If the Met is serious about rebuilding public trust, it could start by respecting fundamental rights - Jeremiah Igunnubole

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has made it clear that the reason for Cressida Dick’s departure as Met Police Chief was his belief that she was unable to robustly tackle homophobia, racism and misogyny within the force. He has vowed to veto the appointment of the next commissioner if he has no "confidence that he or she understands the importance of these deep cultural issues”. Meanwhile Dave Thompson, West Midlands Police Chief and contender for the top position, suggested that the solution to restoring public confidence would be found in cultivating “a strong values-driven environment that values inclusion and diversity” – a position that reflects the apparent prevailing consensus.

But is the primary reason for deteriorating public confidence in the police force really due to Dick’s failure to adequately defend and promote certain protected characteristics?

However well-intentioned the focus on particular protected characteristics, the current discourse about public mistrust of the police surely understates the key performance metric for any Met Chief: the reduction of crime.

The longevity of Dick’s tenure, and the breadth of the enforcement decisions she has presided over, means any appraisal must look beyond the high-profile scandals such as police mishandling of the Sarah Everard vigils and the outcome of Operation Hotton (which found a culture of race and sex-related bullying and harassment at Charing Cross Police Station).

Dick’s tenure has, for instance, seen a year-on-year increase in crime and record teenage homicides. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has also warned of high neighbourhood burglary, theft and mugging rates. Such issues, which have drawn little attention among analysts, could help explain reduced public confidence in the police just as much as the high-profile scandals.

So too could the apparent promotion of certain protected characteristics at the expense of fundamental rights.  Over the last two decades and increasingly so in recent years, speech has been policed according to certain preferred narratives. It is no secret that many of the conflicts revolve around questions about sexuality and gender identity.

A key question we should be asking at this stage is this: How will law enforcers balance the protection of such characteristics with their duty to not interfere with the rights of citizens to express deeply-held beliefs? After all, core convictions, religious or otherwise, are also protected characteristics and expressing them is a fundamental right under domestic and international law.

And yet, there is widespread doubt among the British public that the police will defend their freedom to speak, particularly in relation to issues of sexuality and gender identity. A ComRes poll last year found that 43 per cent of people are “afraid to speak their minds” to the police and 61 per cent self-censor in relation to sexuality.

Harry Miller, for one, knows why. The former police officer was investigated by the police for making gender-critical comments. His actions were recorded as a non-crime hate incident, and the investigation included a police officer saying Miller “needed to check [his] thinking”. The Court of Appeal found the recording of his comments as a hate incident was “plainly an interference with freedom of expression…and likely to have a serious ‘chilling effect’ on public debate.”

2021 also saw a string of street preachers arrested for expressing their Biblical views on marriage and sexuality – often after being specifically asked about this. Someone present then claims they are offended and promptly calls the police. Police officers, publicly complying with the ‘right’ values, then proceed to arrest the suspect. In doing so, they completely ignore their duty to balance the street preacher’s fundamental right to express his beliefs openly against their duty to investigate and apprehend perpetrators of genuinely criminal behaviour.

Although these street preachers are usually released or acquitted, the process itself can be the punishment. The ultimate cost is the breakdown of public confidence in the Met’s ability to differentiate between crimes and the exercise of fundamental rights.

This differentiation must be brought to bear in the current discourse. There must be serious consideration of the interaction between protected characteristics and the fundamental right to express core beliefs and the connection between policing values and crime reduction.

Otherwise, there’s a risk that the current trajectory of the discourse will itself entrench rather than resolve public mistrust in the police.

Jeremiah Igunnubole serves as legal counsel for ADF International in London. His Twitter is @JIgunnubole.