【作者】 夏菲；

【导师】 何勤华；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 法律史， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 警察是现代国家维护社会秩序与预防、打击犯罪的主要力量。然而,如何在保障警察工作效率的同时又确保公民合法权益不受侵害,即警察权与公民权的平衡问题,对各个国家来说,都是一个难题。英国警察被认为是世界现代职业警察的开端,其权力内容和权力制约模式呈现出独特的风格。本文从四个角度对英国警察权发展的历史进行研究,以期在全面、深入地揭示英国警察权变迁过程的同时,为我国目前所面临的警察信任危机问题提供变革的新思路。一、英国警察诞生的历史决定了英国警察权的基本特征。1829年,伦敦大都市警察的建立,是英国现代警察诞生的标志。然而,当时的社会背景却同时存在着两股相反的力量：一方面是由社会变化产生的客观需求；另一方面则是传统惯性对新事务的强烈抵制。历史上,自9世纪起,英国就确立了治安自治的原则。最基层的治安组织是由十户组成的“太兴”,预防、打击犯罪的方式则是全民参与的“鸣金捕贼”。12世纪以后,逐渐出现的由治安法官领导治安官负责地方治安的模式,由于两者都是地方乡绅、社区代表,而且都是兼职人员,因此仍然保留了地方性、非职业性的特征。16世纪以后,随着英国资本主义农业和工业革命的发展,社会不同群体之间产生了明显的两极分化,关系紧张。在工业化和城市化发展到一定阶段后,各种社会矛盾最终都以犯罪、骚乱的形式爆发出来,并日益显现出跨地域的特征,传统的治安维护方式已经不能适应社会环境的变化。在这种严峻的形势下,政府也尝试通过严厉刑法、奖励个体揭发犯罪人等方法加强打击犯罪的力度,但并不奏效,18世纪的伦敦成为犯罪天堂,居民普遍缺乏安全感,传统治安模式的变革是大势所趋。一些认识到变革必要性的治安法官、内阁大臣开始新的尝试。18世纪中后期,菲尔丁兄弟在弓街组织的以捕贼者为主体的职业治安力量、皮特政府对弓街治安法官和治安官职业化的改革、治安法官帕特里克·苛奎恩组建的泰晤士水上警察都为大都市警察的最终建立奠定了思想与实践基础。然而,英国自大宪章以来确立的“自由”观念以及地方自治的传统,使得普通公众和地方政要对具有特殊权力的警察深怀恐惧与憎恨,对种种建立警察的尝试都予以坚决反对。《大都市警察法》是时任内政部长罗伯特·比尔运用政治手段,在适当的时候提出议案而侥幸得以通过的结果。法律的通过、警察组织的建立,只是变革的开端。社会各界对警察的憎恨因其建立而加剧,警察面对的首要问题是生存。为此,罗伯特等改革先驱者采用了强调警察的平民性与警察政治中立的策略以消除公众的疑虑,这种定位最终取得了成效,而从另一个角度看,也决定了英国警察权的基本特征——警察权力源于公民权利、警察没有超出公民权利的特殊权力、警察要遵守法律。总体上,英国警察建立初期表现出弱权的形象。二、警察负责制是英国警察权制约的组织基础英国警察权制约体系中的支柱是警察负责制,即由谁控制警察的问题。这也是警察建立后急需解决的、最重要的问题。《大都市警察法》以及之后各地方警察组织据以建立的法律,其关注点都是负责制。英国警察建立初期,各地的负责制形式主要有三种：一是伦敦大都市警察之警察局对内政部负责的中央控制模式；二是由监督委员会控制的市警察组织模式；三是治安法官(后为常务联合委员会)控制但警察局长相对独立的郡警察组织模式。多元的负责制模式,是地方自治传统作用的结果。警察制度的推行,必须以确认地方权力对警察的控制权为前提。当然,1856年的《郡和市警察法》通过中央财政补贴这一手段,拉开了中央对地方警察进行控制的序幕。自大都市警察建立至20世纪60年代之前的130余年中,警察逐渐发展为一个成熟的职业群体,各地警察局之间的合作、交流越来越多,渐渐形成一些共同的观念、文化,再加上内政部的支持,警察独立性地位日益突出。司法判决也支持警察独立、警察对法律负责的观念。但是,与此同时,有关警察滥用权力、收受贿赂的丑闻事件自50年代后不断被曝光,引起公众对警察控制问题的关注。由此,1960年,有关警察(事务)的皇家委员会成立,专门就警察负责制进行调查研究,该委员会报告成为,《1964年警察法》的立法基础。1964年的立法所确立了现行的三角结构的警察负责制形式。其具体内容为：即内政部、警察局长和地方警察委员会对警察各负其责、相互制约；内政部行使所有最有助于推动警察效率的权力；警察局长指挥和控制警察局；地方警察委员会则负责保证维持人数足够、有效的地方警察组织,并实施为实现该目的而由法律所授予的权力。《1964年警察法》总体上确认了在过去百年中中央权力扩张的事实,赋予内政部更多的干涉地方警务的权力,地方警察委员会的作用被大大削弱,警察局长对内具有绝对的决定权,其独立性得到进一步发展,而这又进一步为司法判决所巩固。此种变革的最大弊端是警察负责制中民主控制的衰落,这与英国警察的优良传统是不符的。20世纪80年代,英国大城市如伦敦、曼彻斯特等市,相继发生大规模骚乱,引起社会震惊。对伦敦布里克斯顿骚乱进行调查的《斯卡曼报告》认为警察采取的强硬措施与社区公众的需求不相符,引起公众仇恨。由此,警察组织的民主控制问题成为社会焦点。社会各界提出不同的负责制改革方案,最终斯卡曼勋爵的建议被采纳,即在现有的负责制基础上建立、完善警察和地方社区之间的咨询机制。对政府而言,打击新型严重犯罪,如网络犯罪、恐怖主义活动等,比满足公众的民主控制需求更为重要。《1996年警察法》扩大了内政部对警察组织的控制程度,同时设立由中央控制的国家专门警察机构,警察负责制的中央化趋势进一步巩固。20世纪末的英国警察显然已经不用担心生存问题,国家需要统一的、有效的警察组织以应对国际化的严重犯罪。三、英国警察侦查权的发展侦查权是警察拥有的一项重要权力。与我国相比,由于英国的犯罪概念比我国的要广,警察侦查的犯罪案件就不仅仅是我国所称的“刑事案件”,还包括“治安违法行为”。英国警察的侦查权相当于我国警察对刑事案件的侦查权加上对治安违法案件的调查权,范围更大。因此,侦查权集中地体现了英国警察权力内容。英国警察在建立初期强调警察是对治安官的继承,警察就是公众,其主要职责是通过巡逻预防犯罪,从事犯罪侦查的警察因其“密探”形象而遭到反对。因此,大都市警察建立初期并没有设立侦查部门,直到1842年,大都市警察局才建立了只有8人的侦查部门。此后,该部门逐步发展。与侦查部门发展缓慢相一致的是制定法对侦查权规范的漠视。警察就是公众,警察拥有的权力与公民的相同。此种观念决定了警察侦查权长期以来适用普通法。无论是警察的逮捕权、讯问权、起诉权,都是源于公民的权利,并由判例法进行调整。在20世纪80年代之前的150余年中,警察的侦查权事实上不断扩大,而这种趋势又大都为法官所认可。《1984年警察与刑事证据法》是一部全面规范警察侦查权的法律。该法的颁布,改变了侦查权长期以来缺乏制定法依据的局面。其立法宗旨是希望在警察权力与公民权利(特别是犯罪嫌疑人的权利)之间保持平衡。该法将之前普通法发展的警察侦查权制定法化,也就是肯定了警察权扩张的事实。同时,在具体程序上予以细化,以实现制约警察权的目的。对于《警察与刑事证据法》的实际效果,警察和学者有不同观点。前者认为该法制约了警察打击犯罪的能力,后者则批评该法将警察实际中采用的不当做法合法化,扩大了警察权力。80年代警察侦查权的另一个重大变化是,警察的起诉权因1985年《犯罪起诉法》的通过、1986年王室检察院的创建而被剥夺,这是1829年以来,警察首次丧失一项重要的权力。四、英国警察权行使的救济警察使用权力不当,行为相对人可以通过投诉或提起民事诉讼的方式获得救济,这种事后纠错也是控制警察权力的重要机制。英国警察的投诉机制经历了四次变革：《1964年警察法》初步确立了警察投诉机制,那是一种警察自我调查的模式；《1976年警察法》规定了警察自我调查为主、警察投诉委员会有限介入的警察投诉机制；《1984年警察和刑事证据法》以警察投诉机构取代警察投诉委员会,同时规定了更为灵活的投诉处理方式以及完整的处理程序；《2002年警察改革法》设立了独立警察投诉委员会,确立了四种调查形式：地方警察委员会或警察局长进行调查；地方警察委员会或警察局长在独立警察投诉委员会监督下进行调查；地方警察委员会或警察局长在独立警察投诉委员会指挥下进行调查；独立警察投诉委员会独立进行调查。从上述变革过程可以看出,警察投诉机制中专门委员会调查的独立性不断加强,这对于保证调查的客观、公正非常重要。这样的变化并不是警察主动改进的结果,而是在不同阶段,一系列有争议的事件引起公众对投诉机制效果的质疑后,政府不得不采取的应对措施。被动性使得警察投诉机制的改革缓慢前行并且难以摆脱在受质疑与改变之间循环往复的宿命。公民在自身权益因警察行为受到侵害后,也可以通过民事诉讼获得救济。由于对警察投诉机制缺乏信心,很多公民选择状告警察局。通过这种方式,原告经常能够获得高额赔偿。但是,法官并不是简单地以保护公民权利、抑制警察权力为原则,而是努力平衡两者之间的关系。一方面,法官对警察的行为进行严格的审查,另一方面,又对警察承担民事责任的边界和赔偿金额进行控制。在法官看来：民事诉讼中的赔偿应当以弥补原告所遭受的痛苦为主,而不是惩罚警察；法律在保障公民权利、监督警察正当执法的同时,也要确保警察有充足的资源履行其维护社会秩序的职能。综上所述,英国特有的历史、法律、文化传统造就了英国多维的警察权控制体系,其特征为：由自由观念决定的警察权力的公民权利属性、警察负责制是警察权界定与控制的核心、制定法是明确警察权力具体内容的主要依据、普通法在警察权力控制方面起着调节的作用、投诉机制和针对警察的民事诉讼是警察权不当行使的救济手段。这样一种模式是其他任何国家所不能复制的。但是,纵观英国警察权变迁的历史,其中一些重要的观念、基本制度仍然是值得我们借鉴的。更多还原

【Abstract】 The police force is an important branch of government in charge of crime investigation, crime prevention and order maintenance. In most countries, the balance between police power and citizen’s rights is a big issue. The Metropolitan Police created in 1829 is regarded as the first uniformed police force in modern society. Due to its history, culture and legal tradition, police power in England and Wales has its own characteristics. This thesis focuses on the change of police power in England and Wales. There are four chapters concerning the creation of new police, the change in police accountability, the police power in crime investigation and the police complaint system.Chapter I The Creation of a Modern Police Force in England and WalesThe nature of police power in England and Wales is decided by the background in which the police was created. On the one hand, tremendous change happened since the industrial revolution in Britain, especially in big cities, the old policing system was out of date. On the other hand, the tradition was still very strong and resisted the idea of setting up the police.Traditionally, policing was a local affair. Each person had the obligation to keep the peace of the king. Ten households constituted one’tything’, and ten tythings formed into one’hundred’. Once a crime was committed, all members of a community must join the pursuit of the felon by means of hue and cry. Since the 12th century, the office of constable and the Justice of peace emerged. Those part-time, unpaid officers were the main parts of policing system before the new police was established.The big change in society, the corruption of constable and Justice of Peace led to the collapse of the old system. Facing the serious situation of high crime rates, disorder and riots, the government enacted stricter criminal law and offered rewards to those who brought certain kinds of offender to justice. However those measures did not work. The police reformers had tried to change the old system since middle of 18 century. The magistrates of Bow Street, Henry Fielding and John Fielding set up a small body of’thief-takers’as a secret professional police force. In 1875, the Pitt’s government introduced a bill in Parliament, proposing the establishment of a strong police force to act throughout the whole Metropolitan area. Magistrate Patrick Colquhoun published a book talking about the importance of police. The efforts of those policing reformers did not overthrow the old system, however they educated the public. In 1829, Robert Peel introduced his bill of police and it was passed without opposition in parliament. The Metropolitan police was established two month later.The new police was facing serious public hostility, so the most important issue for the police was legitimacy. The police claimed that a police officer was ordinary citizen, person paid to perform, as a matter of duty, acts which if he were so minded he might have done voluntarily. The police did not have any powers beyond what a citizen had. Robert Peel and other pioneers also took the strategy of policing by consent, non-partisanship, minimizing use of weapons, etc.. In general, the new police had few powers and more obligations.Chapter II Police Accountability----he Organizational Control of Police PowerPolice accountability refers to who controls the police, it is an most important issue when the new police was created in England and Wales. In the beginning, there were three types of accountability:the Metropolitan police were responsible to the Home Office, a central-control model; the municipal police were controlled by Watch Committee; the county police were appointed by magistrates (later by Standing Joint Committee); those two were local-control models. The variety of police accountability resulted from the tradition of local autonomy on policing affairs.In the 1960s, police accountability became a hot issue again. There were two reasons. Within the development of police force in the country, the police became stronger and more independent. The judges also agreed with the principle of police independence and police accountability to the law. At the same time, many cases of police corruption and abuse of power were exposed. The public felt that the police was out of control. In 1960, the Royal Commission on Police was appointed to review the arrangement of police control. The suggestions of the commission were mainly accepted by the legislature.The Police Act 1964 established so called’triangle’police accountability. The Home Office has the duty to promote the efficiency of the police and powers to discharge the duty. The local police authority should maintain an adequate and efficient force. The chief constable of each police force controls and directs the police.The 1964 act gave more powers to the Home Secretary, the function of local authority was weakened. In 1980s, serious riots occurred in big cities, such as London, Manchester. Lord Scarman who was appointed to investigate the riot happened in Brixton London concluded that the hard strategy used by police was one of social reasons caused the riot. He suggested that the police should listen to the voices of the community by setting up a consultation system. This idea was codified later.However, fighting crime is the top issue for the British government, especially under the pressure of terrorism crime and internet crime. The government needs a centralized and effective police. The Police Act 1996 did not emphasize on democratic accountability, on the contrary, the police accountability tended to be more centralized. ChapterⅢThe Investigation Power of Police in England and WalesThe idea of’police is public’obstructed the development of the detective branch in London as well as other areas. The Metropolitan Police did not have a detective branch until 1842. At that time, there were only 8 constables. Correspondingly, the legislation of police investigation power developed very slowly.From the 1820s to the early 1980s, the police used its investigation power derived from common law and extended it through case law. In practice, the police possessed much more powers on arrest, interrogation and prosecution than the ordinary people, although in theory the police had the same power as the latter.In 1984, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was enacted. It codified the powers developed by case law during last 155 years. At the same time, the act put more strict regulation on procedure. The aim of this act is keeping the balance between police investigation power and the suspect’s rights. However, it turns out that the police were unhappy about the restriction, and the scholars thought too much power was endowed to police.The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 created the Crown Prosecution system. The power of prosecution was transferred to this new institution, police lost a significant power.ChapterⅣThe Remedy of Police Power AbuseWhen a citizen’s rights are infringed by police, he/she can make complaint to certain organization or sue the police force to the court.The police complaint system went through four reforms. The Police Act 1964 provided that the police force is responsible for the policeman’s misconduct, and the chief constable is in charge of complaint investigation. The Police Act of 1976 created an independent organization, the Police Complaint Board (PCB) which can review the complaint case investigated by the chief constable. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act replaced PCB with the Police Complaint Authority (PCA) which has power to supervise the investigation in some serious cases. The Police reform Act 2002 changed PCA to The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Now, there are four types of investigation:local investigation, IPCC supervised investigation, IPCC directed investigation, IPCC independent investigation. Compared with PCB and PCA, IPCC is more independent and more active in supervision and investigation. With four reforms in 38 years, change happened frequently. The public expected a completely independent police complaint system, which is still not the case in the IPCC model.Due to the low confidence in the police complaint system, many people prefer filing civil suits to get compensation from the police, and very often, they receives huge sums in damages from the police. The judges are not always on the side of citizen, they examine the police behavior closely and make sure that the citizen’s rights are not violated, but they also know the importance of giving police enough power to fight crime.In general, the complicated police power system is derived from the special history, culture and legal philosophy. The nature of police power was decided by the background in which the new police was created. Police accountability is the organizational control of police power. The statutes regulate the detective and administrative power of police and the courts make modification and supplement. The core principle is maintaining the balance between the police power and the individual’s rights.更多还原