Sir Robert Peel meets the Firearms Act

By 

John A. Gayder

This article was published during 1999-2000 in Canadian editions of Safari Times under a column called 
"Jag: thoughts from behind the badge".

The following article is an amalgamation of posts made to the Canadian Firearms Digest in early 1998 and an essay I wrote entitled The Founding Principles of Canadian Policing.

It is interesting to note that the formation of the first paid police force of modern times received strong opposition.  Then, as now, the public involved was very suspicious of increased government intrusion into their lives.  In 1822, Briton Sir Robert Peel came up with Nine Principles of policing in order to calm their anxiety.   These fears are best summed up in this passage from a report to one of the Royal Commissions hearing on this matter:

“It is difficult to reconcile an effective system of police with that of perfect freedom of action and exemption from interference, which are the great privileges and blessings of society in this country…[these] are too great a sacrifice for improvements in police, of facilities in detection of crime, however desirable in themselves.” – From: The Police Force, L.F. Hobley, Allman and Son, UK, 1971

Regardless of such skeptical voices, Peel did go on to establish the first “Bobbies” or “Peelers”.  Police forces in all Commonwealth countries can trace their ideological bloodlines back to Sir Robert Peel:

“Canadian police forces have never formally subscribed to any set of principles of policing.  Nevertheless, the principles on which Canadian policing developed are generally the same as those of the British police.

They were first enunciated by Sir Robert Peel in England in 1822 when he was working toward the establishment of the London Metropolitan Police, which claims to be the first organized paid police force in the English-speaking world.” – From: Policing in Canada, William and Nora Kelly (Toronto: Macmillan Co. 1976)

Up until very recently, police recruits in Canada were expected to be familiar with his tenets before graduation from training.  Unfortunately, with the passage of time, his Nine Principles have been watered down or co-opted by selective editing to endorse programs Peel himself not have supported. 

The ideological sentiments contained in his original principals are not perfect, but are far better than the ideology fueling current trends in policing.  Far from being just a list of niceties which police and the justice system should try to adhere to, they can also be described as a “recipe” or “formula” for successful policing. As any chef or chemist will tell you: deviations from the recipe or formula will result in something different than intended.   Canadian policing would be safer and more effective if we would return to their usage.

Here are Sir Robert’s timeless precepts, complete and unabridged, as found in: A Short History of the British Police,  (London: Oxford University Press, 1948). I have included my observations after each. 

PEELS NINE PRINCIPLES OF POLICING:

1)      To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and by severity of legal punishment.

This basically says that the police make better policemen than the army.  Today in Canada however, we see the police increasingly wanting to become more like the army; witness the raid on Ottawa area gun shop Marstar by black clad SAS wannabes backed up by a helicopter. It was rumored they had originally wanted to bash an armoured personnel carrier through the front of the shop.

2) To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

Think about how the Firearms Act collides with this.

3)      To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

If the Firearms Act was a good law, responsible firearms owners would be lining up to

help out with it.  They would be happily singing praises to it, it's creators and enforcers.  Unfortunately, bad law like the Firearms Act brings the police, the justice system and it's laws, even the good and necessary ones, into disrepute.

4)      To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes, proportionately, the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

This is one of the reasons why countries which have overly thick "criminal codes" filled with unpopular laws have lots of crime, and in turn- large angry police forces.  See also comments on principle 3.

5)      To seek and to preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustices of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing; by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

Note the "not pandering to public opinion" part in the first line.  The Canadian Police Association should have kept this in mind before endorsing the "popular" but phoney Firearms Act in exchange for a DNA registry. They are now having second thoughts about it.  The part about enforcing laws "regardless of the justice or injustice of the substance of each law" gives cause for concern.  It is the only segment in all of Peel's Principles which gives police encouragement to blindly enforce any law dreamt up in Parliament, no matter how draconian or twisted.  Unfortunately, this little segment, out of the entire body of Peel's work, has gotten the most usage in policing courses in recent years. When Peel originally wrote this in 1822, regard for individual rights and liberties was still foremost in the minds of lawmakers, and a law like the Firearms Act would never even have been considered.  This rest of this principle pretty much speaks for itself - but how many friendly, polite and humourous police do you see these days?

6)      To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order; and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

I like to call this one the "old time copper" principle. If a gun owner has a mistake in his firearm paperwork, wouldn't it be easier and safer to call him on the phone and ask him to please get it sorted out? Witness the tactical team being sent to "notify" gun owners about address mistakes on their registration slips a few years ago in the Burlington area.  I am all for officer safety, but where do you draw the line between caution and paranoia?  Peel knew, and the further away from principle six Canadian police go, the worse things get. I personally know of a MNR Conservation Officer in my district that is so aggressively defensive and rude that many officers, myself included, refuse to work with him when operating in our area. Whatever happened to old time policing?

Principle 7 will be of extreme interest to self defense advocates. Keep in mind that the public of Sir Robert Peel's time (1820's) were extremely suspicious of a government organized police force.  They were afraid it would be the end of their liberties, and the proud exercise of their civic responsibilities. Peel understood and agreed with their fears. Upon founding the western world's first paid police force he cautioned his men to do the following;

7)      To maintain at all time a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Wow.  Think how far we have come from this. Observe the trust and respect for the citizen contained in Peels wonderfully worded Principle 7.  Now compare it to today's laws. Current climate anomalies may not be due to El Nino after all; maybe they are the result of a shift in the Earth's orbit caused by Sir Robert spinning in his grave at an ever accelerating speed....

8)      To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the state, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

This is obviously a caution by Peel to the police not to “take the law into their own hands” and punish suspected transgressors. However, the Firearms Act allows area Firearm Officers “semi judiciary” powers by giving them the power to revoke and refuse firearms licences based on past occurrences and convictions held in the FIP database.  Innocent gun owners can now easily be punished by having their licence revoked/refused by the police.    

9)      To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Biography of the author and disclaimer: (See attached Curriculum Vitae for additional info)

The author has been a Constable for eight years with the Niagara Parks Police in Niagara Falls, Ontario. The views expressed in this article may or may not represent the official position of his employer.

MORE articles by Constable Gayden