tim's experiment

It’s the week for mind-blowing police statistics. Last year our beloved constabulary conducted 1,637,334 “stop and searches”. This is the procedure which starts with “Excuse me sir, may I see your ID card?”, or for less prestigeous clients “Oi! You. What you got in that bag?” The victim is asked to produce the card, empty pockets, open bag, etc. We have all seen this going on. MTR exits are a favourite spot. It seems rather unlikely that anyone on his way to commit a serious crime will be travelling by MTR, but there it is.

The interesting thing about Hong Kong’s figure is that it is about twice the figure for New York, which has both a larger population and more crime than we do. Even so the practice is so controversial that the latest Mayor ran on a promise to reform and reduce the practice. The figure for London – roughly the same population as New York – is about one third of the Hong Kong one. Here the matter is also controversial, not so much because the thing is in principle objectionable but because in practice those stopped and searched are disproportionately from minority groups – or, in words of one syllable, black.

Looking further at the figures it appears that this is a very ineffective method of catching criminals, and that the more you do it the less effective it is. In London, stop and searches produce an arrest rate of 10-12 per cent. In New York about 6 per cent lead to the searchee being arrested for something, though critics note that only about half of these cases lead to a successful prosecution. In Hong Kong only one in 113 led to “crime detection”. We may suppose this sorry figure to include those whose only offence was not to have their ID card on them when required to produce it, which is not a crime in London or New York.

This is not a laughing matter because conducting stop and searches on this scale uses up a lot of police resources. If we suppose the average duration of one of these little chats to be ten minutes then our annual total of incidents represents 6,600 40-hour working weeks. In other words this activity consumed the equivalent of 128 policemen’s work for an entire year. And that is assuming that the policemen concerned are operating solo. All those people who complain that our Force neglects the crime of their choice – parking in Central, cruelty to animals, upskirt photography, speeding on Lamma, rape, murder, etc – can now see why. Hordes of constables are standing around on street corners waiting to conduct vain searches of passing pedestrians.

Another way of looking at the figures is to say that if you are a New Yorker you can expect to be stopped on average once every 11 years or so. If you are a Londoner you can expect to wait a bit longer: on average your number will come up only once in 16 years. In Hong Kong, with our smaller population and higher rate of stoppages, you should on average be stopped about once every three years. This is an interesting figure because I have been here for 30 years and have never been stopped and frisked yet. I was once subjected to a random breath test while driving (I think they were testing the equipment because 11 am on a Sunday seemed an unlikely time to catch drunk drivers) but that doesn’t count. And indeed from my observations of embarrassing scenes at MTR stations the searchee is almost invariably a young man carrying a bag. The other group often stopped, according to my students, is attractive young ladies, but I think that is just for entertainment purposes. And as might have been expected we heard complaints last week that in order to leave so many upstanding citizens frisk-free, other groups were being victimised. Suspicion falls particularly often on members of racial minorities.  Official spokesmen denied any “profiling” was going on, but it seems the Force has a pretty good idea of who they think is suspicious.

Only it isn’t a very good idea because less than one in 100 searches produces any tangible result. The other 112 unsuccessful stops are not costless. The citizen so victimised is delayed in going about his lawful pursuits. His time is taken from him and if the proceedings are not conducted with the utmost tact his dignity as well. Those people who are stopped frequently are going to develop a hostile view of society in general and the police in particular. This may be inspiring more crime than it prevents.

Clearly no rational consideration of the sensible uses of police time or the purposes of policing can justify this overuse of an ineffective and offensive technique. It has become a habit, fostered by the “management” technique of asking people to produce records of work done, however meaningless that work may have been.  Given the present “we never apologise” posture of the Force we shall, I fear, not see any signs of official contrition over this. But perhaps, behind the scenes, someone could inform the boys and girls that stopping and searching only counts as productive work if it produces something. Those officers whose suspicions are too easily aroused by the innocent should find another way of looking busy.