Walker Review

Walker Review
Title	Walker Review
Author	Sir Christopher Walker
Date	2007
Country	United Kingdom
Subject	Independent review of policing of protests
Pages	150

Walker Review

The Walker Review was an independent inquiry led by Sir Christopher Walker into policing of public order and protest in the United Kingdom, commissioned after high-profile events involving police and protesters at G8 summit locations and major sporting venues. It examined institutional practices at organizations including the Metropolitan Police Service, Association of Chief Police Officers, Home Office, and standards set by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The Review informed subsequent debates in the House of Commons and influenced guidance from the College of Policing and policy statements by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Background

The Review was established following contentious incidents such as confrontations during demonstrations at Trafalgar Square, disturbances connected to the G20 London summit, and controversial crowd control operations at Wembley Stadium and Hillsborough Stadium. Public concern arose after legal challenges brought before the High Court of Justice and claims considered by the European Court of Human Rights related to policing tactics. Sir Christopher Walker, drawing on prior roles linked to the Home Office and advisory posts with the Council of Europe, was appointed to ensure independence from the Metropolitan Police Authority and to engage stakeholders including representatives from Amnesty International, Liberty, and trade unions such as the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.

Scope and Objectives

The Review set out to assess policies and operational practice across forces including the Greater Manchester Police, West Midlands Police, and Strathclyde Police regarding management of protests, major events, and spontaneous public order scenarios. Objectives included evaluating compliance with statutory frameworks like the Public Order Act 1986, standards of command and control exemplified in incidents akin to the Battle of the Beanfield legacy, and interaction with supervisory bodies such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission and local Police and Crime Commissioners. It aimed to recommend changes to training provided by the College of Policing, legal guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service, and oversight mechanisms involving the Home Secretary and parliamentary select committees.

Key Findings

Walker identified patterns in planning deficiencies, inconsistent application of containment tactics, and shortcomings in transparency when addressing allegations akin to those heard in inquiries such as the Hillsborough Independent Panel. The Review documented instances where liaison with event organizers and groups like Friends of the Earth or Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament had been inadequate, and where communication with media outlets including the BBC and The Guardian had failed to manage public perception. It noted a lack of uniform training comparable to modules used by international partners such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and stressed the need for adherence to jurisprudence from bodies like the European Court of Human Rights in balancing rights under instruments including the European Convention on Human Rights.

Recommendations

The Review proposed measures to strengthen accountability through clearer protocols for senior officers in the mold of guidance from the College of Policing and enhanced role clarity for oversight bodies similar to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It urged revision of doctrine underpinned by the Public Order Act 1986 and recommended standardized training partnerships with institutions such as the National Police Chiefs' Council and universities offering public policy courses at places like London School of Economics and University of Oxford. Walker called for improved public engagement strategies involving civic organizations like Citizens Advice and watchdogs such as Human Rights Watch (UK), plus better evidence preservation for review by courts including the Court of Appeal.

Implementation and Impact

Following publication, several police forces implemented reforms in joint planning forums with agencies including Transport for London and event organizers tied to entities like UEFA and the Football Association. The College of Policing incorporated elements of the Review into professional standards and development frameworks used by commanders across the National Police Chiefs' Council. Parliament debated amendments influenced by the Review at sessions attended by the Home Secretary and members of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Legal practitioners from chambers such as Blackstone Chambers referenced the Report during judicial reviews brought in venues like the High Court of Justice and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Criticism and Controversy

Critics including civil liberties groups like Liberty and campaigning lawyers associated with Bindmans LLP argued the Review did not go far enough in addressing systemic accountability deficits highlighted in inquiries such as the Scarman report or the aftermath of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Some commentators in outlets including The Guardian and The Independent contended that recommendations relied heavily on voluntary adoption by police leadership rather than statutory reform through instruments overseen by the Home Office and legislated in Parliament. Others questioned whether international comparisons with forces such as the New South Wales Police Force sufficiently accounted for domestic legal constraints imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights and precedents at the European Court of Human Rights.

Category:Police oversight in the United Kingdom