THROUGHOUT his time as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police it was Sir Ian Blair's job to protect us from the threat of terrorist attack. Since 2001 we've known that al-Qaeda was prepared to operate outside the bounds of civilisation, act without restraint, murder without limits. In order to protect us, the police have the power themselves to use lethal force.
And since 2001 they have. Twice. Once killing a Brazilian electrician. And once killing a Chelsea barrister. It is not a record in which anyone can take pride.
On Friday the jury at the hearing into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes returned a
n open verdict. They were prevented from declaring that the killing had been unlawful so this was simply the most damning judgment they could pass. And then there was the killing of barrister Mark Saunders, shot by a team of police marksmen after a shotgun incident in his West London flat, and which remains deeply controversial. The question of how the police shaped their accounts of what happened that day does not inspire confidence.
The police may call themselves a public service, not a force. But when questions are asked about how they use lethal force they appear not to appreciate what it is to be a servant of the public.
So, when Sir Ian was told he no longer had the confidence of the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, he appeared surprised.
Sir Ian appeared not to realise that one of the reasons why Johnson won his election was deep public dissatisfaction with how crime was being fought in the metropolis. Boris fought his campaign on crime and won a mandate to do things differently. Sir Ian appeared not to appreciate the gravity of what had gone wrong on his watch.
Notoriously, he reacted to the news that the man who had been shot in Brixton in 2005 might have been innocent with the words: "Houston, we have a problem." And, above all, Sir Ian appeared not to see that his position, as a taxpayer-funded, index-link pensioned, protector of the public depends on maintaining public consent. When he was effectively dismissed Sir Ian objected that his departure might pave the way for a New York-style approach to appointing police chiefs.
And that would clearly be a disaster, wouldn't it? Just imagine. Tough mayors appointing no-nonsense police chiefs with a brief to cut crime and a responsibility to publish weekly updates on the felonies committed in each street and neighbourhood. Precinct officers held accountable for reducing disorder in their neighbourhood, the commissioner held accountable for cutting crime overall and the mayor's head on the block if people don't feel safer after every four years. It's clearly all too terrible to contemplate.
Better stick with the current system where London has a higher murder rate than New York but at least chief constables can sleep more safely on the job every night.
The police argue that any move to make them more accountable would "politicise" their office. But that's like Jordan arguing that publishing topless photos of her is an assault on her modesty. The age of innocence passed long ago. The police have already become political players. Those officers who made the case for extending detention without charge in terrorist cases to 90 days, during what was a highly charged Commons debate, were marching onto the political battlefield. And rallying under one specific flag.
Now, as it happens, I have a lot of sympathy with many of the police's demands. I think their concerns about failure elsewhere in the criminal justice system are well-founded.
And I think many, though not all, of their interventions in the terrorist debate deserve a far more respectful hearing. But whether or not I agree with them is besides the point. What matters is that their interventions are all, highly, political. And, as such, the public deserve a say in deciding what the police's priorities should be.
Whether it is directly electing the people who serve on police authorities and boards, or making the police chief in a given area directly accountable to the elected mayor, the methods can be debated but the direction of travel is clear – towards greater democracy.
If we want less attention paid to traffic offences and rather more to dealing with muggings and drug dealing, less of a focus on bureaucratic compliance and rather more on real public service, then the police should be made to listen to us.
At the moment weak forces and evasive chief constables can hide behind a fog of jargon about community safety partnerships and managing risk-based outcomes downwards, knowing that their future depends on impressing the mandarin class not winning back the streets. But the law, and the officers of the law, should derive their legitimacy from public consent not from mastery of sociology theory.
All last week we've been hearing about techniques imported from America to deal with the problem of gang violence in Scotland. But we still won't adopt the proven and successful antidote to street violence which the Americans have developed – chief constables who have given the public the most powerful weapon of all – the ability to say: "You're fired."
Michael Gove is the Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
