sometimes to a stagnation, at other times to a slowdown in the creation of a modern, professional police service. This succession of changes has been anything but easy for the individuals concerned or forced to undergo them.
Efficient and modern human resources management
Towards high-quality training: Given the integrating and innovating role that training is supposed to play in the police, it is very important to promote coordinating initiatives and to move towards greater quality in this area.
Committee P has noted a number
of shortcomings in the quality of judicial police work, both specialist and
standard. In addition, we are still seeing a degree of ignorance regarding the
law on policing, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Criminal Code in a
number of corps, units and forces.
Committee P remains convinced of the importance of teaching and
understanding the scope of such terms as ‘arrest’ and ‘body search’ (as used in
both the administrative and judicial police), ‘investigation’, ‘flagrante
delicto’, etc. and of having a sound knowledge of all the aspects and
mechanisms associated with deprivation of liberty as well as the components of
different offences. In our view, a number of shortcomings in the areas under
consideration derive from the poor quality of elements of basic and in-service
training, as well as the lack of guidance mentioned above.
The additional powers awarded to police agents (formerly police auxiliaries) must be accompanied by better developed basic training and/or by additional training. Failure to implement this would undermine the quality of community policing, some aspects of which are performed by police agents.
Clear and comprehensive regulations covering the different training norms and standards should be introduced as soon as possible.
Towards more effective and
appropriate resources: There is also a need, in our view,
to devote even more effort to developing administrative data processing and
ICT, which remain somewhat inefficient in a number of respects.
Due to a lack of clear data, it is very hard as things stand to undertake a
reliable and valid examination of the integrated operation of the police
service, and in particular of federal support in certain areas and on certain
issues. In such cases, it is important, for example, to have tools and
indicators that give an overview of requests for support, broken down by area
of expertise, district, requester, and so forth.
Towards a learning organisation: The nature of some shortcomings dictates that administrative or other measures should be, or could be, taken as and when necessary. In this context, consideration should also be given to the ongoing improvements and lifelong learning which are key to any high-quality public service approach. In Committee P’s view, this mindset is still lacking in many components of the integrated police service.
Towards properly applied
professional ethics and better discipline management: Committee P applauds the recent entry into force of the Police Code
of Ethics. The challenge now is to implement the Code and take the measures
needed to ensure that all staff adhere to it and incorporate it into their
day-to-day work.
However, certain attitudes, omissions and behaviour lead Committee P to
believe that there is still too much flouting of rules (including those of
professional ethics) and also an increasing erosion of discipline,
conscientiousness and loyalty: in short, a decline in the professionalism and
professional ethics which one is entitled to expect from all levels of the
police service.
The interaction between criminal proceedings and disciplinary/assessment procedures continues to pose a number of problems in practice, sometimes resulting in an even greater erosion of discipline. Disciplinary authorities must not be allowed, too much or too often, to use an ongoing procedure or the complexity of the situation as an excuse for taking no disciplinary action or for allowing deadlines to pass so that such action is no longer possible. Though partly due to the complexity of the procedures involved, and with another change to the system announced some time back, the situation is nonetheless an increasing cause for concern.
Implementation of the police function (security)
Systems and processes
Towards better acquisition and use of the data needed for high-quality police action: As a number of inquiries attest, there is still much room for improvement when it comes to data acquisition and use. For example, background information required for managing and adding to the National Database (BNG/ANG) is frequently missing. In various areas, police practice is still too often based on historic information and data rather than operational data, whether already available or specially gathered. The management and supervision of events requiring the allocation and use of numerous human and material resources should be given a more considered role during the preparation of operations in connection with these events. The same is true of the information and intelligence required for those operations.
Greater attention should be paid to the quality of the data entered into the BNG/ANG as well as to encouraging and enhancing use of the database. In this connection, aside from the training aspect, the smooth running of the CICs and the CIAs/AIKs is also of key importance. According to our observations, the quality of the available information could still be improved. In some places, a major effort is required in terms of the way information is gathered and recorded and ensuring careful, integrated use of data in a way that benefits all parties.
Towards a uniform approach on human smuggling and trafficking: The need to standardise the policy on managing prostitution remains an issue. In this area, the critical success factors are close collaboration with the public prosecutors’ offices (PPOs), sound cooperation between the different PPOs and between the PPOs and outside departments and clear agreements with the various bodies concerned. A harmonisation of the strategic and operational foundations for tackling human trafficking based on best practices from the different police corps should be encouraged.
Towards responsible, high-quality internal monitoring: As regards internal monitoring, especially the handling of complaints against police officers, no standards, norms or instructions have so far been defined in any regulation, guideline or directive, despite calls from the police – both federal and local – for such a regulatory framework.
The internal control and inspection function needs to be better organised and recognised within all police forces. It should also be introduced in all other police services as defined under Article 3 of the organic law of 18 July 1991. In any case, a special place must be reserved for high-quality handling of complaints filed against police officials and senior officers.
Towards a confirmation of the special nature of missions and tasks involving the provision of assistance; towards improved management of administrative missions and tasks: With regard to administrative tasks, things are moving in the right direction with a new - fairly comprehensive - directive under preparation in accordance with Article 25 of the law on policing. It should be clear to everybody that the provision of assistance (to bailiffs, etc.) is a key police task and should by no means, even by the issuing of a circular, be assimilated to an administrative task. The key question here is whether or not the future circular on administrative tasks will be binding on the police and local authorities. If the circular is no more than a request to these bodies to apply a given procedure, we may well end up back in a situation where different zones take different approaches, with some considering particular missions as administrative tasks and others not.
Towards high-quality judicial work: Clear, comprehensive and well written official reports, complying where appropriate with a consistent police charging policy, are a most effective and useful tool in the fight against various types of crime. Certain observations made by Committee P indicate that there is still much progress to be made in this area. Quality and compliance checks, with more and better follow-up, could be usefully made on a certain number of official reports, police reports and so on.
Several inquiries have revealed too much ignorance regarding the legal and regulatory framework governing the work of police personnel. Thus, for example, the obligatory drafting of official reports following incidents and interventions, how to carry out body searches and making individuals undress for body searches (a too systematic occurrence) are taught and interpreted differently in different police forces and academies, although a number of improvements have been noted in this area.
Towards a justified and proportional
use of force, particularly during public order maintenance activities: Over the past 12 years of police monitoring, the use of force has been
one of Committee P’s constant concerns. Each year, the Committee examines
a relatively large number of complaints and reports of police misconduct
involving alleged arbitrary intervention and/or unauthorised or unjustified use
of force.
Committee P pays close attention to a number of issues in this sensitive
and important area, including arms and ammunition management, controls,
searches and arrests, the use of special means or dogs in police interventions,
etc. Here too, guidance and supervision are extremely important.
Towards more dignified confinements in police cells: Regulatory provisions establishing minimum standards for police cells should have been introduced years ago, as should guidelines on the confinement of individuals. The failure to do so flies in the face of repeated recommendations from both Committee P and the CPT.
External monitoring
Any abnormal use of force must be recorded, and where appropriate a debriefing, examination, assessment and retraining (if necessary) provided. Any use of force involving weapons (including sprays) must, as promised by the Home Affairs Minister’s office and the police commissioner, be recorded in a report with a copy sent to Committee P.
As it is legally entitled to do,
Committee P has made a number of proposals since 2000 regarding the way
inquiries into police officials are divided up (as per Article 16(3) of
the organic law of 18 July 1991). However, these proposals have so
far gone unheeded. Evidently it is not possible to issue an implementing circular
on the subject. This state of affairs runs counter to an international trend
for the most serious cases involving police actions to be handled by a body
that is wholly external to the police and independent of the authorities
directly responsible for implementing police activities.
In this context, we cannot fail to mention the attitude of certain magistrates,
who seem unwilling to take into account the gravity of the circumstances, the
complexity of the case or the particular nature of Investigation Department P
when assigning it cases. The situation is becoming extremely worrying in
Brussels, where the Investigation Department has been overwhelmed with
run-of-the-mill cases.
Committee P would like to point out that outside the judicial framework it is not empowered to verify telephone case files kept at the federal police’s central technical interception facility (CTIF) or those kept by telephone operators.
A few final concerns
Each time Committee P publishes analyses of figures, it is heavily
criticised by certain authorities, corps commanders and senior police
officials.
In this connection, it should be remembered that the descriptions of the
incidents mentioned in Committee P reports and analyses of complaints and
reports of police misconduct relate to the original allegations. Incidents are labelled based on
a standardised set of criteria, not taking into account the final outcome of
the inquiry conducted into them. The description given to the incident reflects
the perception of the individual lodging the complaint or report of misconduct.
In other words, incidents are labelled and described in the Committee P
database as described in the initial complaint or report of misconduct. It also
goes without saying that one complaint or report of misconduct may include more
than one incident, failing or shortcoming.
While not all of these allegations are verified or verifiable, they are nonetheless signals from citizens to police forces and the authorities. Declaring curtly that that these figures do not represent the number of criminal or disciplinary sanctions can only undermine the public’s confidence in their police service and may reinforce ideas of police impunity. The figures should therefore be taken for what they are: clear signals of the way citizens perceive their police.
It is also true that some reports of police misconduct received by Committee P are a means of playing for time or disrupting other procedures. In some instances, reports are lodged with malicious intent. Committee P believes that a balanced solution must be found for tackling such abuses and improprieties, in partnership with the authorities concerned. Any proposals from police officials and chiefs will be most welcome. Committee P is also willing to launch a consultation on the issue.
It is very important for Committee P to have the right information - both relevant and reliable - at the right time and to receive answers within acceptable timeframes. In too many cases, answers either fail to reach us at all or are not to the point. In addition, Committee P sometimes faces delaying tactics, in some cases even from high-ranking police officials.
In recent years, the scope of the law of 18 July 1991 has been revised and new missions and obligations imposed on Committee P without sufficient (or, at least, sufficiently early) involvement by the Committee in the process.
Outlook
As regards the handling of complaints, Committee P will continue to implement an effective system whereby complaints are processed first by the forces responsible and secondly (or in exceptional cases from the outset) by itself, through its Investigation Department.
In its inspection inquiries, Committee P
will focus on the following aspects:
(1) Monitoring by virtue of the new powers awarded to it under the law of
10 April 1990 on private security.
(2) Monitoring the operation of non-police services, in particular
OCAM/OCAD.
(3) Implementing the law of 20 June 2006 amending various laws
on the integrated police service, especially those relating to the federal
police.
(4) The way in which the equivalent minimum service is achieved through
the different police functions.
In addition to pursuing these objectives, Committee P will continue to fulfil its role as police watchdog.
|
AIG |
General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police (Inspection générale de la police fédérale et de la police locale/Algemene inspectie van de federale politie en van de lokale politie) |
|
ASTRID |
All-round Semi-cellular Trunking Radiocommunication Integrated Dispatching |
|
BNG/ANG |
General national database (Banque de données nationale générale/Algemene nationale gegevensbank) |
|
BRUNAT |
Brussels Airport |
|
C.I.Cr./Sv |
Code of Criminal Procedure (Code d’instruction criminelle/Wetboek van strafvordering) |
|
CP/Sw. |
Criminal Code (Code Pénal/Strafwetboek) |
|
CAD |
Computer aided dispatching |
|
CAT |
United Nations Committee against Torture |
|
CERD |
United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination |
|
CGL |
Directorate for Relations with the Local Police (Direction des relations avec la police locale/ Directie van de relaties met de lokale politie) |
|
CIA/AIK |
District information hub (Carrefour d’information d’arrondissement / Arrondissementeel informatiekruispunt) |
|
CIC |
Information and communication centre (Centre d’information et de communication/ Communicatie‑ en informatiecentrum) |
|
CPT |
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment |
|
CTIF |
Central technical interception facility (Système central d’interception technique/Centraal technisch interceptiesysteem) |
|
DAO |
Directorate of Administrative Police Operations and Information (Direction des opérations et de l’information en matière de police administrative/Directie van de operaties en de informatie inzake bestuurlijke politie) |
|
DGA |
Directorate-General of the Administrative Police (Direction générale de la police administrative/Algemene directie van de bestuurlijke politie) |
|
DGCC/ADCC |
Crisis Centre Directorate-General (Direction générale centre de crise/Algemene Directie van het Crisiscentrum) |
|
DGS |
Directorate-General for Operational Support (Direction générale de l’appui opérationnel/ Algemene directie operationele ondersteuning) |
|
DirCo |
Administrative coordinating director (Directeur coordinateur administratif/Bestuurlijke directeur-coördinator) |
|
DirJu |
Judicial director (Directeur judiciaire/ Gerechtelijke directeur) |
|
DSAN/ VDNL |
National airport security detachment (Détachement de sécurité de l’aéroport national/Veiligheidsdetachement van de Nationale Luchthaven) |
|
DSB |
Directorate of the National Database (Direction de la banque de données nationale/ Directie van de nationale gegevensbank) |
|
DST |
Directorate of Telematics (Direction de la télématique/Directie van de telematica) |
|
DSU |
Special Units Directorate (Direction des unités spéciales de la police fédérale/Directie van de speciale eenheden) |
|
ECRI |
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance |
|
FPS |
Federal Public Service |
|
HYCAP |
Capacité hypothéquée/Gehypothekeerde capaciteit (i.e. officers available 'on loan' when required) |
|
ISLP |
Integrated System for Local Police |
|
ICT |
Information and Communication Technology |
|
LPA |
Air police (Police aéronautique/ Luchtvaartpolitie) |
|
OCAM/OCAD |
Coordinating Body for Threat Analysis (Organe de coordination pour l’analyse de la menace/Coördinatieorgaan voor de dreigingsanalyse) |
|
OE/DVZ |
Immigration Service (Office des étrangers/ Dienst Vreemdelingenzaken) |
|
SCA/CSD |
Coordination and support service (Service de coordination et d’appui d’arrondissement/ Coördinatie‑ en steundienst) |
|
SIDIS |
Computerised Detention System (Système Informatique de Détention/Detentie Informatica Systeem) |
|
SNBA |
SN Brussels Airlines |
|
SNCB/NMVB |
Belgian national rail company (Société nationale des chemins de fer belges/ Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen) |
|
SPC |
Railway police (Police des chemins de fer/ Spoorwegpolitie) |
|
STIB/MIVB |
Brussels public transport company (Société des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles/Maatschappij van het Intercomunaal Vervoer te Brussel) |
|
WPR |
Road police (Police de la route/Wegpolitie) |
[i] Under the law of 10 July 2006 amending the organic law of 18 July 1991 on monitoring police forces and intelligence services and Articles 323a and 327a of the Judicial Code (Moniteur Belge/Belgisch Staatsblad of 20 July 2006), the title of the organic law of 18 July 1991 on monitoring police forces and intelligence services was replaced by the following title: "Organic law on monitoring police forces, intelligence services and the Coordinating Body for Threat Analysis".
[ii] A list of the abbreviations used in this summary can be found in the annex.
[iii] Article 14a(1): "The Federal Police Commissioner, the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police and the local police corps commanders shall as a matter of course provide Standing Committee P with a copy of the complaints and reports of police misconduct that they have received together with a brief summary of the outcome of the inquiry upon completion of said inquiry."
[iv] Article14a(2): "The relevant disciplinary authorities shall on a monthly basis give the Committee full details of the disciplinary measures and sanctions taken against members of police forces."
[v] Article 14(1): "The public prosecutor and chief public prosecutor shall as a matter of course provide the Chairman of Standing Committee P with copies of the judgements and rulings relating to crimes and offences committed by members of police forces."
[vi] Article 14(2): "The public prosecutor, chief public prosecutor, federal prosecutor or public prosecutor at the Court of Appeal, depending on the circumstances, shall inform the Chairman of Committee P each time an investigation or inquiry is opened into a crime or offence alleged against a member of a police force."
[vii] Article 26: "Any member of a police force who discovers a crime or offence committed by another member of a police force shall draft an information report and submit it within two weeks to the Chief of Investigation Department P."
[viii] The terminology has changed from public order maintenance to event supervision and management.