The overarching “mission” of evidence-based policing (EBP) remains contested. In May 2021, the Criminal Justice Alliance submitted a super-complaint regarding stop and search under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (the Super-Complaint). Three policing/police accountability bodies investigated the Super-Complaint and produced a joint report in response (the Report). This paper probes the methodology, analysis and presentation of results in the Report to assess what they reveal about forces’ commitment to EBP in relation to S60, the super-complaint system and its relationship with EBP, and more broadly about the selective emphasis on EBP in different settings.
The bodies who conducted the investigation into the Super-Complaint and produced the Report were His Majesty’s Inspectorate of the Constabulary Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), the College of Policing (COP) and the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC). The methodology is a close reading of the 170-page Report alongside supporting documents.
The analysis reveals several methodological, analytical and presentational weaknesses in the Report. Collectively these tend to understate the extent of forces’ failings concerning the application of EBP principles to the use of section 60. Further, the Report fails to site its findings in the context of the HMIFCRS’s own requirements that forces consider “fair application” of section 60 or the COP’s aims to embed EBP in forces. It is contended that these failings facilitated the rejection of more radical recommendations for reform.
While taking the super-complaints system in England and Wales as a case study, the paper contributes more broadly to understanding of the role of EBP. In particular, it raises questions concerning the selective reliance on EBP both in police accountability settings and in contentious areas of policing such as stop and search and suggests avenues for further study.
The super-complaint system is relatively new. This analysis is original and important in drawing attention to the need for responses to super-complaints to be subject to careful scrutiny. The paper is also novel in assessing what this super-complaint reveals about EBP and valuable in its exploration of the selective emphasis on EBP in different police settings.
