Committee P, the watchdog
providing an overall view of the police system
Committee P’s internal operation underwent two major innovations in 2006-2007. The first was the introduction of regional (or territorial) operation; the second was the creation of a complaints unit within the administrative department, accompanied by a reorganisation of the duty service provided by Investigation Department P. Both resulted from implementation of the strategic objectives set by Committee P and detailed in its previous annual activity report.
Committee P is also pushing ahead with its proactive attempts to improve the operation and coordination of police, advisory and training services by setting up a strategic analysis unit within Investigation Department P. The unit will be made up of inspectors trained in a variety of different areas (strategic analysis, sociology, law, etc.) and will aim primarily to function as a watchdog for policing and the police establishment. Given the existing police structure (196 police zones combined with dozens of federal police units, at least 100 special inspection services, the Coordinating Body for Threat Analysis (OCAM/OCAD) [i] , etc.), this represents a considerable challenge.
At a strategic seminar held on 30 June 2005, Committee P’s members decided to adopt a system of territorial division of cases. At the strategic seminar on 21-23 September 2005, it was decided to apply this regional operation to complaint handling initially and then expand it to inspection inquiries. In practice, this will mean – eventually – that the Committee P member responsible for the district of Liège, for example, will also, as a rule, take on the inspection inquiries relating to police corps in that district (whether or not the inquiries were prompted by a complaint). This new approach – which came into force on 1 April 2006 for the handling of complaints – heralds a gradual move away from the principle of random distribution of cases based on a duty system. In the case of the federal police, it was decided not to apply regional operation alone, but alongside this to allocate a certain number of specialist units (SPC, WPR, etc.) to each member of Committee P.
This division of tasks has been introduced for three reasons: (1) to foster greater expertise/know-how among Committee P members; (2) to avoid discrepancies in actions taken by the Committee; (3) to ensure greater consistency in the Committee’s watchdog function.
Each day, Committee P is contacted directly by citizens in connection with complaints and reports of misconduct directed against police officials or forces. In addition, it receives various information relating to the complaints and reports of police misconduct handled by police forces themselves or by the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police (AIG). Considerations of excellence in service provision have led Committee P to conclude that integrated and structured management of all these cases is the answer to the challenge facing Committee P. The Committee therefore decided to set up a complaints unit, which began operating on 1 April 2007.
The remit of the complaints unit has six main components: (1) autonomous and comprehensive handling of the bulk of complaints and reports of misconduct, so that full case files enabling final decisions to be taken can be submitted to the Committee and dealt with by one of its members; (2) providing reception and guidance for complainants; (3) recording data supplied by other services regarding their complaints and reports of misconduct [ii] ; (4) periodically drawing up summary or review documents; (5) managing the administration and correspondence associated with the aforementioned tasks; (6) compiling and updating a set of general rules relating to complaints.
Management and general coordination of the complaints unit is currently performed by the Investigation Department’s deputy chief of judicial affairs, under the supervision of a Committee member. Two inspectors on temporary secondment to the complaints unit are tasked with organising and implementing the new entity, in close collaboration with the administrative staff. They also bring to bear knowledge of police structures and the types of inquiries undertaken by Committee P. The unit’s staff currently comprises seven administrative members.
After seven months of operation, initial results are more than encouraging. Under the constant supervision of Committee members, the unit’s case managers oversee and process complaints at Committee level until the case file is closed.
The ultimate aim of the unit is to provide its ‘customers’ with responses in as short a time as possible. With an average of over 50 complaints of varying importance forwarded to the Committee for a decision each week, complaints unit staff are making an extremely valuable contribution. On average, it takes just two weeks (from the time they are received) for complaints to be referred by Committee P at a plenary meeting. A six week target for final closure of case files has been set, although naturally this is just an ideal and the contingencies associated with inspections and data gathering must be borne in mind. In no way may the quality of the final decision on the issue raised by the complainant be compromised by a desire to meet time targets.
The organisation of the complaints unit is also geared towards improved accessibility for the Committee’s partners, namely the AIG and other internal monitoring services. Keen to respond as quickly as possible to queries from complainants, the complaints unit continually monitors the cases passed on to these services for investigation, regularly exchanging information with them. Direct contact between case managers at the complaints unit and members of the monitoring services accelerates the flow of information and means that both parties are able to issue responses more quickly. This kind of harmonised operation based on personal interaction has already had positive and measurable effects on complaint handling times.
The complaints unit cannot confine itself to sorting and referral tasks. The wealth of information passing through the department offers an overall external view of the police’s work and, although in-depth analysis is not its primary purpose, the unit cannot turn a blind eye to the police-related issues highlighted by the complaints it receives. Accordingly, when structural issues related to efficiency, coordination and respect for citizens’ fundamental rights are identified, the unit draws up a report for the Committee’s benefit, so that a more general inquiry can be launched if necessary. Such cases are managed wholly by the Committee member handling the original case.
The remit, operation, composition and powers of Investigation Department members have been sufficiently explained in previous annual activity reports. The Investigation Department has not fundamentally changed in the meantime, except that the new arrangements regarding the duty service and complaint handing (see above) have been reflected in the department’s results.
In 2006, the Investigation Department launched and/or completed 439 judicial inquiries. This number reflects the number of cases which Investigation Department P was asked to handle. Of the cases in question, 45 originated with examining magistrates and 149 with state prosecutors in connection with subsequent inquiries. Some 158 initial official reports were drafted when complaints were lodged with the duty service, whilst 34 were drafted directly by Investigation Department members.
As ever, most (too many, indeed) of the judicial inquiries relate to the Brussels judicial district [iii] . Figures from previous years showed judicial bodies in Brussels to be insufficiently selective in their use of the Investigation Department, forwarding case files for ‘further investigation’ to the department that had made the initial report, i.e. the Investigation Department, almost as a matter of course. Similarly, the statistics indicate that of the 158 initial official reports drafted by the duty service, 108 related to the Brussels district. These figures illustrate why it was a good idea to reorganise the duty service, which was essentially acting as a front-line service in contradiction to the intended role of the Investigation Department. Hopefully, the steady decline referred to above represents a trend – one that Committee P intends to see continued and consolidated.
As regards inquiries subsequent to a complaint or report of police misconduct, the percentage of complaints passed on to Investigation Department by Committee P for further examination has evolved as follows in recent years: 25.19% (335 complaints examined by Investigation Department, out of 1,330 received) in 2002; 24.1% in 2003, 20.71% in 2004, 14.72% in 2005 and 11.36% (263 examined out of 2,314 received) in 2006. Paradoxically, then, the number of complaints received by Committee P is increasing, whereas the number of those complaints passed on to the Investigation Department for examination is declining, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total number of complaints. This downward trend can be explained by the option of delegating complaint handling powers, subject to conditions, to corps commanders or the Commissioner of Police, and also by the fact that, in accordance with Parliament’s wishes, Investigation Department P is deployed selectively in order to free up capacity for executing Committee P’s core missions. Another reason is the reorganisation of the reception and duty service, which has led to a fall in the number of complaints recorded directly from the public.
Collaboration with other institutions
A number of working meetings were held in 2006 with Committee I
(see below), most notably regarding the Erdal and Kimyongür
cases, and with the parliamentary support committee in connection with specific
issues. More meetings were held with the Federal Police Board, state prosecutors,
the governor of East Flanders and numerous corps commanders in connection
with various inquiries. Contacts also took place with the Centre for Equal
Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, the High Council of Justice, various
non-governmental organisations such as the Human Rights League (LDH), the
Movement against Racism, Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia (MRAX/BRAX) and representatives
of various police unions.
Cooperation ties were established with the universities of Liège and Ghent,
the Royal Military Academy, the consultancy firms Delta I, B Best
and Sysman and the management of EFQM. Last but not least, we could not fail
to mention the Committee’s valuable collaboration with the company Politeia,
which has spawned numerous publications.
Committee P has protocol agreements with, amongst others, the federal police, the Central Office for the Repression of Corruption (OCRC/CDBC), the Standing Committee on Local Policing and the majority of police zones. Most of these agreements do not require special comment here. Committee P also has protocol agreements with the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police (AIG) and the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism.
In respect of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to
Racism (hereafter referred to as the Centre) in particular, the disciplinary
law of 13 May 1999 imposes certain obligations on Committee P
in terms of the communication of information. This is one of the main reasons
why the Centre’s staff were informed about various cases handled by Committee P
in 2006-2007 and why the Committee forwarded inquiry details to the Centre
on several occasions. However, in its latest annual report (2006), the Centre
makes a number of criticisms about its collaboration with Committee P.
In particular, the Centre expects Committee P to: (1) forward it
sufficient information following the closure of a disciplinary inquiry to allow
it to assess whether racism and/or discrimination has occurred in the case in
question; (2) forward it sufficient information to allow it to assess the
reasons underlying Committee P’s decision that no police irregularity has
occurred in the case in question. In other words, the Centre requires a clear overview
of the disciplinary case so that it can assess, firstly, whether the inquiry
took into account the information (evidence, testimonies) provided by the
Centre and/or the complainant and, secondly, whether the inquiry was
comprehensive. With this in mind, the Centre points out that it is important to
know whether particular witnesses or officials were heard and, if so, what their
statements said.
However, we feel that the Centre has been overhasty in various respects: its criticisms of Committee P in no way reflect what the Centre can, or is entitled to, expect of it. In accordance with Article 26(4)-(5) of the disciplinary law of 13 May 1999 – which sets out Committee P’s obligations towards the Centre – the Centre can only ask Committee P to forward decisions that it receives from police disciplinary authorities (Committee P not being such an authority) and only in the form in which it has received them. In no way do the aforementioned provisions require Committee P to analyse the decisions in question. This is also reflected in the protocol agreement between the two bodies [iv] .
Special inspection services – scope of the organic law of 18 july 1991
Committee P’s remit ratione personae is defined in Article 3
of the organic law of 18 July 1991 on monitoring police forces, intelligence
services and the Coordinating Body for Threat Analysis [v] . Under this
provision, Committee P’s monitoring covers police services, i.e. not
only the federal and local police but also services answerable to public authorities
and public interest bodies whose members hold the rank of judicial police
officer or judicial police agent. For the purposes of the organic law of 18 July 1991,
persons who are individually authorised to investigate and record offences
are assimilated to police services.
Inevitably, the wording of this provision
has prompted us to wonder whether Committee P can monitor, within
the meaning of Article 1 of the organic law, all or some of
the special inspection services (SISs).
Based on our analysis of the scope of Committee P’s powers ratione personae and ratione materiae [vi] , it is our belief that Committee P’s monitoring remit a) encompasses all the SISs [vii] and b) is not limited to their purely judicial activities but also covers their regulatory activity. If this were not so, the Committee would be hampered in its execution of the tasks assigned to it by Parliament. Limiting its monitoring remit to certain SISs would mean that Parliament would have no means of analysing the efficiency of the remaining SISs and their compliance with current legislation. Limiting (contra legem) the monitoring remit to SISs’ purely judicial activity would create an artificial divide since SISs’ regulatory activity inevitably includes an underlying judicial and investigatory dimension.
It should be emphasised that direct internal or external monitoring of the special inspection services is indispensable and not some superfluous luxury. It is made all the more necessary by the fact that widely varying powers are not infrequently conferred by different legislations on the officials and inspectors concerned, some of which are held by members of the regular police service.
The fact that the AIG’s duties and missions require it, to a degree at least, to encroach on Committee P’s sphere of action generates certain tensions. Although relations between the two institutions are subject to a number of difficulties, information is exchanged regularly with the AIG regarding large-scale or significant inspections, audits and inspection inquiries, primarily to avoid pointless duplication.
Keen to move beyond what have sometimes been termed ‘difficult’ relations, Committee P plans to keep up its efforts in future and cooperate constructively with the AIG. As ever, the challenge will be to divide up tasks as effectively as possible, avoid duplication wherever possible and very definitely avoid hindering one another’s work. It goes without saying that these concerns must be shared, otherwise it may prove an uphill struggle. Unfortunately, it would seem that even the legislature has lost sight of these core considerations to some extent, as is particularly evidenced in the law of 15 May 2007 on the General Inspectorate and introducing various provisions on the status of certain members of the police forces. The Committee can only lament that this new legislation – whose passage through Parliament itself raises a host of questions – will not reduce the problems of overlapping, coordination and duplication (far from it), and that such a change ultimately benefits nobody.
Inspection and follow-up inquiries
Holding cells (amigos) and incarceration in police stations
As part of the inspection inquiry into “holding cells and confinement in police stations”, the holding cells at eight federal police stations and two local police stations, of which one was not yet operational [viii] , were visited by inspectors from Committee P’s Investigation Department in the second half of 2006. The usual check-list was completed for each visit. Three stations in Flanders, three in Wallonia and four in Brussels underwent this special inspection. In most cases, the visits were unannounced and took place in conjunction with other inspection duties. The corps commanders, department heads or their immediate colleagues accompanied the inspectors, who made any comments or recommendations to them then and there. In some cases, a letter was sent to the corps commander or department heads subsequent to the visit, urging them to comply with certain recommendations made by the CPT or Committee P in the past, notably concerning cell hygiene and surveillance of persons in police custody.
Inspection of cell complexes, which Committee P has performed relatively systematically since 1997, has encouraged many corps commanders and/or department heads to refurbish their facilities, update their internal guidelines and educate their staff about the vital necessity of respecting the basic rights of those in police custody. The procedure is clearly bearing fruit, since senior police officials regularly consult the Committee for its opinion.
Committee P believes that preventing suicides and self-harm in
police custody should be another constant preoccupation of the personnel responsible
for monitoring detainees. It is essential for staff to patrol cells but also
for CCTV monitoring – where it exists – to be combined with regular visual
checks to ascertain detainees’ state of health. All too often, these patrols
are left to the discretion of duty personnel and are not therefore systematic.
The performance of such patrols should be recorded in a section of the arrest
log, indicating the time they took place.
Clear and comprehensive guidelines for dealing with persons in police custody
should always be enshrined in a set of internal instructions: examples of
actual situations and their solutions should be given so that staff know what
procedure to follow in practically every scenario.
Moreover, the senior officers who confirm an arrest should be required to sign
the arrest log. This would provide an additional guarantee of the legality, proportionality
and appropriateness of the measure being taken.
Committee P, which has repeatedly highlighted the lack of a set of standards governing detention in police stations, cannot but welcome the legislative initiatives that have been introduced in this area recently [ix] and which have largely taken into account the recommendations made by the CPT and Committee P. Implementation of all these initiatives on the ground should put an end to years of indecision and will have the merit of creating a uniform set of legal provisions in this field. Committee P will continue its sporadic cell inspections in both federal police premises and local police stations over the years to come.
How the police communicate with vulnerable individuals – children involved in begging
In its
previous annual activity report, Committee P highlighted an absence of
uniformity in local rules and the fact that federal and zone police have a particularly
heterogeneous range of municipal regulations governing their dealings/meetings
with homeless people and/or beggars. In almost all such cases, police officers
take what might be termed a ‘classic’ approach: dialogue is established
regularly between the officer and the vulnerable individual and the action
taken is often confined to pointing the individual in the direction of a residential
or care facility. Force and restraint are seldom used.
More recently, Committee P’s attention has been drawn to situations in
which, as is increasingly the case, especially in large cities, children are
involved in adult begging.
Committee P’s latest investigations into this growing problem highlight
the fact that when police officials become aware of such activity they invariably
adopt a ‘passive’ approach, on the grounds that begging is no longer a criminal
offence. However, citizens are increasingly angered by situations where very
young children accompany adults begging in the street; they also frequently
complain about what they see as the failure of the police to deal with the
problem, criticising their apparent insensitivity and ineffectiveness. Even
where corps policymakers or management recognise the existence of the problem
and have adopted a clear stance on it, this stance is not always known to
the officers on the ground.
For example, Committee P has observed that many beat officers do not
know about the law of 10 August 2005 “amending various provisions
to strengthen the fight against human smuggling and trafficking and against
the practices of slum landlords”. This legislation stresses the distinction
that must be made between a “minor begging alongside an adult” and
a “minor accompanying an adult who is begging”. The police official
will check whether the adult is the child’s father or mother and, where this
is not the case, must draft an official report [x] .
Given the rise in the incidence of begging, particularly in the largest cities, Committee P believes that urgent action is now needed from zonal authorities: corps commanders should seriously consider sending out a memo on this issue to their staff members, offering field personnel relevant guidance for use at operational level.
In any case, the situation for those police forces most often in the front line on this issue is unclear and paradoxical. The public has multiple expectations. The expectations of the authorities with regard to the police on this issue could be usefully clarified and, if necessary, synergies should be developed with other social players. However, the main question remains: is this really a task for the police and, if so, to what extent. After all, primary responsibility in this area lies at political level.
Refoulements and repatriations
In recent years, Committee P has been called on to deal with various complaints relating to arrangements for the refoulement, transit zone residence and repatriation [xi] of individuals residing illegally in Belgium, most notably in the context of an inspection inquiry under way since 2003-2004. Repatriation assignments are a difficult and delicate task for the police officials required to carry them out. Moreover, these issues are monitored closely by countless institutions and/or associations involved in the protection of human rights, and are the subject of regular and heavy criticism in this context.
It is worth recalling the different monitoring arrangements associated with repatriation assignments: (1) internal monitoring by the federal air police; (2) the potential judicial aspect of this purely internal monitoring; (3) preventive monitoring conducted by the AIG at the request of the Interior Minister; (4) possible inspection or handling of a complaint file by the AIG; (5) external monitoring by Committee P, via its Investigation Department (judicial and non-judicial aspects); (6) the role of the judicial authority and courts; (7) the third parties present during repatriation attempts (SN Brussels Airlines security service, airline crew, other passengers, etc.); (8) and, lastly, certain international bodies such as the CPT.
In line with previous years’ observations, we can once again state that LPA/BRUNAT showed professionalism in its handling of removals in 2006 and always attempted to anticipate new situations as far as possible. However, another critical success factor to be borne in mind is the sound cooperation and coordination between all the departments and services involved in the removal process.
The number of complaints brought to Committee P’s attention in 2006
is minimal compared with the number of people repatriated. The numerical volume
of complaints must be considered in relative terms, therefore, whilst not
losing sight of each complaint as an individual case requiring scrupulous
and systematic examination. The AIG was only informed of two judicial complaints
relating to a removal procedure. Investigation Department P, meanwhile,
dealt with three judicial complaints, giving a total of five complaints with
judicial consequences handled in 2006.
According to the AIG, there were fewer incidents in 2006 because a) the
Immigration Service (OE/DVZ) did a better job of informing individuals residing
in centres of their impending repatriation, and b) LPA/BRUNAT staff seem to be
displaying ever increasing levels of professionalism, despite the difficult and
sensitive nature of their task.
LPA/BRUNAT laid down flight supervision guidelines in a framework document
in late 2005. Showing humanity during the deportation process whilst complying
strictly with the relevant regulations is a great challenge for LPA/BRUNAT
staff. The three factors that must be constantly borne in mind when assessing
the situation are the legality, proportionality and appropriateness of the
assignment.
We should also note that LPA/BRUNAT feels the time has come to set up its own
internal monitoring department to handle any complaints relating to it in-house.
Currently, repatriation-related complaints are still examined by Committee P,
the AIG and the federal police’s internal monitoring service.
The Vermeersch Commission II, tasked with assessing the rules
on deportation, produced a final report entitled “Foundations of a Humane
and Effective Deportation Policy” (Fondements d’une politique humaine et
efficace d’éloignement), containing 34 recommendations. On the basis
of these recommendations, LPA/BRUNAT in 2006 drafted a new protocol agreement
with the Immigration Service and new guidelines were issued regarding deportation
policy. Cooperation between the various departments/services and partners
(ministerial offices, Immigration Service, social and psychological support
team, INAD forum), which all work towards the same philosophy – namely, making
deportation without resistance the number one priority –, also received a
further boost. For LPA/BRUNAT, the most important recommendations are those
concerning possible restraining measures liable to be used for the removal
of individuals who refuse to leave voluntarily. Following publication of the
above-mentioned final report, plans were also developed in 2006 to set up
a monitoring committee. This committee began operating in early 2007 under
the chairmanship of Professor Parmentier.
LPA/BRUNAT simply wishes to continue implementing the recommendations made, namely:
(1) fleshing out the staff chart (40 staff members for the border
control section); (2) using civil personnel for operational administration
tasks; (3) achieving budgetary autonomy; (4) establishing an internal
training unit to offset the difficulties experienced by the Directorate of
Training (DSE) in providing the necessary training.
In Committee P’s view, the situation in this relatively delicate area is under control.
The use of informants governed by the law of 6 January 2003 on special investigation methods and some other inquiry methods. The special investigation methods (MPR/BOM) involve interference – of no minor kind – in certain fundamental rights and freedoms and the imposition of limits on a number of principles which are nonetheless fundamental to criminal procedure. Given its remit of monitoring the protection of rights conferred on individuals by the Constitution and the law as well as the coordination and efficiency of the police, Committee P decided to take a close look at the police’s work with informants by means of a thematic inspection inquiry.
In so doing, the question it sought to answer was to what extent the police’s use of informants tallied with the priorities and concepts set out in the 2004-2007 National Security Plan. The Committee therefore wanted to do more than check whether the regulations on informants were being properly applied, something it had already examined in a previous inquiry. This basic question was divided into two sub-questions: how does the use of indicators help to address the priority issues identified in the 2004-2007 National Security Plan and how can the information obtained from informants be used to make strategic and operational decisions in the context of intelligence-led policing?
Although the survey of MPR/BOM magistrates in the selected districts has not yet taken place, a number of observations can already be made. In summary, we can say at present that the informant system is efficiently organised and has a proven track record of effectiveness in operational cases. On the other hand, there is not enough evidence to say that it is contributing significantly to meeting strategic priorities at the different levels concerned. This can be explained by a lack of harmonisation between the various players involved.
The Committee
has taken care to ensure that the provisional observations and associated
issues for attention are covered in a general debriefing and that feed-back is given
to the chief of judicial police and the national informant manager. All of this
will be fine-tuned following the survey of magistrates.
Finally, we would point out that the police have already made a number of changes
in connection with several of the issues highlighted for attention, such as
implementation of the first phase of the scheme to automate certain reports, the
new recruitment rules for members of the internal monitoring services and
changes to the evaluation system governing the payment of bonuses to bring it
more in line with local priorities and the information needed to obtain an
overall image of what is going on.
Discrimination inside and outside the police
The integrated police service is the subject of regular criticisms and accusations in this extremely sensitive area. As in previous years, Committee P continued to monitor the actions of the federal police aimed at tackling discrimination within the police. Meetings were held with the Equality and Diversity Service (DPID) at the Directorate of Internal Relations (DSI) and documentation in connection with the inquiry was collected throughout the year. Based on the evidence obtained, Committee P has not yet deemed it necessary to meet other drivers of the action plan or outside partners.
The federal police’s major activity in this field remains the diversity action plan. The plan consists of various short- and medium-term actions, both one-off and recurring, aimed at meeting a series of objectives, most of which relate to personnel management, investigation, training and communication. The diversity policy aims ultimately to act on the culture of the organisation – a highly ambitious objective – and to ensure that the staff of the integrated police service reflect the diversity of the population as a whole. The plan dovetails perfectly with the 10-priority federal action plan to tackle racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia.
The seven objectives of the action plan have spawned a number of tangible
achievements. These include in particular the production of a recruitment
promotion film championing diversity, the hiring of 35 visually-impaired employees
for specific tasks, articles on the Code of Ethics and a communication plan
on racist offences under COL 6/2006 and domestic violence. Changes have
been made to the staff regulations to eliminate inequalities between staff
members. As it turns out, few of the actions have been abandoned or delayed.
Some action plan activities are more high profile and require greater budgetary
and human resources, particularly when it comes to the recruitment and integration
of police officers from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds.
The diversity human resource network entered its extension and consolidation
phases in 2006 and the dedicated communication forum is also up and running. The
database aimed at all staff members is in the testing phase and will be
accessible via a direct link on the police human resources website www.hrpol.be,
thereby making the issue more accessible. Two partner universities, which were
involved with coaching members, are now set to evaluate the network.
Aside from the activities initially included in the plan, a number of fresh initiatives have been devised. In collaboration with the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, the federal police will be launching an awareness-raising campaign against homophobia. Meanwhile, the federal police has recently registered on the labelling scheme introduced by the Minister for Social Integration and Equal Opportunities and the Minister for Employment and Computerisation.
As well as monitoring implemented actions, in line with tried-and-tested
managerial methods such as EFQM, Committee P is just as interested in
the tangible effects of the action plan on the organisation, its personnel
and the wider community. Its monitoring consists of examining the results
obtained in terms of diversity and anti-discrimination after five years of
diversity policy, despite the absence of much tangible or verifiable evidence
in practice. Six indicators, both general and specific, were defined in the
plan. However, the indicator measurements had yet to appear in the latest
version of the plan.
Committee P had already noted the evolving and adaptable nature of the
plan: this year’s new initiatives are further proof of this, although the
problem of limited capacity remains an issue.
Following on from an individual complaint, Committee P was called upon to examine possible coordination problems between the integrated police service and a department with police powers at the Walloon Region Ministry of Equipment and Transport (MET).
The inspection inquiry identified various issues requiring special attention. In particular, these were: (1) the coordination of actions taken by the integrated police service and those taken by an MET administration with police powers; (2) the issuing and cancelling of alerts for vehicles recovered at the bottom of waterways; (3) arrangements for conveying information between the police and MET; (4) the roles of the various players; (5) limits of the powers of MET officials; (6) informing the owner of the recovered vehicle; (7) issuing alerts, etc.
However you look at the situation, regulatory intervention is needed to provide a little more clarity in this area, where some failings could have a detrimental effect on citizens. In fact, the Committee sent a detailed letter on this matter to the relevant administrative and judicial authorities, but has not so far received any response.
Following on from several complaints and reports of misconduct on this subject, Committee P decided to launch an inspection inquiry into the expense accounts and working hours of senior police officers.
Reading the various statistics on overtime and expense accounts in the police zones, it is not always easy to detect abuses. Some features seem to be specific to particular regions. For example, the Brussels zones sampled are all statistically above average when it comes to overtime, most of which is worked by senior officers. Zones with large numbers of personnel work more overtime on average than small zones. As regards expenses, the inquiry showed that on average expenses are currently greater in small zones.
Depending on their budgets, the police zones have the ability to ‘pay
for’ or arrange payment for a range of inconveniences, including overtime.
In this sensitive area, major differences between staff members can generate
tensions or suspicion. That is why Committee P believes (and the heads
of the zones visited agreed with it) that a policy on this issue, based on
proof of overtime worked and expenses incurred and an absence of discrimination
between staff members, regardless of category, should be developed and communicated
to staff. Based on this policy, a system of monitoring and follow-up should
then be put in place. As a result, abuses would give rise to the appropriate
administrative, disciplinary, even judicial, procedures.
Individual follow-up is needed, by immediate superiors at the very least. It
would seem logical for department heads to know and check the work performed by
their own staff members and ensure that public funds are being properly used.
System of clothing points and equipment-related problems
Prior to and immediately following the police reform, Committee P became aware of several unacceptable situations relating to the clothing allowance and the acquisition of kit and equipment. In 2005-2006, it was informed of further problems in this area, as a result of which it decided to look into the issue on a bigger scale than those individual cases.
Management
of clothing points for the acquisition or replacement of uniform is governed by
Articles 13-19 of the Royal Decree of 10 June 2006 on the
uniform of the two-tier, integrated police service and by Articles 3-6 of
the Ministerial Decree of 15 June 2006 on the basic and general
functional equipment of the members of the operational staff of the two-tier,
integrated police service. These regulations have allowed local police corps to
fine-tune the existing systems and ensure greater transparency of practice for
the benefit of personnel. Free but rational allocation of the points budget, geared
towards professional requirements, is the basic principle in ensuring that personnel
have a full set of good-quality basic equipment.
Whereas at one time the effects of the statutory applications on the number of points
and on the general functional equipment were a matter for discussion, these
have now been laid down in one of the annexes to the aforementioned Royal
Decree. Only retirement regulations are now deemed inadequate. Accordingly, to
avoid abuses of any kind, it would be a good idea to clarify the situation.
The management of clothing points is now done electronically in all
the zones visited. The points budget amassed was large enough to enable the
acquisition of basic equipment. As a result, in most zones operational personnel
now have almost all the components of the new basic uniform.
The task of managing clothing points and monitoring orders and supplies very
often falls to Calog staff. Most of the large corps even have a logistical department
responsible for measurements and distribution from a central store.
The definition by corps commanders of a profile for the wearing of police
uniforms is no longer an issue, with guidelines on the issue nearing completion
in all corps. In very many cases, all that remains to do is to apply and
enforce them. All the elements needed to improve the situation are therefore in
place.
On a related issue, Committee P considers it important for the command structure to take an interest in the correct and regular wearing of uniform and to bring back a certain level of discipline in this area, most notably in Brussels and some other big cities.
The federal police shows indisputable commitment in supporting the whole of the integrated police service in this area. We can only urge it to keep up the good work and also to take an interest in the quality of work and the service provided and in ‘customer’ satisfaction levels.
Suicide in the police has been the subject of an ongoing inspection inquiry for a number of years. The inquiry is based around two studies, one looking into the phenomenon of suicide within the police and one focusing on 100 cases of police suicide over the past six years. The findings of the inquiry show that suicide within the profession is a cause for concern and is not solely linked to personal issues.
Various initiatives have been taken to try to curb the phenomenon. The federal police and local police zones have implemented general strategic measures such as hiring psychologists, appointing support persons, setting up discussion groups and establishing a ‘stress team’ and medical service. In addition, many police corps and forces have taken the necessary steps to improve weapons management. Because police officers wishing to take their own life usually do so with their service weapon, guidelines have been drawn up to limit possession of the weapon to the duration of service and to allow corps commanders or department heads to confiscate weapons temporarily if they deem it necessary. The Directorate of Internal Prevention and Protection at Work (DSW) has developed a ‘well-being’ action plan, which seeks to establish a system for measuring well-being based on check-lists. The federal police is also distributing leaflets detailing actions that can be taken to tackle violence, sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace, such as turning to support persons and prevention advisers, for example.
Despite all these measures, what we appear to be faced with is the phenomenon known as ‘system blindness’. The police simply does not see the existence – or persistence – of the mechanisms that can be created and which – alongside factors specific to the individual and his/her personal circumstances – play a decisive role in creating (and/or maintaining) the high suicide rate within its ranks. We therefore need to ask ourselves how such assistance schemes can be made to work if individuals continue to mask the social problems, cover up the tell-tale signs or believe that expressing those signs will bring more problems, checks, changes of task or loss of autonomy. Indeed, if problems can only be addressed once the police officer has overstepped the mark, what meaningful action can be taken?
Committee P believes that practical steps are needed to promote the
‘well-being’ of police personnel, to monitor and support the career of each
and every one and tie it in with work motivation.
It is crucial to adhere to a human resources policy geared towards effective
vocational support for police officers in their career development, mobility,
potential outplacement and, in particular, for those aged 50 or over, retirement
arrangements. In other words, throughout their careers police officers must
benefit from ‘centralised’ follow-up and guidance in relation to training,
needs and wants and the provision of services as required, as well as when
they face personal or private problems that have a significant impact – temporarily
or otherwise – on their work. Committee P believes that this HRM policy
must be underpinned in particular by: (1) a policy aimed at avoiding
the recruitment or training of specific police ‘characters’, extreme idealisation
of the police profession and excessive job autonomy; (2) a policy of
detecting stress and burnout; (3) a policy of preventing and tackling
alcoholism; (4) a policy of monitoring the possession and availability
of service weapons; and (5) a carefully thought-out policy for managing
the reporting and announcing of suicides.
Guidelines on administrative police officers
In its 2004 activity report, Committee P examined two aspects
in particular of this inquiry: an analysis of the guidelines relating to administrative
police officers (OPAs) and an analysis of the interzonal cooperation agreements
established in connection with the various legal powers assigned to administrative
police officers.
These guidelines, along with the various cooperation links in place, were
analysed and compared with the OPA powers laid down in the law on policing
(LFP) of 5 August 1992. In mid-2006, Committee P asked its
Investigation Department to conduct an inquiry to take stock of the situation
with respect to the above-mentioned guidelines.
Committee P wrote to the commanders of all corps whose OPA guidelines and/or
cooperation agreements were analysed in 2004 as part of the first inquiry. The
respondents were asked to what extent they had taken into account the findings
of the OPA inquiry detailed in Committee P’s 2004 activity report in order
to optimise existing guidelines and/or agreements or, if necessary, draw up
such guidelines or cooperation agreements.
Leaving aside guidelines on ‘notifying the OPA’ and the ‘incarceration
of individuals in holding cells’, which are present in most corps, there remain
a whole range of areas in which, ideally, the tasks and responsibilities of
OPAs should be clearly laid down within each corps. No corps commander referred
to a guideline or procedure detailing the principal responsibilities and powers
of OPAs.
Consequently, Committee P can but reiterate its recommendation that the
main legal powers assigned to OPAs be put into practice.
This recommendation is not based solely on the multiple conclusions derived
from the inquiry cases, which highlighted the fact that OPAs’ (support) function
could be more (or rather even more) effectively fulfilled, but also on Committee P’s
observation to the effect that the new regulations and legislation concerning
the constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms of citizens rightly mean greater
guarantees for citizens and hence a significant impact on the day-to-day
operation of individual police officials.
Following on from its examination of an individual complaint regarding
the combined intervention of different police forces with general and special
powers in connection with a stolen vehicle found submerged in a waterway and
the various observations made at that time regarding coordination, information
and mutual support, Committee P felt it would be useful to ask its Investigation
Department to analyse the role and operation of the federal police’s Liège
water police department (SPNL).
The aim of the inquiry was not to undertake an in-depth analysis of the
specialist police department but rather to gain a relatively accurate idea of
its work and the perception of its work among other police partners. Investigation
Department P looked in particular at the following aspects of the SPNL’s
operational working: (1) the exercise of specialist police missions in the
context of water policing; (2) contribution to the national security plan;
(3) geographical distribution of boat checks and of offences reported, and
rationale behind monitoring activities; (4) protocol agreements concluded,
partnerships forged and more general integration into the police organisation;
(5) the existence of action plans and/or specific initiatives to deal with
specific situations within the SPNL’s field of work.
The SPNL is a properly managed unit in operational terms, with the department head successfully discharging the statutory missions assigned to him. Over time, ongoing efforts have been made to ensure a presence on all Walloon Region waterways. This active and proactive presence has developed alongside greater awareness of the SPNL’s work by other police partners. Committee P did, however, observe shortcomings with regard to organisational development. A well thought-out action plan including targets and follow-up indicators is lacking. Committee P noted a number of valuable initiatives being pursued by the SPNL but found that these were not integrated into an overall plan geared towards meeting pre-defined targets.
Committee P believes that a lot more needs to be done to consolidate the SPNL’s role in the police organisation and, in particular, the perception of it as a partner. Notable examples would be the dissemination of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and the drafting of protocol agreements with partners or key stakeholders.
Storage of service weapons and ammunition
Between 2002 and late 2004, Committee P looked into the issue of the storage of service weapons and ammunition in local police zones. The essential purpose of the inquiry was to check the physical and practical safety/security measures, at procedural level, aimed at preventing misuse or theft of any kind. In late 2005, Committee P asked its Investigation Department to conduct a similar inquiry among federal police forces, whilst also checking whether the situation in local police corps had changed since the problematic observations made in 2004. Accordingly, nine decentralised federal police forces or units, nine local police zones and one provincial police academy were visited during 2006 and early 2007. The methodology used was based on existing and forthcoming legislation and regulations and was the same as that used in the initial inquiry.
In summary, we can conclude that the situation with regard to the secure
storage of ammunition and firearms in the federal police units visited is
barely any better than that observed in the local police zones in 2004. Spreading
out large amounts of funding over several years may be justifiable in accounting
terms, but it should not be forgotten that the current situation is a direct
legacy from the past.
Two specific sites still pose serious security/safety issues, mainly due to
their location or their function. Currently, weapons at these sites are still
kept in office furniture or changing room lockers accessible to all. This is
quite simply unacceptable.
As for the local police zones, it would seem that the alarm bell rung
by Committee P in 2004 pricked the consciences of many police chiefs
and local administrative authorities, prompting them to pull out all the stops
– financially, at least – to implement responsible and safe firearm management.
Only a minority of zones are still failing to comply. The corps commanders in
particular, but also the local administrative authorities of these zones, must
realise that in the event of an incident they may be held responsible. It
should be noted that this situation is the subject of a special judicial
inquiry. Generally speaking, there are still too few structural checks carried
out to ascertain compliance with rules by individual staff members. Such checks
tended to be the exception rather than the rule.
As for the federal police, the ‘catch-up process’ was only launched in 2006 and is still hampered by financial considerations, which suggests that the local police zones have been given, or possess, more resources. It may be useful to have the central departments perform a risk analysis so that purchased lockers and safes are distributed as effectively as possible. Pending delivery of the safety/security equipment, department heads are advised to implement temporary measures tailored to local circumstances and aimed at ensuring a certain level of safety/security. However, in some units these might temporarily contravene existing instructions from the Commissioner of Police.
Security functions in cities and municipalities
In late 2001, at the request of its parliamentary support committee, Committee P conducted an inspection inquiry into the issue of individuals who perform monitoring functions in cities and municipalities, as part of which they may hold some police powers or work in close collaboration with the police. The majority of these individuals wear a uniform which, in some cases, bears a number of similarities to that of the police; this could lead members of the public to believe that they are actually police officials. The inquiry, which was initially confined to a number of municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region, was updated in 2004-2006 then extended to a representative sample of cities and municipalities across the country.
Committee P feels that it is important to monitor closely the tasks situated at the very edge of regular police duties and the activities of authorised private security firms. Efforts need to be made to further integrate private security initiatives and the deployment of security guards into police zones’ general security policies. Taking this a step further, greater synergy needs to be achieved between the various security functions and with the local police. The new law of 15 May 2007 establishing the function of law enforcement officer and the department of law enforcement officers and amending Article 119a of the new municipal law appears to provide the perfect opportunity to do this.
Committee P feels that locating security guards in police stations
should be avoided as far as possible. Even if their uniform is clearly distinguishable
from that of the police, such a set-up may create confusion among members
of the public. Such proximity could also create a range of problems, most
notable from the point of view of the professional secrecy to which police
officials are bound.
The training of these security personnel must be brought into line with the
tasks assigned to them and must include synergy with other services, in
particular the local police.
Inquiries concerning the special inspection services
Committee P’s remit with respect to the special inspection services
was dealt with above. In consultation with its parliamentary support committee,
Committee P took a decision to assume a more active, even proactive,
role in this area, most notably by giving greater structure to its monitoring
of these players. Various inquiries into all or some of the services in question
have thus been conducted.
Some of these inquiries were initiated in response to a complaint or report
of misconduct relating to an official from the services concerned, including:
Customs and Excise; the Nature and Forest Agency of the Flemish Community’s
Environment, Nature and Energy Department; FPS Mobility and Transport; the
STIB/MIVB; and a specific rural warden. Others were inspection inquiries relating
to particular aspects of the deployment and operation of judicial police officers
at Customs and Excise, particularly in connection with tackling human trafficking.
As regards Customs and Excise, Committee P again noted a number of
deficiencies and shortcomings such as: a lack of judicial police officers
within Customs and Excise; problems of coordination with the regular police forces,
owing partly to the fact that Customs is not a ‘required’ participant at coordination meetings;
the fact that Customs is not required to communicate regarding the operations it
is undertaking; the lack of general guidelines on the judicial function of
Customs; and the reluctance, or even resistance, towards external monitoring displayed
by certain Customs and Excise officials.
The structures of official police academies are characterised by a dichotomy between province-run academies and academies that operate as non-profit organisations. This applies on both sides of the language border.
The heavily decentralised structure of police academies means that we have to deal with different organisational authorities and results in a piecemeal and somewhat inconsistent approach to the teaching provided. A higher body, what might be termed a teaching department – responsible for setting educational targets and operating standards and carrying out inspections – is lacking, despite the manifest need for teaching support within academies, especially in terms of guidance and training for teachers. As things stand, there is still indisputable scope for developing synergy between academies and optimising contacts and relationships between local academies and the federal police.
Whilst decisions in this area are in principle taken by the Interior Minister – with possible assistance from external advisers – we note that police education, the principles by which it operates and is organised and the entry into the process through recruitment and selection are all now exclusively internal police matters. External contribution from outside the police (in particular from security players such as the legal aid, special youth assistance and prison sectors, the magistracy, academia and individuals working with young people and in aid sectors) and the integration or streamlining of police training into mainstream education, for example, are either non-existent or extremely limited. As a consequence, the socialisation of new police recruits is a wholly internal process.
The issues raised by this inspection inquiry will be examined at a later stage of Committee P’s study project on recruitment, selection and training. Committee P believes that thinking about the future of training does not necessarily mean coming out for or against a central structure but rather asking how the situation can be taken forward, what the aims should be and what contribution should come from inside and outside the police.
Global
and integrated monitoring of the police
Complaints and reports of police misconduct – 2006 figures
Compared with 2005, the number of complaints lodged directly with Standing Committee P rose by 4%. In 2006, the Investigation Department was assigned 128 fewer judicial inquiries than in 2005, down more than 22%. The number of (complaint) cases forwarded by the AIG and police forces displayed a downward trend (16.3% fewer than the previous year). The number of judgements and rulings forwarded fell by 8%, whereas the number of items of information forwarded increased by 8.4%. Lastly, 111 more disciplinary cases were closed in 2006 than in 2005, up 16.6%.
Last year, a total of 2,314 complaints were lodged directly with Committee P, of which 2,006 related to the local police. Regional differences can be observed in these 2,006 complaints. Committee P received more than 100 complaints relating to three police zones, namely Brussels-Capital/Ixelles 5339 (324), Brussels Midi 5341 (101) and Antwerp 5345 (157). These figures contrast with those of other large zones such as Ghent 5415 (51), Charleroi 5330 (37), Liège 5277 (38) and Brussels-West 5340 (66). It is also remarkable that some relatively small zones such as Schaerbeek/Evere/Saint-Josse-ten-Noode 5344, Leuven 5388 and Ostend 5449 score relatively highly with 72, 42 and 33 complaints respectively. Together, these 10 zones account for 921 complaints or 45.91% of the total number of complaints made against the local police. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that over 50% of complaints are divided up between the remaining 186 zones, each of which recorded at least one complaint. Hence, no zone is excluded from the 2006 figures.
The 2,519 complaints lodged directly with local corps display the same trend. Over 100 complaints were lodged directly with a number of corps, with some regional differences: Brussels-Capital/Ixelles 5339 (158), Brussels-West 5340 (150), Brussels Midi 5341 (148), Antwerp 5345 (455), Ghent 5415 (187). Other corps on the ‘short list’ are Montgomery 5343 (97), Uccle/Watermael-Boitsfort/Auderghem 5342 (67), Leuven 5388 (74), Bruges 5444 (57), Schaerbeek/Evere/Saint-Josse-ten-Noode 5344 (55), Hekla 5349 (35), RIHO 5453 (40) and Grensleie 5455 (39). These 13 corps account for 1,562 complaints, or 62% of the total.
To gain an idea of the total volume of complaints and reports of police misconduct, the number of complaints lodged directly with Committee P (2,314) must be combined with the 2,665 reports of misconduct handled by local police forces themselves (2,519) and, to a lesser extent, by the AIG and the federal police (146 in total), bringing the total number of recorded complaints to 4,979. This is a drop of 425 compared with 2005, when a total of 5,404 complaints were recorded. Analysing the data further, we can see that this reduction is partly down to an improvement in the quality and processing of information sent to Committee P, with the result that duplication is kept to a bare minimum. In any case, we cannot say that there has been a spectacular fall in complaints compared with previous years, including 2005. Almost all the complaints were lodged by individual citizens, which means that just under 5,000 situations gave rise to complaints, justified or otherwise.
As regards the language breakdown, 1,110 complaints were recorded in French and 1,182 in Dutch [xii] . As in previous years, there was another big shift in the types of allegation. Overstepping power (161), objectionable behaviour (206), neutrality/impartiality (120), failure to draft a report (169), failure to take action (110), unfair treatment (103), inaccurate reporting (181), arbitrary deprivation of liberty (89), violence against individuals and property (242), breach of professional secrecy (53), arbitrary acts (65), racism (49), harassment (56), traffic offences (59) and overreacting (29) are grievances that crop up regularly in complaints. Harassment and complaints relating to personnel and recruitment management would appear to be new.
Regarding incidents of racism, Standing Committee P in 2007 employed the services of a trainee criminologist who, under the Committee’s supervision and guidance and independently of its own standard internal analyses, conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the complaints of police racism lodged with Committee P by members of the public between 2000 and 23 April 2007. The study is due to be published, in a slightly modified form if necessary, as soon as the go-ahead has been given by the relevant academic circles.
We should further note that making a standard complaints form available on the Committee’s website met with immediate success: 27% of complaints were sent in by e-mail and 1,035 by post, while 336 official reports drafted by the Investigation Department P resulted in the processing and examination of a complaint.
In the analysis of decisions taken by the Committee, only the complaint files indicated in the database as being opened and closed in 2006 have been taken into account. Based on these terms of reference, 1,508 complaints were lodged directly with the Committee. Other case files received by the Committee were forwarded to the corps for independent processing. These numbered 552 and were likewise all opened and closed in 2006.
Complaints lodged in bad faith betoken a lack of civic responsibility which must be tackled. Complaints must therefore meet certain quality criteria and citizens are duty bound to cooperate honestly. For years now, Parliament has been investing in the various parliamentary bodies such as Committees P and I (not forgetting the Court of Audit) and in internal inspection services and those answerable to the executive such as the AIG, as a sign of openness and in an effort to convince citizens to trust our police system. Consequently, citizens must not abuse this openness and accessibility in order to vent personal grievances or take revenge. With both Parliament and Committee Permanent P concluding that slanderous statements must be discouraged, appropriate measures need to be taken. At the very least, an awareness campaign is needed warning citizens not to abuse their right to complain.
Committee P pledges to develop an action plan against false accusations as a means of protecting individual police officials. Here and now, we would urge each and every citizen not to abuse their right to complain and to contribute constructively to the smooth running of our institutions and the democratic development of our society.
Standing Committee P has for the first time been informed of a judgement [xiii] in which two perpetrators (French citizens) were prosecuted for making false accusations to the authorities (under Article 445 of the CP/Sw). Charleroi criminal court provided a second example in its judgement dated 7 June 2006: an individual charged with armed resistance had taken four police officials to court on allegations of assault and battery. In its verdict, the court displayed obvious indignation at a manifestly fraudulent prosecution being used as a means of ‘defence’ against the charge of resistance and with the aim of creating doubt in the minds of those concerned. As a result, the police officials were acquitted. Committee P welcomes such judgements, which send out a message to citizens that they cannot get away with making random allegations in the form of a complaint. As noted above, every year the Committee has to deal with a number of unfounded complaints which – quite rightly – elicit criticism from the police community, which feels that citizens can take any amount of liberties without facing the consequences. In particular, there is concern about the energy and human/material resources needed to deal with such complaints and also the ease with which a person’s good name and reputation can be dragged through the mud. In any case, the above-mentioned cases illustrate that the police do not have to sit back and take whatever comes their way. Police officials who have had their reputations unjustly sullied already have a range of options at their disposal, including prosecution for slander. As previously announced, Committee P is committed to conducting an inquiry in the near future devoted exclusively to the issue of false complaints against police officials. The inquiry will look at the reality of the situation, try to accurately define the problem, detail the legal and other options currently open to police officials who fall victims to false complaints and will round off with a series of recommendations for the legislature.
Compared with the previous year, 128 fewer judicial inquiries were assigned to the Investigation Department. We know that this fall is largely linked to the reorganisation of reception services and the direct and systematic hearing of complainants in Brussels, where the system of physical reception and immediate filing of complaints has been scrapped. Complaints received via other channels, such as post and e-mail, have been affected in the same way. The reduction was most obvious in the Brussels district, where 83 fewer missions were assigned than in 2005, but was also evident in the following judicial districts: Antwerp (- 20), Ghent (- 7), Liège (- 6), Namur (- 21) and Nivelles (- 14). Other districts recorded a slight increase in the number of missions assigned to the Investigation Department, such as Tongeren (+ 2), Oudenaarde (+ 12) and Charleroi (+ 13).
Previous annual reports referred to application of the requirement for any members of a police force who have knowledge of a crime or offence committed by another member of the police to report it, in accordance with Article 26 of the organic law of 18 July 1991. These information reports are forwarded to the chief of the Investigation Department. The total number of reports forwarded was 567.
Committee Permanent P must also be automatically informed by the state prosecutor of the launch of any inquiries or investigations into police officials. Although there were some differences between the various districts, data were forwarded for a substantial number (1,173 in total) of newly launched inquiries.
As regards discipline, 779 decisions were forwarded by the disciplinary authorities. This is 78 more than in 2005, a rise of 11%. 627 decisions were taken by local corps and 121 by the federal police. Within the federal police, most of the decisions emanated from the DAR (36), the SJA/GDA (now the PJF/FGP) (22) and the DAC (39). The decisions received do not relate to all corps, some of which have not imposed any disciplinary sanctions over the years in question. Some corps took more decisions than others. However, many offences recorded as proven in the context of complaints or judicial inquiries are not reflected in the disciplinary sanctions. Moreover, disciplinary proceedings do not automatically result in a disciplinary sanction. Out of the 779 cases in question, 750 were examined by the relevant internal monitoring service; this highlights the importance of such services on disciplinary issues.
Judgements and rulings issued against members of the police forces – Article 14(1) : evaluation of information forwarded in 2006 [xiv]
The judicial authorities forwarded a total of 106 orders, judgements and rulings involving judicial decisions for criminal (and sometimes civil) offences against 127 police officials and police agents. Of the 106 decisions, 11 orders were issued by an investigative court. These were either procedural orders (referral to the sentencing court or non-suit) or a ruling on the merits of the case (deferral of sentencing or internment). By contrast, the 116 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.
Analysing the figures, it is striking to note that police in the Ghent judicial area are subject to the toughest line in terms of the number of prosecutions. This observation is further reinforced if we consider the proportion and number of police officials working in the judicial area in question. The Antwerp judicial area (with a staff of 6,088 local police) has around the same number of police officials as the Ghent judicial area (staff of 6,246 local police), whilst the Brussels judicial area has significantly more (staff of 8,517 local police). In Committee P’s view, the discrepancy in figures is primarily linked to the prosecution policy implemented by the public prosecutor’s office with regard to the respective corps commanders. A comparison between the number of judgements and the number of pre-trial investigations [xv] brought to our attention highlights a number of striking facts. For example, it emerges that Liège launched by far the biggest number of inquiries (25.74%) but only recorded five criminal convictions. The district of Antwerp reports 13 judgements for 135 cases forwarded (11.51%). The district of Charleroi took 14 judicial decisions for 104 cases forwarded (8.87%). The district of Ghent records nine judicial decisions for its six inquiries (0.51%) while the district of Brussels reported 18 judgements for 84 cases (7.16%). Although these figures are not really comparable since the majority of decisions relate to offences committed prior to 2006, they nonetheless offer some insight, albeit rudimentary, into the prosecution policy with respect to police officials. Lastly, the Mons judicial area continues to stand out for the number of its acquittals, with over a third of prosecutions ending in acquittal (nine out of 25).
Also noteworthy is the inexplicably high number of sentencing deferrals which police officials clearly enjoy: 30 of the 95 decisions issued by courts were deferrals (not counting acquittals). At 31.5%, this is a substantial percentage. Indeed, almost one in three police officials is awarded a deferral and retains a clean criminal record. Last year, the proportion was only 26%, or one in four police officials. If we compare this result with the normal percentage of sentencing deferrals awarded to ‘ordinary citizens’, we are forced to conclude that police officials do indeed seem to enjoy extremely favourable judicial treatment. Taking the average number of deferrals as a proportion of criminal convictions between 1994 and 2003 gives a percentage of 4.72. By comparison, the 31.5 percentage for the police strikes us as hard to justify. Further analysis suggests that many judges believe (wrongly) that police officials have already been punished enough by a disciplinary decision (or the threat of one) or by a corrective measure, or else they do not want to overly jeopardise the official’s career by imposing a criminal conviction. The implicit reason underlying the large number of deferrals is mainly the fact that such judicial decisions are not included in the relevant extract from the criminal records (still currently the certificate of good conduct), which anyone can obtain under Article 595 of the C.I.Cr./Sv (Code of Criminal Procedure). As was the case last year, the Antwerp judicial area would appear to be advocating a softly-softly approach towards police officials who have committed criminal offences, with deferrals accounting for eight of the 18 convictions – close on 50%.
However, the disciplinary authority for the Antwerp police zone does not apparently favour this softly-softly approach: the cases examined by the higher authority resulted in disciplinary sanctions, despite the suspensions imposed (usually ranging from five days to one month, though in one case extending to dismissal). However, this attitude remains the exception.
As a policy recommendation, Standing Committee P would advocate, firstly, making the fact that an offence is committed by a police official an aggravating circumstance, with differing degrees if necessary, and secondly having the Justice Minister and/or the Board of Public Prosecutors issue a binding directive under which the public prosecutor’s office, in its summing-up, would have to draw the court’s attention to this particular aspect and the extremely harmful consequences of overly lenient sentences being handed down to the police in general. A third option, and perhaps the only really effective one, would be to limit the powers of judges to hand down (conditional) deferrals in cases where a police official has committed an offence. Indeed, it would seem contradictory on the one hand to adopt a code of ethics and develop numerous action plans for promoting integrity within the police and on the other hand to have a situation in which police officials who do break the rules are not ultimately punished in any meaningful way.
Below are some of the major criminal offences and examples of improper behaviour for which police officials were convicted in 2006:
Misuse of police and other databases for personal ends
Committee P is pleased to note for the first time that criminal sentences have been handed down for illegal consultation of police and other databases. The most frequently consulted sources were the National General Database (BNG/ANG), the National Register (RRN), the Vehicle Register (DIV) and the Central Arms Register (RCA/CWR). The offence was usually committed for personal reasons.
Abuse of police official status
As the judgement handed down by Brussels criminal court on 8 November 2006 indicates, some police officials find it very hard to resist the temptation to abuse and exploit their status as police officials and all the prerogatives associated with it (use of restraint or force, use of patrol vehicles with flashing light and special siren, ability to make seizures, etc.) for illicit financial gain.
Traffic violations
Traffic violations committed while on duty:
Committee P regularly hears of police vehicles being involved in accidents as a result of police officers carrying out manoeuvres that are only possible in priority vehicles, such as not giving way, jumping red lights, and so on. The practice of activating the blue light alone is risky since it does not always carry great legal weight.
Traffic violations committed while off duty:
These are also familiar offences, ranging from fleeing the scene of an accident to alcoholic intoxication or drink driving and driving without insurance.
Forgery in the form of false official reports
Every year, we hear of police officials who knowingly draft false official reports, thereby committing a criminal offence.
Sex offences
Convictions for Internet and other sex offences are a notable issue.
Use of violence
Use of violence while carrying out duties:
A very large number of the complaints/reports of police misconduct and pre-trial investigations brought to Committee P’s attention relate to assault and battery by police officials. The bulk of judicial decisions pertain to this offence. One form taken by the use of violence is threatening members of the public without good cause. A remarkable phenomenon that crops up every now and again (including in complaints lodged with Committee P) involves so-called ‘preventive’ blows levelled by police officials with the aim of ‘calming somebody down’, acting as ‘shock therapy’ or nipping resistance in the bud. This is clearly unacceptable, despite the fact that in some cases senior officers seem willing to condone the ‘method’. Police officials are also regularly acquitted in assault and battery cases. This is not surprising since it is very often their word against that of the victims and the medical certificates produced are not always reliable and/or sufficiently compelling.
Use of violence in the private sphere:
Committee P was made aware of several judicial decisions concerning domestic violence committed by police officials. Cases of serious physical and psychological violence committed by police officers are not rare. Furthermore, it would seem that male protagonists of this type of offence often misuse their status either actively or passively: actively by threatening the victim with their police powers (having them arrested, subjecting them to road traffic checks, searching in databases, etc.), passively by dissuading the victim from reporting them by making suggesting that they (the victim) could lose their job. However, here too we see a tendency towards lenient sanctions precisely because some things take place in the private sphere and on the grounds that a proper punishment (community service, fine, suspended prison sentence) would have too severe repercussions for the police official’s future career.
Committee P regularly comes across police officials involved in brawls (usually on nights out), who have ‘forgotten’ that they are police officials and as such should adopt a cautious attitude and step away from the conflict rather than trying to settle it with their fists. Although most such cases involve constables, senior-ranking police officers have also been known to overstep the mark.
As regards the harshness of sentences, Standing Committee P notes the same thing year after year: judges frequently display great lenience towards offences committed by police officials. On each occasion, the Committee points out that the importance of a harsh (but fair) punishment is not always appreciated and that police officials can and most certainly should be judged more severely than ‘ordinary citizens’ since they: (1) are the ultimate role models; (2) have a virtual monopoly [xvi] on the legal use of force; (3) have a huge amount of power for crime-fighting purposes, first and foremost the ability to draft official reports; and (4) work in an organisation whose core responsibilities include setting an example to others (and in which colleagues can be easily ‘contaminated’ if they see a failure to take tough action against offences committed by police officers). As to the frequently cited argument that a rejection of the application for deferral would impact excessively on the official’s career, we simply cannot accept this line of reasoning. In practice, a deferral boils down to either an acquittal in disciplinary terms or, in many cases, a warning, i.e. a minor disciplinary sanction. A heavy penalty is handed down in a minimal number of cases and is limited to a suspension of several days or at most several months. More often than not, no further action is taken or at most a meeting is held to discuss the individual’s performance. An actual sentence (suspended or otherwise) by no means implies that the police official will be sacked: all it means is that the police authority is slightly tougher when it comes to meting out an appropriate disciplinary sanction and there is more chance of getting through an appeal to the Council of State.
Fortunately, there are some exceptions where the judge states clearly that the defendant’s status as a police official requires a tougher and more appropriate punishment. The Committee can only hope that magistrates and the public prosecutor’s office will be increasingly aware of the importance of tough, but properly thought through, punishments.
In terms of procedure, the problems experienced by the Belgian legal system in sentencing criminals for their offences within a reasonable timeframe are all too familiar. It is no different for police officials and the procedure in criminal cases all too often resembles an assault course. Instances abound in which the disciplinary process for police officials takes years. A multitude of factors are to blame, including inquiries being far too complex and accusatory, the countless rights of appeal (both at the inquiry phase and during the investigation hearing) and a lack of management of the inquiry and hearings on the merits of the case. This problem is most glaring in the case of pre-trial investigations headed by an examining magistrate, when the possibilities for intervention by the parties and the procedural obstacles are far too numerous.
We regularly note that the delays occur mainly at the selection of proceedings stage (only when a pre-trial investigation headed by an examining magistrate has taken place) and at the courts of appeal where the public prosecutor’s office can only arrange a limited number of cases per hearing. It is also a fact that some evidence, despite being essential in inquiries into police officials, may be lost due to the length of time involved. This is particularly true of reporting forms, telephone conversations recorded by the police, radio messages from the dispatching centre, and so on. In addition to this, there is the fact that witnesses will be unable to remember certain details years after the event in question. This is why Committee P attaches importance to inquiries conducted into police officials and stresses that they should be given priority, fast-track treatment, not only on account of their social implications but also for simple procedural reasons. In the current criminal procedure context, the public prosecutor’s office can play a prominent alerting role, even in cases handled by an examining magistrate. It can draw the attention of both the examining magistrate/investigative court and the court/judge adjudicating on the substance of the case to any problems raised.
Irrespective of the leniency of the criminal punishment, what Committee P considers more important is that the punishment be enacted rapidly after the offence committed; moreover, it is wholly advisable that criminal cases involving police officials should, as far as possible, be handled and closed as an absolute priority, in the interests of the general public, which is entitled to a speedy verdict, of the individual concerned, who knows his/her fate within a very short space of time, and last but not least of the police corps involved, where it is essential, from an administrative point of view, that police officials who have committed a criminal offence are dealt with rapidly.
Police authority and power: conditions for exercising the monopoly of force
Based on observations made as part of its general monitoring remit, Committee P highlights the existence of failings and shortcomings in day-to-day police practice. This often goes hand in hand with the use of restraint and restriction of liberty. Indeed, abuses of authority and power are regularly reported in this context. Such actions directly undermine the protection of human rights. Not only can they result in the breach of an individual’s right to freedom and security or the principle of non-discrimination, they can also involve violate a person’s physical integrity. A number of unacceptable circumstances and methods are detailed in complaints, reports of police misconduct and incident reports. Although many such incidents were/are not corroborated by the ensuing inquiry, some potential recurrent problems do need to be highlighted. In this context, the inquiries also point to the existence of possible gaps in the knowledge and application of basic legislation.
Committee P wonders whether the problem may be situated upstream, i.e. during the profile-based recruitment and selection process or during the learning process aimed at providing police officials with the knowledge and skills needed to carry out their work with professionalism and integrity on the ground. As part of its general inquiry into the use of restraint and force, Committee P also wishes to examine the path taken by police recruits throughout the recruitment and selection process and their acquisition of specific skills and knowledge.
In the past, Committee P has conducted several inquiries within police academies. In general, the findings were rather alarming. We observed not only a lack of knowledge of the legal foundations governing police action but also a lack of knowledge regarding information procedures, solution-finding and accountability for one’s own (police) actions.
As for the current inquiry, the responses provided by trainee field personnel generally show the same gaps and failings, relating to practical policing duties, which emerged from other Committee P inquiries on this issue. In any case, the questionnaire results point to potential gaps that cast doubt on the feasibility of introducing newly trained recruits straight into practical policing duties. In this case, the gaps observed – which are borne out by results from monitoring – do not seem to be the result of abuses, errors or a lack of policing experience, but rather of structural deficiencies within the organisation.
Education and training of police officials
We have observed that there exists, in practice, a large margin of difference in terms of the content of training, particularly basic training. The training offered differs not only according to the specific police academy and its structure but also according to the individual teacher concerned. In other words, question marks hang over not only the coordination of basic training but also the consistency of that training. In our experience, some police academies use permanent human and other resources, developing a standard basic training that ensures a set pattern based on partnerships with zones and mentors, whereas other academies prefer to work with freelance staff – visiting lecturers – who put their own stamp (with their own characteristics and emphases) on the training content they impart.
Although police academy directors and their lecturers meet several times a year at academy and inter-academy meetings to reach agreement on various issues, there is still insufficient consultation as to teaching approach and content. The content and structure of classes and even the basic training manuals are insufficiently developed and coordinated. Manuals do not cover ‘the’ or ‘a’ basic training; they can be swapped between police academies, sometimes in return for payment. Directors favour individuality, creativity, independence and diversity among academies.
In our view, the following effects cannot be ruled out:
(1) Upon completion of training, young officials from different police academies may never be in a position to automatically question differences due to a lack of experience, there being no uniform education and training model in practice.
(2) Due to their lack of knowledge and experience, young police officials will learn ‘on the job’ from their older colleagues; in other words, information will tend to flow from older to younger police officials, and much less between young officials.
(3) Many acquired techniques and skills are internalised through education and training and may then be difficult to correct through practical experience in the field.
In short, this means that structural problems may also arise during basic police training due to its lack of consistency and uniformity. These problems may then directly affect the persistence of shortcomings and failings in police practice.
Integrity and professional ethics
The Code of Ethics is the cornerstone for teaching about integrity in the broad sense in basic police training. Although training is based on practical case studies where possible, it is virtually impossible to tell on the strength of an examination whether an individual fits the desired profile at the end of the module. The learning aspect is generally confined to the module itself, which normally comprises 10 hours of teaching. The desired profile in terms of integrity and the Code of Ethics is conveyed using case studies. However, we have found that the other aspects of training in integrity and the link between integrity and the other parts of the course are not sufficiently developed. Some police academies work on the principle that each teacher provides references during classes as a matter of course.
Given that the difference between ordinary teachers and visiting lecturers is also important when it comes to keeping a track of course content, the differences between the police academies questioned seem, once again, considerable. On the one hand, we have the system whereby the individual teacher or lecturer is expected to provided references and link in the concept of integrity, separately from and in addition to professional ethics classes. On the other hand, this specific aspect of integrity is one of the objectives of every branch of learning and is always assessed during practical exercises. Special consultation also takes place with mentors during scheduled induction periods. However, in some other police academies this type of collaboration is much less in evidence. The above-mentioned assessment also revealed that induction mentoring is not the only problematic issue resulting from schedules being drawn up late and induction periods being scheduled during holiday periods. Conversely, there is too little feedback and too little attention focused on monitoring, particularly with regard to the behaviour of recruits.
Interviews with police academy directors revealed that, even where a recruit’s behaviour arouses concerns and he/she is found, during the training process, to fall below expectations in terms of integrity, the law does not allow action to be taken unless the circumstances are so serious that an inquiry is launched, either through a report of police misconduct lodged with the judicial authorities or in accordance with disciplinary law.
Human rights – attitudes of police officials – community policing ethos
Basic police training for field personnel does not currently [xvii] include specific teaching on community policing, human rights or the attitude expected of police officials. ‘Community policing’ is sometimes taught as a separate subject at police academies, but only as part of the functional training given to those operating (or wishing to operate) as neighbourhood constables – not as a core subject of basic police training. Nor, indeed, does this core policing philosophy underpin basic training as a whole. In practical police work, the philosophy of community policing is associated more with the ‘neighbourhood policing’ function, and we are seeing this trend confirmed in the training given to new police officers.
As for the attitude expected of future police officials when interacting with members of the public, i.e. showing commitment to the protection of human rights and the principles of community policing, this is neither a specific topic in the modular system of basic training nor a module in its own right. Despite the fact the attitude displayed by police officials is the most frequent subject of complaints and reports of police misconduct, and the commonest issue to arise during monitoring of the police and their general working, police training does not deal specifically with the attitude expected of the police. In this regard, reference is often made to the professional ethics course, which includes formally defined expectations regarding exercise of the function and the discharge of professional obligations.
Application of legal and regulatory procedures and use of restraint and force
The new GPI 48 regulations on education and training in the curbing of violence are currently being incorporated into training systems. This means that the very latest basic training must factor in the new regulations and that specific modules are currently being devised, incorporating in particular the ‘train the trainers’ principle and the concept of in-service training. Under the directive, more attention must go to monitoring shooting performance, tracking training hours, reporting problematic situations and the like. The GPI 48-based component of training is the focus of another special inspection inquiry by Standing Committee P.
Committee P has several times highlighted the fact that police work must, as far as possible, form a uniform and coherent whole. This means a process that starts with recruitment and selection, continues with education and training and includes actual operation, with all the in-service training, evaluation and adjustments that this entails as well as operation supervision and monitoring. If mistakes or shortcomings occur, guidance must be provided, along with punishment where appropriate. The police organisation must itself be accountable for professional and honest operation by instituting quality standards for practical policing. This means that the police must itself monitor and assess the quality of police work on an ongoing basis. It must do so by constantly weighing all aspects of police work against the different basic premises underpinning it – human rights, first and foremost – and then incorporating the results into the overall learning process.
On 1 March 2007, a new Commissioner of Police assumed control of the federal police. Since then, he has been assisted by a chief (or director-general) of administrative police, a chief of judicial police and a director-general of support and management. The coordinating directors (DirCos) are directly accountable to the Commissioner of Police, the aim being to enhance the role of the Commissioner and of the DirCos.
In most police zones, the contracts of
corps commanders were renewed for a five-year period. From this we can conclude
that on the whole the authorities are pleased with the management and leadership
displayed by zone chiefs. Standing Committee P believes that a system
is needed whereby, in the most extreme cases, the Interior Minister would
have the power to dismiss a corps commander or revoke the extension of his/her
contract unilaterally.
Moreover, the ‘Joe Van Holsbeeck’ Royal Decree [xviii]
specifies that police officers must remain at least five years in the same
police zone in order to get to know the area and local residents properly.
These efforts are likely to prove beneficial to the police as a whole. The
same decree is also intended to minimise staff shortages within police zones.
The overall increase in police personnel since 2003 is quite remarkable. Nonetheless, several zones in the Brussels Region still suffer from a lack of police officers, especially bilingual ones. On the other hand, the increasing number of women in the profession is a cause for celebration as is the hiring by the forensic unit of 48 civilians to work as experts with judicial police status in the federal police laboratories. Furthermore, a special recruitment campaign targeting blind and partially sighted people was launched with the aim of taking on six as judicial police officers at federal police audio surveillance units.
As far as partnerships are concerned, two recently signed agreements deserve a mention: the protocol agreement between FPS Finance and FPS Justice, under which the police can consult individual tax records while FPS Finance departments have access to Justice Ministry databases; and the police-schools partnership, reinforced by circular PLP 41 [xix] , which makes schools a point of contact for the police. This circular dovetails simply establishes the link with community policing; it is up to school heads to use the associated resources appropriately. Committee P would like to warn against the dangerous trap of assimilating school drop-outs with juvenile delinquents. The police will never solve the root causes that prompt kids to drop out of school, and in any case it is not their responsibility to do so.
In terms of resources, the Court of Audit has once again highlighted the funding transfers made to offset the additional cost of the new single police status. These allocations have repercussions on employee social security and are not recorded anywhere in the government budget; consequently, the total cost of the police reform has been underestimated. The Court of Audit goes on to say that the single status continues to generate inexcusable administrative chaos. The safety fund, which is expanding every year, is also giving rise to problematic funding transfers and ever more ridiculous levels of spending. Standing Committee P feels it is high time either to lower the ceiling of the road safety fund or to incorporate it into the total allocation awarded by the federal authorities to the police zones.
Community policing is making slow but steady progress (although there is always room for improvement), both in terms of public perception and within the police. In this connection, we should note that some core functions of the local component are at a more advanced stage than others. The ‘neighbourhood policing’ function, for example, is not always well perceived or sufficiently promoted (see below).
As regards procedures, the system recently introduced by various police zones allowing people to lodge complaints via the zone website builds on the e-government agenda, with the aim of facilitating contact between the police and the public. Meanwhile, the federal road police are also set to exploit new technologies, focusing in their case on legal procedures (e.g. automated tickets/official reports). This will allow them to free up operational resources and perform more vehicle checks, whilst also speeding up procedures.
As far as results go, the 2006 Moniteur de Sécurité/Veiligheidsmonitor security questionnaire reveals that society is relatively satisfied with the work of the police. Given the public’s feeling of insecurity and its wish to see more police on the streets, a desire was expressed to cut the rate of absenteeism in the profession. A raft of measures was therefore implemented which successfully reduced the rate of absenteeism to 7% as at 1 January 2007, compared with 8% in the past.
Lastly, some problem areas of the police reform are still in evidence: financing, the plethora of partnerships and the confusion or roles resulting from the fact that police tasks are increasingly outsourced to public or private bodies, which does little to foster respect for democratic rights.
In its analysis of the reception and response functions, Committee P found that these functions needed to be more closely integrated into an ASTRID-CIC procedure, that the processes were not given enough formal structure by corps management and more attention needed to be focused on the feelings of (in)security of both customers and the personnel working in these two functions.
Regarding the reception function, it is still regrettably the case that customers turning up at police reception desks risk being greeted by police officials whose reception strategy consists of a ‘next, please’ approach and who are essentially impolite and unhelpful and sometimes even unfriendly and unsympathetic. A run-of-the-mill situation can quickly degenerate if customers feel that the person they are talking to is not listening to them or is failing to be neutral.
Ideally, a specialist staff member should be available in each zone when circumstances require. In large stations, customers having to wait to be dealt with is less of a problem as such stations have designated reception staff, usually supervised by a coordinating officer.
Geographical accessibility could still be improved. Moreover, Committee P regrets that some police zones do not have mobile police stations, i.e. vehicles that drive around from one neighbourhood to the next, thereby fostering close contact with the public.
Positive reception-related developments include virtual reception [xx] , initiatives to make reception areas more welcoming, the creation of skills profiles for reception staff, internal training, support provided in various zones through operational management as part of the ASTRID-CIC procedure and the generally low rate of absenteeism among reception staff.
As regards response (also referred to as ‘intervention’), the risk of a patrol team being unavailable is non-existent since the minimum legal requirement for response teams to be on call around the clock is observed across the country. However, an equivalent service is an objective to be achieved. The response function is still too often solely associated with quality criteria linked to the urgency and speed of the police response. Calls from the members of the public should meet with more tailored responses, which means making more targeted and strategic choices.
The following aspects of the response function are not without importance: direct supervision of response teams on the ground by a middle-ranking officer and the handover procedure between team leaders. In this context, Committee P notes that the management teams in smaller zones, when they are operationally dependent on an information and communication centre (CIC) after normal opening hours, rely on the unfailing support of the CIC, which is designated as the entity in charge of the procedure. Patrol teams are therefore logged with the CIC. In large corps, on the other hand, where shift patterns involve large-scale staff crossovers, a handover process takes place involving a briefing and debriefing between successive team leaders.
There are a number of positive response-related developments to note, namely: a marked improvement in the encoding of data from patrol staff reports, the policy of bilateral operational and non-operational support introduced at zone level, the commitment to offering the public a standardised and effective service, increased formalisation in the shape of protocol agreements, the translation of aspects of these agreements into zonal security plans and the emerging cooperation in various areas between the zones and the administrative coordinating directors (DirCos).
Neighbourhood
policing is an integral part of community policing and remains the principal tool
in establishing contact with the public and hence building up a relationship of
trust with them.
Although the importance of effective, public-oriented neighbourhood policing
is universally acknowledged, the findings of Committee P inquiries related
in some way to the neighbourhood policing function and the third review by
the local police reform support committee point to a number of difficulties
in effectively implementing this function.
The analysis undertaken by the De Ruyver Commission also shows, in terms of
organisational interpretation of the neighbourhood policing function, that the
minimum requirement of one neighbourhood constable per 4,000 inhabitants is
being achieved. However, the function of the neighbourhood constable is not
sufficiently well promoted. The community policing ethos is still poorly
understood, with the result that training is not tailored to the expectations
and requirements of local police corps.
The De Ruyver Commission also made recommendations regarding the neighbourhood
policing function. It is worth mentioning a few of those relating to staff.
It is absolutely imperative that the image of the police officer as crime-fighter
be adjusted in a way that emphasises the duality of the police function in general
and the neighbourhood function in particular. It is important that those who
perform the neighbourhood function reflect the sociological diversity of society.
Appropriate coaching and management of neighbourhood constables are crucial,
as are specific job and skills profiles. Giving neighbourhood constables additional
responsibility by putting them in charge of drawing up an adapted work plan
enhances job satisfaction. Lastly, the need for accountability must be emphasised.
In addition, the De Ruyver Commission believes that the term police orientée
vers la communauté (community-oriented policing, or community policing)
should be used in preference to police de proximité (local policing).
The Committee also observed some difficulties in effective implementation of
the neighbourhood policing function and would like to suggest some possible
areas for improvement.
First and foremost, it is important for police zones to have a neighbourhood
department consisting of motivated personnel who are committed to the community
policing ethos and have undergone functional neighbourhood police training.
These personnel should be able to devote virtually all of their time and energy
to local residents, acting as the eyes and ears of the police. Ideally, they
should have a thorough knowledge of the local community. Hence the need for
the corps management team to distribute neighbourhood constables appropriately
across the zone and define the tasks conferred upon them.
Alongside this, it is important that the neighbourhood constable be seen by all
players (general public, local stakeholders, schools, etc. as well as by the
zone personnel) and at all times as a key partner.
Committee P further hopes that it will be possible to make the function
more attractive to young people, in particular by reviewing working hours.
Lastly, aware of the importance of the neighbourhood policing function, Committee P
has made it a priority area for examination in the context of its watchdog work.
With regard to information management, the findings and recommendations set out in Standing Committee P’s 2003 activity report were translated into the objectives of the 2004-2007 National Security Plan.
However, there is a problem in the shape of the additional pressure on budgets. A considerable amount of capacity is wasted on continual alterations to existing systems, driven by the constant and rapid changes in the relevant legislation. A similar scenario looks set to occur in 2007, with the entry into force of the law of 21 March 2007 governing the installation and use of surveillance cameras. The law provides for mandatory consultation of the local police and the creation of a local register of cameras – priority tasks on top of an already heavy workload. With these measures, the authorities are deviating from the priorities which they themselves previously approved in the National Security Plan.
Furthermore, the newly developed special communication plan finally got into full swing in 2006. The federal police developed a communication plan containing the following items: (1) intranet – operational police information; (2) BNG/ANG newsletter; (3) meetings with partners; (4) helpdesk.
Knowledge of the IT system and encoding cycle is generally good. Information management training has been structured and is considered a priority. However, Committee P does have a few queries: what arrangements will be made for all members of the local police if the PolOffice Traffic programme is implemented at that level, to what extent can the uniformity of data be guaranteed and how will suitable teachers and infrastructure be arranged? Another problem is the fact that all constables on basic training are still being taught ISLP because the PolOffice programme (see below) is not yet ready. If these individuals join the federal police through job mobility, they will have to be retrained since the federal police use the FEEDIS programme.
To improve the content of the BNG/ANG, a vade mecum on data capture has been published on the intranet and in June 2004 the federal police launched a quality control action plan. However, the federal police see data flow quality as synonymous with quantity and exhaustiveness whilst the ‘value’ of the content is not taken specifically into account.
The structure of the central database was expanded in 2004, leading to a sharp increase in the flow of information in 2005 and 2006 (primarily ‘soft’ information and data relating to inquiries); as a result, searches for nationwide inquiry data can turn up many hits, which undoubtedly aids coordination.
As regards the breakdown (deletion) of data, Standing Committee P laments the prolonged absence of clear regulations (although such regulations are included in a draft royal decree implementing the law on policing).
One positive development is the reduction in the number of separate databases and the fact that all data are now stored centrally in a single database. This improves not only coordination but also the potential for data adjustment (uniform management, application of data breakdown rules, complaints alleging violations of privacy legislation).
A scheme has also been launched to replace the sending of hard copies and documents such as official reports with electronic versions, although this is still in the design phase. According to the federal police, the backlog of law enforcement reports (forwarded directly by the judicial authorities) has been cleared. Moreover, a new procedure has been developed for reports in connection with searches for address details and driving disqualifications, which are now carried out directly by the police. Expert data are also due to be added to the central system.
The FEEDIS system is intended to incorporate the following federal police processes: drawing up legal documents, managing inquiries and information, drawing up traffic-related documents and managing correspondence.
The local police’s ISLP programme for drafting and managing certain processes is undergoing other alterations as a result. These changes are mainly traffic-related (pertaining to: updating offence categories, on-the-spot fines, driving while under the influence, processing data from fixed cameras). The public order module (ARGOS) has also been rewritten.
The single IT platform that will bring together and ultimately merge the federal police’s ISLP and the federal police’s FEEDIS system (known as PolOffice) seems to be taking a long time to get up and running. Migration to PolOffice is carried out via various projects and is quite time intensive.
In terms of traffic, the PolOffice Traffic programme has been available to police traffic units since March 2006. However, a number of adjustments are still required before it can be used in the zones (some time in 2007 according to current estimates). Meanwhile, changes have nonetheless been made to ISLP in order to implement new traffic legislation.
In terms of judicial applications, the first development will be PolOffice Inquiry, which will partially replace ISLP and FEEDIS. It will then be possible to draft RIR forms (for passing on ‘soft’ information) and DOS forms (for passing on details of inquiries) in a single module for both local and federal police.
As regards the administrative police, the major achievement thus far is the ARGOS programme (actually part of ISLP), which is currently being adapted to operate under the PolOffice platform. Final completion is scheduled some time in 2007.
The main database (BNG/ANG) was incorporated into the user interface (Portal) in 2005. The development has met with approval from most field personnel, which justifies pushing ahead with the scheme. Use levels are also on the up, which can only be beneficial for inter-inquiry coordination and the efficiency of intelligence-led policing. One extremely welcome development is that, as of early 2006, it is now possible to consult the Interpol database directly in the same Portal environment. This option is restricted to the CIAs/AIKs and central departments, and requests are made using a hit/no hit system.
The link established between the Astrid dispatching software and ISLP, which enables data to be retrieved when drafting official reports during police responses, continues to operate one way only: from the dispatching centre to ISLP. However, the information and communication centre (CIC) should ideally be able to see the outcome of a given police response.
All sorts of applications could be cited in connection with information management. In any case, looking at neighbouring countries, Committee P is convinced that Belgium has made considerable progress in this area.
Information gathering and order maintenance – a case study
The aim was to ascertain the degree to which ‘unrest’ in minority communities is noted and communicated and/or whether information of this kind is used in preventing or defusing the escalation of conflicts between the police and the ethnic minority community.
Our analysis shows that it would be beneficial to focus more on the proactive approach of detecting the signs of unease and unrest precisely to avoid any kind of escalation, for instance when there is contact between response teams and the local minority community.
The limited managerial role played by the administrative authorities is rather striking, including in terms of the social perspective that should underpin information gathering. Committee P regrets the lack of clearly formulated objectives and needs.
In this connection, it is instructive to note that all DirCos are in favour of more strategic criminal analysis at their level. They are even calling for a set of regulations and clearer instructions for collecting administrative information, including the recording and use of BNG/ANG data for example, and for administrative consultation of districts, along the lines of ARRO.
Central Arms Register: data entry and monitoring by police forces
The unreliability of the Central Arms Register remains a sad reality.
As far as the local police zones are concerned, in general we can say that the warnings issued by Standing Committee P in 2004 did not particularly encourage senior police officials to make the additional investments needed to ensure reliable data input into the RCA/CWR. It is regrettable that poor management in the past and a lack of the current investment needed to sort the RCA/CWR out mean that police forces are unwittingly contributing to increased illegal possession of weapons.
The federal police, who manage the Central Arms Register, have lost no time in pinpointing the main problems and errors in the current database and notifying the local police corps of these in a structured way. Its challenge now is, firstly, to keep up this service it provides to the local police and, secondly, to take the necessary steps to ensure that the procedures for entering data into the RCA/CWR and the tools used to do so are as user-friendly as possible, especially in the context of the new arms law.
Supervision and management of football events
An inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the provision of football match supervision and management generated the following findings and recommendations.
The Committee remains convinced that investment in the creation of visual material, coupled with the professional use of such material, is not just key to the fight against hooliganism but also one of the critical factors in bringing about a well thought out and structural reduction in staff numbers.
Given their remit to provide quality support, it seems obvious to the Committee that the police officials deployed for this type of work must be recognisable at all times so that they can perform their role and meet their responsibilities as police officials in a fitting manner.
Efforts should also continue to raise awareness among senior staff about this issue and to optimise their monitoring function during collective interventions. Practical guidelines on the use of restraint and force could be issued at each briefing. If restraint or force does have to be used, it is essential that full details of this be recorded in an official report.
In terms of information, it would also be useful for the corps management to provide a standard document giving a brief chronological description of the various steps to be followed when making an administrative arrest, supplemented with the various (new) legal provisions where appropriate. This document could then be translated into the language of the visiting supporters during international matches.
In addition, work is urgently needed on a regulatory framework governing the use of dogs during the supervision and management of events in general and football matches in particular.
As regards tackling racism on and around football pitches, circular OOP 40 setting out guidelines for dealing with offensive, racist and discriminatory utterances and slogans chanted at football matches has been disseminated.
Lastly, Standing Committee P would like to emphasise once again the importance of an integrated approach to football-related crime. A lot has been done at all levels; however, experience tells us that a change in mentality and a more professional approach are still needed from a few senior staff, so that a more effective definition of integrated thinking can be achieved.
Astrid and dispatching centres
In 2006, as in 2005, implementation of the Astrid project in the integrated police service showed signs of improvement. ASTRID, the company responsible for the system, has progressed from the installation phase to the service phase and is currently working on a draft Service Level Agreement (SLA). Users are indeed demanding increasing levels of support and better maintenance, with some even lodging complaints to this effect. Slowly but surely, the many stakeholders involved are realising the added value offered by this high-tech communication system. Though costly, the opportunities and benefits afforded by the project, in terms of both radio resources (safety, reliability, discussion groups) and the CADs (computer aided dispatching centres) and CICs (support, coordination, follow-up, police tool), undoubtedly represent major added value for the reformed police service.
The main trends and achievements in 2006 were as follows: (1) continued efforts to complete CIC operational set-up (all CICs are now operational in one form or another); (2) publication of circulars GPI 49 (CIC department plan) and GPI 50 (radiocommunication standard); (3) development of a protocol agreement between the civil defence, police and emergency medical service setting out a model vision for future 112 centres; (4) development of a supra-dispatching concept and the CAD programming model for special events; and (5) introduction of short-term arrangements linking the Netherlands and Belgium.
The project’s main achievements in 2007 are as follows: (1) launch of the first integrated 112/100/101 centre; (2) creation of additional CIC workstations; (3) coordinating the reprogramming of all radio systems used by the integrated police service, as planned by the DST; and (4) adoption of additional legislative measures relocating emergency calls made from mobile phones.
Compared with previous years, Astrid is already resulting in more effective police operation; however, we are still a long way from making maximum use of the system. The aspects requiring improvement are no secret. They are located at different levels and relate primarily to: (1) workforce; (2) operational technical problems; (3) radio coverage; and (4) operational management. All partners are making efforts of some sort to move towards effective functioning, with the tenacity and professionalism of the DGS/DST/DTRC/P²IA meriting particular mention.
Timely response and task performance: an analysis of available information
Timely response and task performance is a vast subject area covering a) interpretation of the time that elapses between the call or request for police assistance being received and the police turning up, b) provision of the requested service or assistance and when this actually begins and c) the time taken to perform tasks. This timeframe/time limit must be ascertained on a case-by-case basis, according to a variety of factors such as the dispatching centre involved, the relevant priority list, the distance travelled and the traffic situation, availability, action plans, and so on.
The general trends highlighted in the previous analysis remain largely
unchanged. However, 2006 saw a large number of complaints directed at the
Antwerp local police, whereas the previous evaluation revealed the Brussels
police corps to be the main targets of complaints.
The most worrying finding to emerge from the follow-up inquiry was the
(relatively) large increase in the number of complaints: up from 53 in the
period 2001-2003 to 184 in 2004-2006. We also observed a shift in the reasons
why complaint files were closed and the decisions taken regarding complaints: in
the period 2001-2003, a shortcoming or a mistake on the part of an individual
was recorded in only 13 of the 53 complaints (24.5%) as opposed to 9 out
of 52 complaints (17.3%) in 2006. In the period 2001-2003, over 69% of
complaints were dismissed or resulted in the finding that no shortcoming had
taken place. Around ten cases (18.8%) were attached to another case file or the
annual report or led to a mini-inspection or an inspection of another
monitoring body. In 2006, however, in 31 out of 52 cases (59.6%) it was
decided that the complaint was unfounded, that there were insufficient grounds
or a lack of tangible evidence, that the situation had already been resolved or
that no error or shortcoming had taken place. Five inquiries resulted in a
reprimand, an admonishment or a disciplinary suspension.
With the introduction of the CICs, police zones have had to pass on details of their response policy to the CICs. The statistics kept by the CIC for each police zone, most notably on the arrival times and handling times of response teams, which are sent to the police zone every three months, should make it possible to adjust response policy (number of teams, new guidelines, training, time limits, etc.) and reduce the number of complaints in future.
The Committee intended this inquiry as a follow-up to that conducted in 2004 into the added value of the field support function [xxi] created in the City division of the Antwerp police zone. The findings of the follow-up inquiry relate primarily to the following: profiles of response officers and field support staff; the way they operate; the training they receive; and ISRA patrols (i.e. patrols in the Jewish quarter).
We can conclude from the inquiry that corps management has made visible efforts to take on board the wishes of response officers as highlighted in the first part of the 2004 inquiry. However, the main concerns at the time were the state of radios and vehicles so these, quite rightly, were given priority.
Currently, the main obstacles seem to lie in communication, both operational (briefings, guidance and feedback) and person-to-person (showing appreciation and support).
Committee P believes that the gulf separating the police from local inhabitants must be tackled head on, particularly given the reported trend of increased hostility towards the police, degenerating ever more frequently into physical assaults. Moreover, Committee P laments the further decline in the already very small number of response officers from minority backgrounds, especially in this highly multicultural neighbourhood. With women very well represented, a catch-up effort is needed with respect to minority groups.
Interaction between bailiffs and the police
This inquiry set out to make an initial analysis of the interaction between
bailiffs and the police and to answer two questions in particular: what areas
have been found to require improvement and what solutions have been proposed?
There seems to be some confusion as to the scope of the police’s involvement
in this area. The problems lie at different levels and relate in particular
to: preventive requisition 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.
Nonetheless, certain initiatives in this area suggest a concern on the part
of the authorities with the issue. For example, the circular of 1 December 2006
on the alleviation and simplification of certain administrative tasks undertaken
by the local police addresses the whole issue, and in particular the question
of requests for addresses (cf. point II.11). Likewise, point III
of the circular explains how the police-bailiff collaboration must observe
the rules laid down in a framework protocol between the Interior Minister
and the National Chamber of Bailiffs (Chambre nationale des huissiers de justice/Nationale Kamer van Gerechtsdeurwaarders), which sets out a number
of key principles. However, although some of the conclusions put forward by
Committee P in the past are undoubtedly covered in the protocol, there
are still some areas requiring improvement. Committee P also wonders
whether the measures contained in the circular of 1 December 2006
are binding enough.
Committee P recommends that a broader discussion be launched aimed
at redefining these tasks within the police system (performed by neighbourhood
constables? specialists? response teams?). Further, interaction between bailiffs
and the police should be dealt with in a structured way during training.
Committee P repeats its recommendation that payment of the police officer
by the bailiff should be scrapped, as it considers this a flagrant breach
of professional ethics. Committee P believes that the framework protocol
and any resulting district protocols that may arise from it are an opportunity
for different players to come together around the table and thrash out concrete
agreements. However, their binding nature remains the moot point.
Lastly, the Committee wishes to stress that backup, particularly that given to
bailiffs, is an integral part of police work as a whole and cannot just be
classed as an ‘administrative task’.
Joint
inquiries with Standing Committee I
Committee P was appointed to conduct two major anti-terrorism inquiries in collaboration with Committee I.
Police surveillance of Fehriye Erdal
Standing Committees P and I were jointly tasked by the Interior
and Justice Ministers with conducting an inquiry into the way the State Security
Service (Sûreté de l’Etat/Veiligheid van de Staat) and the police discharged
their mission of surveillance over Ms Fehriye Erdal, a member of the Turkish
Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front (DHKP-C),
taking into account the statutory provisions applying to these bodies and
Ms Erdal’s administrative status. The Committees received identical requests
from their respective parliamentary support committees.
Although they worked independently from one another, each in its respective
field of authority, the two institutions reached the same broad conclusions and
recommendations. The joint report by Committees P and I was approved at a
combined meeting on 18 April 2006.
Committee P reached the general conclusion that the police zones
concerned duly fulfilled their missions, as did the federal police. However,
the inquiry highlighted a number of missions or situations that were poorly
understood or misinterpreted (by both the police and the intelligence services),
and sometimes contradictory instructions given to each. For example, in all
the years under consideration, no clear instructions were issued regarding
the legal means available to the police to prevent Ms Erdal from fleeing.
Committee P found that the federal police in particular adopted a reactive
attitude, sticking strictly to its assigned remit. Apparently, it has not yet
fully recovered from the trauma of the Dutroux case and the fear of acting
‘wrongly’ remains deeply engrained.
In terms of collaboration between the police and the intelligence services, everyone acknowledges the inevitability of the two institutions working in the same field from time to time and the overlaps that this creates. This phenomenon has intensified over the past year or so (mainly owing to the radicalisation action plan and the judicial investigations in which the intelligence services are involved as experts). However, what the Erdal inquiry demonstrated was that the world of the police and that of intelligence remain quite separate in reality. Each has its own culture, techniques, tactics, practices, etc. and each knows absolutely nothing about the working, education and training, etc. of the other. Structured exchanges of operational intelligence are the exception rather than the norm, as are joint operations.
In terms of synergy building, the creation of joint platforms is a plus, particularly when we consider the many bodies that need to be involved in a decision-making process (at both strategic and operational level) which, as in the case in question, involves administrative police, judicial police and intelligence elements. Poor understanding of where the practical decision-making powers of each player start and end further complicates the situation. It seems clear that the multitude of security players calls for unequivocal structures and a clear decision-making model. Committee P would like to see a refinement of the collaboration between police forces and the intelligence services, particularly through protocol agreements between the different services/forces.
Committee P is also calling for (and has done for several years) implementing decrees on information management, building on Article 44 of the law on policing. Until this happens, it will not be possible to implement the concepts of administrative police information management in particular and ministerial circulars and memoranda will remain the order of the day.
Action of the police in connection with the arrest of Bahar Kimyongür
Bahar Kimyongür was arrested during a routine check in the Netherlands
on 28 April 2006 based on an Interpol alert issued by the Turkish
authorities. In the wake of this, senator M. Nagy asked the President
of the Chamber of Representatives to task Committee P with looking into
the arrest. The central question in this case is whether the Belgian authorities
informed their Dutch counterparts that Bahar Kimyongür was coming to the Netherlands
so that he could be arrested there. As a Belgian national, he could not be
arrested in Belgium for extradition to Turkey on the basis of the Interpol
alert.
On 28 June 2006, the speakers of the Chamber of Representatives and
the Senate asked the chairmen of Committee P and I to examine the case as
part of the Erdal investigation.
The joint inquiry concluded that the Belgian authorities are unlikely to have informed their Dutch counterparts of Kimyongür’s coming to the Netherlands: it was abundantly clear that the Dutch services were aware of his coming well before 27 April 2006. Moreover, Kimyongür had never made any secret of his intention to go to the Netherlands. Information obtained from the Dutch authorities confirms that the arrest did indeed take place during a routine check.
Even supposing Belgium did inform the Dutch authorities of his coming, whether or not with a view to his extradition to Turkey, the question remains as to whether a procedural error was committed.
In the context of coordinated criminal proceedings within the European Union (and even beyond, with a country like Turkey) and effective mutual cooperation on criminal matters, Committee P maintains that Belgium was duty bound to notify the Dutch authorities that Bahar Kimyongür intended to visit the Netherlands. In so doing, it seems patently obvious that they would mention his legal status as a member of a terrorist organisation who, at the time, had been sentenced by a court of first instance to four years in prison. The fact that his conviction was not yet set in stone was of no relevance at the time in question. We cannot go on and on about the need for police forces and authorities to commit to implementing an effective information exchange system, supplemented with joint police and judicial actions where need be, and then complain that such an exchange actually took place. Such information exchange is more than simply desirable: it is one of the cornerstones of the international police cooperation implemented in particular by the Schengen agreements and the Belelux Treaty of 8 June 2004 on police cooperation, one of whose main objectives is to facilitate the exchange of information pertaining to individuals.
Follow-up
of recommendations made by Committee P
Recommendations to the Interior Minister
Support persons within the police: The Interior Minister called on the Commissioner of Police and the chairman of the Standing Committee on Local Policing to act on the findings and recommendations communicated to him. He emphasised the need to adapt the structure of the network of support persons in line with Committee P’s report and focusing on cooperation with the local police. Committee P naturally welcomes the follow-up to its findings and recommendations.
Supervision and management of football events: Once again, the Minister called on the Commissioner of Police and the Standing Committee on Local Policing to learn the necessary lessons from the inquiries into football match supervision and management. Committee P’s recommendations in this regard will be explained at periodic meetings between the Football Unit and senior police officials.
Way in which the Brussels police deal with prostitution and human trafficking: Neither the local authorities nor the Minister reacted publicly to the inquiry report.
Recruits’ knowledge of search and arrest procedures: This report received the Interior Minister’s full attention. In particular, he stressed that previous efforts to promote knowledge, assimilation and application of the law on policing by future police officers must be continued whilst learning from the evaluations conducted. A wide-ranging discussion on police training was also launched, resulting in an ambitious action plan. The way this plan is currently being applied involves adapting the basic training modules for field personnel and senior police officers based on the results of the evaluations performed. The Interior Minister also welcomed the fruitful discussions between Committee P and the senior staff and authorities responsible for police training.
Training on tackling prostitution and human trafficking: The Interior Minister wished to react to Committee P’s report on this subject. Regarding the inclusion in promotional in-service training of the priorities set out in the 2004-2007 National Security Plan, the Minister said, in view of the general nature of such training, in-service training on the specialist issue of human trafficking and smuggling was more a task for the National Investigation Academy (École nationale de recherche/Nationale Rechercheschool). It should be organised in the form of non-promotional in-service training entitling participants to exemption from promotional training. Committee P understands and agrees with this stance. As per the Committee’s recommendations, the Minister also agreed that some training courses should be open to third parties.
In addition, the Interior Minister drew Committee P’s attention to the royal decree currently being drafted. Working in the framework of the police training action plan, the decree will specify standards and supervision measures to ensure the quality of police work and will provide for external monitoring of the quality of police education. Unfortunately, this draft text has still not been published.
Repatriation and refoulement: The Interior Minister has appealed for direct and open dialogue between the monitoring and monitored bodies, urging Committee P to contact the air police directly to ascertain its reaction to Committee P’s report on this subject. The Committee has duly noted and welcomes this call for open, two-way discussion between the two parties.
Secondary activities and sponsoring: The Interior Minister said that a reiteration of and return to the rules was needed. This also applied to the administrative authorities who sometimes do not take into account unfavourable opinions issued by corps commanders. The Minister once again welcomed the fact that Committee P had entered into direct dialogue with senior officials at the forces concerned, sometimes resulting in the unauthorised dispensation being revoked.
Transportation of detainees: The Interior Minister made a series of comments and reflections in response to Committee P’s report on the safety of personnel responsible for the transportation of detainees. In particular, he explained that the report had been submitted to the working group reviewing circular MFO-1 and that he was going to ask the working group to determine, in a clear and precise way, the responsibilities of each partner for all of the missions covered by the directive, taking into account the law on policing and the law establishing the security corps. The main thrust of the working group’s discussions will centre on differentiating the concepts of surveillance and protection.
Issuing certificates of good character: The Interior Minister informed Committee P that a working group at FPS Interior’s Directorate-General for Security and Prevention Policy had been assigned the task of relieving police forces from judicial and non-judicial tasks not requiring specific police powers, in order to free up more staff for strictly policing duties. This working group took into consideration Committee P’s various findings and recommendations. The ministerial circular on the guidelines of 1 December 2006 for the alleviation and simplification of certain administrative tasks undertaken by the local police has since been published in the Moniteur Belge/Belgisch Staatsblad of 29 December 2006. Committee P agrees with the Minister that keeping the municipal criminal records and issuing certificates of good character do not require the exercising of police powers. Accordingly, these tasks should no longer be performed by the local police.
Details recorded on the identity cards of private rural wardens: Upon completion of its inquiry, Committee P concluded that a clearly recognisable uniform, not combined with other official work garments, should allow visitors to country estates/parks to identify rural wardens or gamekeepers without any doubts as to their status. The same applies to the identity card, which wardens must wear at all times in order to prove their identity when necessary. A royal decree governing the status of private rural wardens was passed on 8 January 2006. Article 13 of the decree specifies that private rural wardens must wear their identity cards or badges in a way that allows them to be read easily. However, Committee P expressed concern at the fact that the warden’s private address is indicated on the identity card, firstly on privacy grounds but also due to the potential for acts of revenge on the warden in a private context. The Interior Minister responded by saying that a note would be sent to governors asking them to replace the private address with the address of the institution that had issued the identity card, in this case the provincial authorities.
Checks on police cells: Following the preliminary draft amendment to the law on policing drawn up by the ‘police arrests’ expert group, set up and coordinated by FPS Interior’s Directorate-General for Security and Prevention Policy (to adapt legislation in this area), it was decided in September 2005 to await the draft law containing the Criminal Procedure Code (Code de procédure pénale/Wetboek van strafprocesrecht) and, in the meantime, to draw up a joint Justice/Interior Ministry directive. However, this combined Justice/Interior initiative turned out not to be workable. Given the urgent need to transpose the United Nations and Council of Europe recommendations into Belgian law, the Interior Minister then decided to propose an amendment to the law on policing relating to the section on administrative arrests. The observations of the CPT and those of Committee P were incorporated into the bill. In the meantime, the law on policing has been adapted.
Regarding police cells, a royal decree was passed on 14 September 2007 governing the minimum standards, implementation and employment of places of detention used by the police. This decree also lays down rules on the provision of a mattress and clean blankets for the night; cell cleanliness and hygiene; cell ventilation and lighting and the provision of drinking water – all aspects dealt with in several Committee P reports.
Recommendations to the Justice Minister
Maintaining the Central Arms Register: The Justice Minister felt that this issue should be handled with all due care and that any instructions to be issued to police zones were the responsibility of her colleague at the Interior Ministry.
Information flows and interpolice crime statistics: The Justice Minister reacted very positively to Committee P’s various reports on this subject. She recommends keeping up the work undertaken hitherto, thereby allowing those involved to improve their performance and results when it comes to gathering and using statistical data, with a view to delivering the most effective crime policy possible.
Prostitution: The minister believes that various measures taken at municipal level indicate that the primary objective of municipal authorities is to keep the peace and reduce the disturbance caused by prostitution in some neighbourhoods. She also emphasises that, although these objectives are in themselves beyond dispute, they do not seem to be directly linked with tackling human trafficking. Following through on this idea, she wondered whether it would be a good idea to examine what real impact, if any, this type of measure has on the phenomenon of human trafficking. She wonders whether the problem may be being displaced from one area to another and would like to know what checks are carried out to ascertain this. The Minister also suggests that it would be valuable to examine such issues in the light of collaboration between the various inspection services concerned. In fact, Committee P decided to do just that in its follow-up inquiry on this subject.
Recommendations to the federal police
Keeping firearms and ammunition in police buildings: The Commissioner of Police reacted constructively to Committee P’s inquiry report on this issue, supplying various explanations and additional pieces of information, particularly in relation to the ordering and fitting of storage equipment. The installation of such equipment on federal police premises should resolve many of the storage and safety/security issues associated with individual and collective weapons. In terms of infrastructure, the Commissioner of Police explained that the Directorate of Infrastructure and Equipment (DSM) is now planning to fit up a room reserved exclusively for weapons storage in any complex where this is warranted. He pointed out that the federal police is an ‘occupier’ of the buildings the Buildings Agency makes available to it and that, as such, it is limited by the rate of implementation of the multiannual infrastructure plan drawn up in collaboration with the Buildings Agency and financed by it. For newly planned buildings, a new safety/security standard has been devised.
Maintaining the Central Arms Register: The Commissioner of Police was at pains to point out that, contrary to Committee P’s conclusions, all federal police weapons are in fact recorded in the RCA/CWR and probably already were at the time the checks were carried out. However, various checks performed in 2006-2007 found that some police weapons (including some belonging to the federal police) were not recorded in the RCA/CWR. Nonetheless, the Commissioner of Police ended his statement by saying that a reminder of the existing regulations would be sent out to staff via the chiefs of police. The provisional memo drafted at the time would also be consolidated in the wake of publication of the royal decree on weapons, one of whose main topics would be the storage and possession of weapons. In the meantime, the Royal Decree of 3 June 2007 on the weapons used by the two-tier, integrated police service and those used by members of the investigation departments of Committees P and I and staff of the General Inspectorate of the Federal and Local Police was published in the Moniteur Belge/Belgisch Staatsblad of 22 June 2007. A ministerial circular for the benefit of police personnel is currently being drafted. It aims to ensure regular maintenance of the weapons held by police personnel and to take all necessary measures to ensure that they are kept in a good condition and good working order.
Training: In response to two reports on the
types of training liable to support and foster the political resolve to establish
an effective community-oriented police service, the then director-general
of human resources detailed a whole series of measures, contained in an action
plan, which are aimed at improving training and which correspond directly
with the results of the Committee P inquiry. For example, a new basic
training was launched in early 2007 as part of ongoing improvement efforts.
The then director-general of human resources also noted that communication
with the various partners involved in the training system did not appear to
pose any problems. Indeed, cooperation with academy directors has actually
intensified of late since almost all academy directors have been (or are)
involved in running a project as part of the action plan to improve basic
training. Academy directors have also been increasingly involved in various
consultation bodies.
Projects currently under way focus mainly on the following topics: candidate
screening (which has undergone various amendments); external monitoring; and
the setting up of a training board.
The Commissioner of Police now has new duties in respect of training. He must monitor the quality of federal police training, but must concern himself to an equal degree with the quality of the training given to all members of the integrated police service. The training-related measures due to take effect in 2007 should help him to discharge these duties effectively.
Supervision and management of football events: The chief of administrative police emphasised that the Full Security Football Unit has been organising training in the following four areas since January 2005: (1) offence reporting policy; (2) action taken in the event of racist incidents; (3) procedure for dealing with offences; (4) drafting official reports. Over 150 local police staff have already undergone spotter training, which covers the following topics in particular: (1) football and circular OOP 38 ; (2) managing administrative police information; (3) drafting an official report under the football law; (4) spotting.
Finally, in February 2006, the Interior Minister organised a meeting on police involvement at football matches with the mayors and corps commanders of municipalities containing a first or second division football club. At the meeting, he pointed out the considerable efforts being made by the federal police to support the local police in order to make the police’s involvement in football events efficient and effective in terms of order maintenance (negotiated event management), adding that these efforts were in direct accordance with Committee P recommendations.
Recommendations to the Standing Committee on Local Policing (SCLP)
Supervision and management of football events: The SCLP is pleased at the small number of complaints made against the police during public order maintenance operations at football matches. It approves the recommendations made, although believes that some of them should be left to the discretion of the parties concerned to ensure enough scope for suitable regulations and operational content adapted to specific requirements on the ground and local circumstances.
Training on search and arrest procedures: The SCLP was relatively critical of the inquiry into training on searches and arrests carried out by police officials. Committee P therefore decided to take account of its comments and questions in its follow-up inquiry.
The SCLP strongly reiterated the need for autonomy among police zones and – more especially, on this occasion – police academies also. The Committee does not entirely share this point of view. On the other hand, the SCLP was also keen to point out that it favoured the creation of norms and standards applying to all police academies and all types of training as this would ensure a certain degree of uniformity. Committee P welcomes this view, since greater precision and uniformity (at national level) are vital where training is concerned. For each kind of training, it is important to set realistic targets that are evaluated upon completion of the training and again after one year on the job. These evaluations would be carried out by both teachers and trainers as well as by trained staff and immediate superiors. External assessors could also be brought in to monitor precision and uniformity, to a certain extent.
Wearing of belts in police vehicles: The SCLP was asked for its position on the wearing of seatbelts by police personnel in police vehicles. It believes that police personnel must wear seatbelts in priority vehicles both for their own safety and to set an example to others. The argument that not wearing a seatbelt reduces an officer’s reaction time – whether or not he is wearing a bulletproof vest – does not warrant compromising his safety by exempting him from this requirement. However, resources and techniques, as well as training, need to be developed to enable police officers to get out of their vehicle and react with minimal loss of time, despite wearing a seatbelt.
Committee P fully endorses this view. While on the subject, it feels it should highlight once again the many road traffic offences committed by police officials, which are passing increasingly unnoticed by the general public and the media. A crackdown by senior police officials would be welcome.
Interaction between bailiffs and the police: The SCLP feels that the inquiries seem not to have been conducted in a very scientific manner and that the sample was chosen more or less at random. It regrets that the National Chamber of Bailiffs remains the arbiter in the event of problems and would like to see another – more neutral – organisation perform this role. Committee P took on board these observations in its follow-up inquiry.
Training on human trafficking/smuggling: The SCLP does not agree with the proposal to reorganise the training provided at all police academies into a single-pillar structure. It believes that the provincial academies must be able to adapt their training programmes according to needs on the ground. If necessary, police officials from one province can attend training at another provincial academy if that training meets their needs. The SCLP does not therefore see the need to offer the same courses at all academies.
In recent years, Committee P has highlighted many positive aspects associated with the management, operation and actions of police forces.
Towards an even better defined and implemented policing strategy
Community policing and intelligence-led policing: Community-oriented policing is making slow but steady progress, both in terms of public perception and within the police itself. In practice, however, implementation of community policing on the ground and commitment to the principles of intelligence-led policing do not yet seem to be priorities for all.
Some core functions are better developed than others. For example, the ‘neighbourhood policing’ function, despite being the mainstay of community policing, is not always well perceived or sufficiently well promoted compared with other functions.
As for ‘police assistance for the victims of crime’, this function is defined in circular GPI 58, but the distinction between it and victim support is not always properly understood by staff or the public. In fact, any police officer who comes into contact with crime victims must be in a position to offer more support than simply automatic referral to a specialist service. For this to happen, basic training must be adapted and a more humane police culture developed, one that promotes active listening and an understanding, patient approach.
The gathering, use, management and exchange of information within the police are still all too often seen as secondary and external to day-to-day tasking. Commitment to the concept of intelligence-led policing is still undoubtedly lacking. It would seem that the transition from a reactive, supply-based approach to proactive, consultative, more demand-oriented work practices is a difficult one.
Towards more humane policing with a greater emphasis on human rights: The issue of repatriations is scrutinised closely by numerous inspection and monitoring bodies and by various non-governmental organisations. This delicate police mission is undoubtedly among those subject to the greatest variety of monitoring and inspection. Currently, the situation may be classed as ‘under control’.
Towards more effective and better defined internal monitoring: It is high time that circular Pol 48 on internal monitoring was updated. In addition, there is a need for a tight framework establishing rules for handling complaints about police forces and officials. Without disputing the vital need for regulation of the internal monitoring function (something we have been waiting for for over six years), Committee P believes that internal monitoring must be (far more) geared towards evaluating, monitoring and adjusting policing practice and should not be confined to tracking and punishing reported and detected offences committed by police officials or to the framework of professional obligations. The working of the police, particularly in the context of incidents, must be evaluated in a way that contributes to a learning organisation and not just as part of an administrative and punitive approach.
Special inspection services: Based on its observations of the special inspection services, Committee P would like to see a clarification of the current vague arrangements and the more or less systematic divergences in the regulations governing these services. The way to achieve this would be through a framework law modelled on the law on policing. This law would set out, in particular, the powers and responsibilities of the SISs and derogations would only be possible as exceptional arrangements under special laws. Such an approach would also offer greater unity in terms of the rights and obligations of SISs, thereby enhancing democratic monitoring, and would improve cooperation between the regular police forces and the SISs, something that is key to achieving an integrated approach to serious social problems such as human trafficking.
Legal personality of single-municipality zones: Granting legal personality to single-municipality zones would still be a useful move.
Towards an even more effective organisation
The Federal Police Commissioner is responsible for ensuring that the DirCos can play their role to the full and for delivering a little more consistency in the way that they operate. Committee P is currently conducting an inquiry into lateral support between zones and the role of the coordinating directors in this area. Appreciable discrepancies are already emerging between the approaches adopted in different districts.
Committee P believes that excessive outsourcing of some technical applications (especially by means of black boxes), though perhaps understandable from a budgetary or other point of view, brings with it the very real danger of losing supervision and control over various key aspects of the process. The fact is that the much vaunted public-private partnership formula has its limits, at least when it comes to the sensitive issue of information management.
Solutions must be found to the problems of data capacity, entry, processing and analysis faced by many district information hubs (CIAs/AIKs). Likewise, it is vital that both the CIAs/AIKs and the CICs operate harmoniously.
Towards a more serious, accountable and ultimately more efficient police service
Some police zones still do not possess a system (worthy of the name)
for monitoring and tracking overtime and other inconveniences. Committee P
feels it would be highly desirable to develop an effective centralised IT
tool for the whole of the integrated police service, enabling all senior officials
to keep track of an issue that is of some (financial) relevance and take corrective
measures as appropriate. Similarly, a policy on this issue should be drawn
up and communicated to personnel. Based on this, a monitoring and tracking
system could be put in place and the (still too frequent) abuses could be
used to develop adapted procedures and measures.
Committee P’s observations in this area should set police executives thinking
about levels of integrity within the police forces, or at least among some
(senior) police officials.
Towards better personnel management
Recruitment and selection: Committee P insists that the scope of monitoring be extended to the screening of potential police recruits. During both the recruitment/selection and training processes, senior officials must be able to carry out a character investigation according to clearly defined rules.
Training: Monitoring of the use of restraint and force shows that there may be structural problems both at the recruitment/selection stage and during basic police training. Such problems may result in failings and shortcomings in policing practice. The autonomy of the various police academies and the difference in the operating means at their disposal result in particular in a lack of consistency and harmonisation between the courses and subjects taught. This situation may generate discrepancies in terms of acquisition of the skills needed by recruits and thus breach the principle of equivalent service nationwide. Moreover, Committee P continues to believe in the need for a single end-of-training examination for each category of personnel.
Committee P believes that the ultimate goal should be an unequivocal learning process that can be monitored in all its parts, in which the basic principles of police work genuinely underpin all the training offered. This model should be developed in consultation with, and subject to evaluation by, the academy and all the teachers concerned as well as the zones and mentors. There remains scope for improvement in a number of areas, most notably monitoring of and support for the various instructors in information management; the lack of uniformity in criminal law and criminal procedure courses; and monitoring of the quality of training provided.
Staff deployment and mobility: The staff deployed to the CICs and CIAs/AIKs must be suitably qualified and given the necessary training. This means expanding the range of specialist training on offer. The contribution of the local police to the district information hubs remains a particular problem insofar as the CIAs/AIKs are supplied mainly by local authorities which have yet to be entirely convinced of the benefits of smoothly operating hubs.
Support for police officers in the field and the role of middle-ranking officers: Once again, Committee P has found to its dismay that senior, and to a lesser extent, middle-ranking officers seem increasingly divorced from their role and responsibilities in supporting field personnel. All too often, Committee P has come across senior officers who confine themselves to the managerial aspect of their job and cut themselves off from the day-to-day operational working of their police corps.
Monitoring and punishment: Implementation of the disciplinary procedure is still too complex and slow to be truly effective. The difficult interaction between criminal and disciplinary proceedings continues to present a problem in practice and the disciplinary aspect is too often dispensed with, almost as a matter of course, when a pre-trial investigation or inquiry is involved.
The Committee would urge magistrates to treat police officers who have committed a criminal offence with the severity warranted by their status as role models and their monopoly on the use of restraint and force. Police officials must be expected to meet high standards of honesty and integrity.
Even greater professionalism and responsibility among police officers: Committee P has come to the conclusion that too many police officers in the field are not always aware of the existence of new legislation and guidelines. Each corps and force appears to issue different instructions adapted to its own specific circumstances. It would be useful to develop a centralised set of standard documentation for issues of relevance to all corps and forces, with the option of adding a brief note or guidelines tailored to the specific circumstances of each corps or force.
Once again, Committee P is forced to observe that in terms of the linguistic skills of police officials a lot more work is needed, not just in Brussels and not just in relation to one national language in particular.
Committee P has also found that too many police officials are still (to put it politely) reluctant to serve anyone and everyone and continue to operate on the principle that “a police zone is intended primarily to serve its own residents”. Committee P suggests that senior zone officials remind their staff on a regular basis that they must respond to all work-related calls and avoid any behaviour that could undermine the public’s confidence in their availability and willingness to serve.
Now that the status of administrative police officer (OPA) is a reality, Committee P can only reiterate its recommendation that the main legal powers conferred upon OPAs be put into practice.
Regarding the use of police data, the Committee continues to advocate tough action (either administrative or disciplinary) against data requests not underpinned by any genuine purpose, when the offence committed is not a breach of professional secrecy. Constant care must also be taken to ensure that all movements in the BNG/ANG (consultations, additions, deletions) are traceable and can be linked back to the individual responsible. Committee P welcomes the fact that vigilance is gradually increasing and that senior officials are increasingly emphasising the punishable nature of viewing data without good cause.
Towards better implementation of the law on policing
Reception: Committee P insists on the need for zonal management to make real efforts to improve the reception and response services offered by their staff. These efforts should focus more on developing quality criteria rather than on purely aesthetic improvements. In spite of this, the risk of round-the-clock physical reception of an acceptable quality failing to be provided to citizens is quite low.
Neighbourhood policing: Although the importance of community-oriented neighbourhood policing is universally recognised, Committee P’s findings in its inquiries point to difficulties in implementing the function effectively. First and foremost, it is important for police zones to have a neighbourhood department consisting of motivated personnel who are committed to the community policing ethos and have undergone functional neighbourhood police training. These personnel should be able to devote virtually all of their time and energy to local residents.
Response: The ‘response’ (or ‘intervention’)
function is still too focused on the single, unequivocal notion of immediate
reaction, without taking into account the mass of relevant criteria or a high-quality,
community-oriented policing approach. Implementing response work in the form
of specific processes – that go beyond aspects of urgency and speed of response
– will encourage a more professional approach to the mission of the police
officials deployed in this area.
The ‘response’ function is still not firmly rooted in the integrated operation
of the police and is often viewed as an entirely separate service. Committee P
believes that it too should be incorporated into the community policing
ethos. Accordingly, it would be a good idea to step up collaboration
between the response service and other police services such as neighbourhood
policing and assistance for crime victims.
Committee P notes that some federal police forces (such as the SPN, WPR and LPA) are called on to perform (urgent) response tasks without being bound by any rules on response times and that, in general, only very few memoranda and basic instructions exist concerning the response work carried out by federal police units. Regarding the railway police (SPC) in particular, Committee P laments the fact that certain types and methods of restraint are used systematically during checks and when dealing with offences. Analysis of complaints about the SPC seems to indicate that coercion is used regularly beyond legal limits and usually in a way that is open to criticism.
Investigation and use of information: The ‘investigation’ function spawns a positive dynamic in terms of consultation and collaboration. Working agreements have been concluded in many judicial districts between the state prosecutor, the local investigation department and the federal judicial police. However, (alleged) problems linked to capacity (or implementing capacity) still sometimes hinder the proper execution of these agreements. Another thing we see is that investigation departments at all levels tend to cut themselves off from other police departments, something that could jeopardise the creation of an integrated service.
Reactive and proactive information flow and exchange between the operational and tactical levels vary widely within the integrated police service, with greater or lesser success in operational terms. As regards proactive policing, the administrative authorities do not always clearly formulate their objectives and needs. Committee P believes that clearer regulations and instructions would be no bad thing when it comes to the gathering, evaluation and use of administrative data. The same goes for the conservation and use of such data in the BNG/ANG, for example. The focus must be on software engineering for information management purposes, with the implementation of intelligence-led policing remaining a paramount challenge.
Public order maintenance: The ‘public order maintenance’ function can vary sharply from zone to zone according to the activities that take place there. Committee P has observed too great a discrepancy in the actions of local police forces, across a range of areas including the use of dogs, command structures, the use of special support facilities (helicopter, water cannon, evidence team, etc.). Compulsory, standard training organised at federal level is also needed to ensure greater harmonisation between the local and federal levels (local-local and local-federal).
Committee P believes that giving a new lease of life to the working groups created in the past to oversee management of football tournaments is critical to achieving success in this area.
Committee P also feels that the importance of continual investment in and professional use of visual material needs to be underscored.
Information and communication centres (CICs): The structure and technology of the CICs offer huge potential and at the same time have the advantage of being fully compatible with the principle of community-oriented policing. The arguments put forward by some corps commanders in large zones to the effect that the provincial CIC hinders proper application of the community policing concept are often lacking in credibility.
ASTRID is undoubtedly a costly project for the police. Consequently, constant care must be taken to ensure that all project partners are working towards maximum added value, resulting in an integrated police service that operates more efficiently and effectively.
District information hubs: At present, nobody is able to provide a status report on the working of the CIAs/AIKs. This is a matter of inherent concern since the CIAs/AIKs are the operational and communication lynchpin for the two tiers of the integrated police service. Nonetheless, Committee P feels that things are generally moving in the right direction, albeit slowly. However, it laments the fact that, in the space of a whole year, local police participation has not progressed at all and federal police participation has actually declined slightly. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and only in the event of a major incident will we discover whether the CIAs/AIKs are able to fulfil their appointed tasks in practice.
National general database: All zones contribute to automated input into the BNG/ANG. However, the central level is still unaware to what degree the zones are using all the system functions to contribute to the quality of information flow. Another issue is the delays in updating the BNG/ANG. With the BNG/ANG being one of the cornerstones of intelligence-led policing, Committee P questions the lack of commitment shown by some zones.
Committee P believes that a number of critical success factors and problems remain to be dealt with: (1) information, and in particular the management and exchange of information, are still too often considered as superfluous and even incidental to day-to-day police work. Commitment to the idea of intelligence-led policing is still too often lacking; (2) with a steady stream of new developments and applications being introduced, due attention is not being paid to the ability of individual field staff to assimilate them; (3) though technical knowledge is present at force level, the independence of forces from outside firms and/or consultants must be ensured; (4) a sophisticated system for monitoring the quality and performance of the CIAs/AIKs must be put in place as a matter of urgency; (5) the rules on management and breakdown of the BNG/ANG must be embedded in a regulatory framework. This is another key quality-related aspect; (6) the new police structure, in which the CGO (formerly DSB) and DST are no longer headed by the same director-general, is a problem. As a general rule, it is dangerous to separate the technical from the operational aspects of information management. Committee P believes that monitoring or management of the DST by the CGO may safeguard against the risk of technicians occupying an increasingly dominant position.
Towards a better functioning Standing Committee P
Article 16(4) of the organic law of 18 July 1991 provides
for the introduction of a system for dividing up inquiries into crimes and
offences alleged against members of the police forces between Investigation
Department P on the one hand and the General Inspectorate or police forces
on the other.
As expressly stipulated by the law, Committee P has lodged various
proposals on this issue to successive justice ministers since 2000, to no avail
whatever.
A clearly defined breakdown of tasks is more a necessity than a luxury if we are to ensure the effective operation of both Committee P and the AIG/other internal monitoring services. Unfortunately, we cannot escape the conclusion that the direction taken by the law of 15 May 2007 on the General Inspectorate and introducing various provisions on the status of certain members of the police forces only increases the overlap of tasks between the two organisations, which ultimately benefits nobody.
In 2007-2008, the Committee will continue its efforts to obtain as reliable and comprehensive an overview as possible of the operation of police forces and, in particular, the implementation of the laws of 5 August 1992 and 7 December 1998, and of the special laws governing the implementation or operation of the other police services, as defined by the 1992 law – in short, a view of the police service as a whole.
|
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) |
|
ARRO |
District investigation consultation |
|
ASTRID |
All-round Semi-cellular Trunking Radiocommunication Integrated Dispatching |
|
BNG/ANG |
National general database (Banque de données nationale générale/ Algemene nationale gegevensbank) |
|
BRUNAT |
Brussels Airport |
|
CAD |
Computer Aided Dispatching |
|
Calog |
Administrative and logistics staff |
|
CGO |
Directorate of Operational Police Information (Direction de l’information policière opérationnelle/ Directie van de operationele politionele informatie) |
|
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) |
|
C.I.Cr./Sv |
Code of Criminal Procedure (Code d’instruction criminelle/ Wetboek van Strafvordering) |
|
CP/Sw |
Criminal Code (Code pénal/ Strafwetboek) |
|
CPT |
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment |
|
DAC |
Directorate of Communication Lines (Direction de la police des voies de communication/ Directie van de politie van de verbindingswegen) |
|
DAR |
Directorate of the General Reserve (Direction de la réserve générale/ Directie van de algemene reserve) |
|
DES |
Directorate of Training (Direction de la formation/ Directie van de opleiding) |
|
DGS |
General Directorate of Support and Management (Direction générale de l’appui et de la gestion/ Algemene directie van de ondersteuning en het beheer) |
|
DirCo |
Administrative coordinating director (Directeur coordinateur administratif/ Bestuurlijke directeur-coördinator) |
|
DIV |
Vehicle Registration Service (Service d’immatriculation des véhicules/ Dienst Inschrijvingen Voertuigen) |
|
DPID |
Equality and Diversity Service (Service égalité et diversité/ Dienst gelijkheid en diversiteit) |
|
DSB |
Directorate of the National Database (Direction de la banque de données nationale/ Directie van de nationale gegevensbank) |
|
DSI |
Directorate of Internal Relations (Direction des relations internes/ Directie van de interne relaties) |
|
DSM |
Directorate of Infrastructure and Equipment (Direction de l’infrastructure et de l’équipement/ Directie van de infrastructuur en de uitrusting) |
|
DST |
Directorate of Telematics (Direction de la télématique/ Directie van de telematica) |
|
DSW |
Directorate of Internal Prevention and Protection at Work (Direction du service interne de prévention et de protection au travail/ Directie van de interne dienst voor preventie en bescherming op het werk) |
|
DTRC |
Radiocommunications Department at the Directorate of Telematics |
|
EFQM |
European Foundation for Quality Management |
|
FEEDIS |
Feeding Information System |
|
FPS |
Federal Public Service |
|
HRM |
Human resources management |
|
INAD |
Inadmissible |
|
ISLP |
Integrated System for Local Police |
|
LFP |
Law on policing |
|
LPA |
Air police (Police aéronautique/ Luchtvaartpolitie) |
|
MET |
Walloon Region Ministry of Equipment and Transport (Ministère de l’Équipement et du Transport de la Région wallonne) |
|
MPR/BOM |
Special investigation methods (Méthodes particulières de recherche/ Bijzondere Opsporingsmethodes) |
|
MRAX/BRAX |
Movement against Racism, Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia (Mouvement contre le racisme, l’antisémitisme et la xénophobie/ Beweging tegen rassenhaat, antisemitisme en xenofobie) |
|
OCAM/OCAD |
Coordinating Body for Threat Analysis (Organe de coordination pour l’analyse de la menace/ Coördinatieorgaan voor de dreigingsanalyse) |
|
OCRC/CDBC |
Central Office for the Repression of Corruption (Office central pour la répression de la corruption/ Centrale dienst voor de bestrijding van de corruptie) |
|
OE/DVZ |
Immigration Service (Office des étrangers/ Vreemdelingenzaken) |
|
OPA |
Administrative police officer |
|
OPJ |
Judicial police officer |
|
P2IA |
Police Astrid implementation project |
|
PJF/FGP |
Decentralised judicial directorate (former federal judicial police) |
|
RCA/CWR |
Central Arms Register (Registre central des armes/ Centraal wapenregister) |
|
RIR |
Information report |
|
RRN |
National Register (Registre national/ Rijksregister) |
|
SCLP |
Standing Committee on Local Policing (Commission permanente de la police locale/ Vaste commissie van de lokale politie) |
|
SJA/GDA |
District judicial service (Service judiciaire d’arrondissement/ Gerechtelijke dienst arrondissement) |
|
SLA |
Service Level Agreement |
|
SPN |
Water police (Police de la navigation/ Scheepvaartpolitie) |
|
SPNL |
Liège water police department (Police de la navigation Liège) |
|
SIS |
Special inspection service (Service spécial d'inspection/ Bijzondere inspectiedienst) |
|
STIB/MIVB |
Brussels public transport company (Société des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles/ Maatschappij voor het Intercommunaal Vervoer te Brussel) |
|
WPR |
Road police (Police de la route/ Wegpolitie) |