Each time someone is stabbed on the streets or in other public spaces of London or elsewhere in England, there are renewed calls for the stepping up of the police’s stop- and- search powers. According to London’s Metropolitan Police, these powers are “targeted and intelligence led.” The targets of suspicion-led stop and search are only suspected of being involved in crime, without being formally arrested. The search is conducted in the hope of finding stolen goods, or prohibited articles such as illegal drugs, weapons, articles that could be used to commit crime, or illegal fireworks.
According to the College of Policing, a police search must be guided by the acronym GOWISELY. There must be reasonable grounds for suspicion, the object of the search must be clearly communicated by a police officer, who is expected to produce a warrant card, which provides proof of identity and/or authority (name, rank, warrant number), and also confirms the police station at which he/she works. The person undergoing the search is entitled to a copy of the electronically recorded search record (5090 (A), which and must be provided either at the time of the search, or within three months thereafter. Legally admissible powers must be used, and the police officer must tell the person that ‘You are detained for the purposes of a search.’
Originally, Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 empowered the police in England and Wales to arrest any person suspected of being a thief or found loitering with intent to commit an arrestable offence. By the late 1970s, this sus (suspected person) law was felt to be disproportionately targeting young Blacks in London. A mass sus operation, Operation Swamp 81, which was launched at the beginning of April 1981, thus provoked a major backlash. Anti-police riots first broke out in Brixton on 10 April 1981, and soon spread to other cities. In response to this rioting, Section 4 was abolished, only to be replaced by Section 8 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, taking effect from August 1981. This new legislation was in turn succeeded by Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Stop-and-search powers were expanded in 2019 under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which allows a uniformed police officer to search a person in the absence of reasonable grounds, in a defined locality at a specific time, when a senior officer of at least the rank of inspector believes that serious violence is possible, or when weapons are likely to be involved. Serious Violence Reduction Orders, introduced under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, allow police to automatically search and thereby deter high-risk offenders previously convicted of weapons offences. Section 11 of the Public Order Act 2023 gives police the additional power to carry out suspicion-less stop-and-searches in relation to protest activity
It seems intuitive that stop-and-search might reduce crime if police are empowered to seize knives and other bladed articles from people suspected of carrying them, in addition to voluntary surrender of weapons in amnesty bins and police operations in hot spots of violence. But effectiveness in deterring crime awaits confirmation. An increased use of stop- and-search may not correlate with a reduction in knife crime, particularly since stop-and-searches often result in nothing being found. For example, out of 51, 678 stop searches conducted by the Metropolitan Police Service between September 2023 and January 2024, less than a third (15,789) resulted in a police action, while just under 70 per cent (35,889) required no further action.
The wider question of why some people carry knives on their persons is worthy of consideration. Membership of a gang, and consequent engagement in criminal activities and turf battles, is frequently associated with the personal possession of a sharp-bladed implement. It is also often stated that young people who live in communities where knife crime is prevalent choose to carry knives either as a status symbol, or for self-defence or self-protection- a situation that is analogous to that of arming oneself in areas of high gun ownership. The normalisation of knife possession is facilitated by readily availability of such implements from retail outlets or online sellers, mostly for legitimate domestic or work-related use. However, possession of an offensive weapon or bladed article in public is illegal, carrying a minimum custodial sentence of six months for those aged 18 or over, as introduced by Section 28 and Schedule 5 to the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Certain types of knives, including butterfly knives, disguised knives, flick knives, lock knives, stealth knives, and zombie knives are banned, while a folding pocket knife with a blade that is 3 inches or less in length, such as Swiss Army knife, can be carried in public, provided it is not used to threaten or intimidate. Knives may be used on impulse, in the heat of the moment, without considering the consequences, or deliberately, targeting certain individuals who have aroused the ire of the attacker. A momentary lapse can turn out to be life-changing, both for victim and perpetrator.
Stop-and-search has a place in crime prevention, provided it is guided by intelligence and conducted appropriately, rather than carried out randomly based on stereotypes and driven by racism or other discriminatory attitudes. The procedures in use have been refined over time, ensuring sensitive handling of the sensitivities of target subjects. The Equality Act 2010 thus precludes the disproportionate use of stop-and-search, based on the subject’s race (ethnicity, nationality), age, sex, or other visibly defining characteristics. While Black-on-Black crime may be a particular problem in London, across the nation Black males are not responsible for most stabbing incidents.
Stop-and-search is, at best, a reactive measure in the battle against knife crime. The wider problem of carrying knives for nefarious purposes in public is more effectively dealt with by proactive, community-based initiatives, including neighbourhood policing and better engagement with high-risk groups, such as marginalised teenagers and young adult males at risk of offending. Education providers, healthcare professionals, local authorities, and voluntary and community organisations, working together, can all contribute to the prevention of knife crime. But there is no single effective solution for what is after all a multifactorial problem. Stop-and-search may serve as a deterrent in certain situations but cannot be relied upon as the main tool for preventing knife crime.
Ashis Banerjee