Conferring under fire

While freedom of expression, open debate transparency and accountability are the hallmarks of a democratic society, chief officers would no doubt have preferred that my previous article Conference Call had not been published (PR, 10 April 2009).

The article reviewed the law on officers conferring after a shooting and came to the conclusion that ACPO guidance (to the effect that officers should not confer) had no basis in law.

Regrettably, the first ACPO response offered by Ian Arundale, the ACPO lead on strategic firearms and conflict management, published alongside the article, does nothing to alleviate concerns that the guidance is ill-founded and perverse.

To my mind, the ACPO response contains irrelevancies, exposes deficiencies in research and legal argument and fails to address relevant issues. Worse still, it exposes that ACPO has been economical with the truth about the rationale behind the new 'guidance'. Yet it does provide some support for the arguments I advanced in the original article.