There is much to like in the Fulford report on the Southport affair. It is spot-on in damning the pressure on teachers and police to treat an aggressive knife-toting schoolboy as a black victim in need of help rather than a public menace calling for firm action. And Sir Adrian had the courage not to mince his words about Axel Rudakubana’s parents. If attentive child-rearing is the best antidote to juvenile devilment, their supine condonation of his ghoulish bedroom activities gave about the worst example possible.
Go beyond this, however, and doubts start to creep in. The call for yet more forcible disarmament, such as clampdowns on pointed kitchen knives, crossbows and even archery bows, is predictable, but one suspects apt more to alienate the law-abiding rather than appreciably increase general safety. A curious demand that taxi-drivers be forced to act as general narks, under a duty to report ‘any significant criminal activity’ on pain of losing their licence, looks like locking up behind a long-bolted horse; and in any case why (apart from the fact that it happened to be a cab-driver who failed to tell the police) single out taxi-drivers?
More disconcerting, however, is Sir Adrian’s absolutely serious call to consider a new law obliging parents, and even possibly bystanders, to report criminality. This has predictably been seized on. Reportedly the Law Commission has put this proposal on its urgent agenda, and some of the victims’ families have already called for legislation. This may be understandable, especially with victims so badly betrayed by the myriad authorities that should have stopped Axel Radukabana in his murderous tracks. But we still need to think very carefully before we do any such thing.
First, when it comes to parents, there is the sheer intrusiveness of the whole idea of bringing Mr Plod into the heart of the family. It’s all very well taking the extreme example of Southport, but this isn’t typical. In other cases, perhaps most, the cure could be worse than the disease. What of conscientious parents who while cleaning a child’s room discover, say, a pair of mini-scales or stolen trainers under the bed, or racially provocative social media posts on a computer? If they judge a talking-to and a grounding worth trying, surely their judgment should be respected. Threatening to make criminals of them for not immediately bringing in the police – and no doubt with them well-meaning but heavy-handed social services – seems a terrible idea, not to mention yet another distraction for an already overstretched force.
Further, just suppose a child does go rogue. Most decent parents, who will want the best for their children, will be devastated. Their need is likely to be for support from the police in getting their child back on track and making sure it stays there. Threatening arrest, interrogation and a court appearance on their own account for not passing on earlier information to the authorities would seem to do no good to them, their children, or their families. No doubt we will be told that this would never happen: prosecution would be reserved for only the most egregious cases. One only wishes this was true. Unfortunately, police and prosecutors will have every incentive, when faced with demands to be seen to be doing something about some grisly delinquency, to take the simple way and go for the easy target.
In short, this is an absolute minefield
It could even be taken further. Sir Adrian specifically would not rule out placing a duty on bystanders to report suspicions to the authorities. This is no doubt an interesting idea from the rarefied vantage point of Middle Temple Hall: but the details become more and more worrying. Are we talking of punishing households for not passing on gossip about neighbours’ children being gang members, or for failing to report drug-dealing in the street? Furthermore, once we start placing duties of this sort on people as a whole, there is another problem: if 20 people see a drug deal taking place outside their houses, would all find themselves facing arrest, and if not, who should be chosen to be the unlucky one?
In short, this is an absolute minefield. The temptation on any government – and any MP in need of a soundbite – is to be seen to be acting fast by promoting immediate and drastic laws. But it must be resisted. It may sound callous, but the best reaction to Sir Adrian’s report on this matter is to wait several months until the ruckus has died down, and then to think, carefully and deliberately, what legislation we need – if indeed any – to draft it carefully, and to provide adequate parliamentary time to make sure it is properly discussed. True, meticulous measures like that aren’t this government’s strong suit. But it’s always worth hoping.
Comments