Intelligence led Policing

An example is the common use of ILP in reinforcement of community policing is due to its ability to provide clear processes, better management structures for gathering information and data. The second example could be the common use of the traditional method for its reactive nature and ILP only comes in when addressing organized and serious crimes. Traditional policing is still the most commonly used methodology of the five. It is more incident-driven and reactive in nature where the enforcement officers respond to service requests and crimes as they happen. Traditional method may also involve receiving complaints, random patrols, and answering to calls. ILP is therefore deemed to compliment on the responsive policing of the traditional methodology. Despite communication working both ways, ILP is majorly a top-down, managerial and decision making model (Ratcliffe, 2016).

In contrast, community policing, it is a typical approach example of a bottom-up that aims to heighten confidence and trust between the two involved parties. The idea of interpret, intent, impact and influence model (4-i) helps in explaining the relationship and roles between the major role players of the concept that is criminal intelligence analyst, police decision-maker and the criminal environment. For the ILP to work in the realization of its full potential, all the “i” components must function well and be always in place. IPL has been praised for its proactive and forward looking police management approach. ILp has been successfully applied in various countries over the last years in addressing of transnational threats and serious crimes. In many past years, the resource demand for police availability and response have outgrown the available supply and thus this fueled efficiency and prioritization in the enforcement resources.

Even so, public and political accountability expectations have been raised over time. ILP has had several advantages and benefits that include; it has extremists, lone wolves and other criminals from under the enforcement radar as they have earlier managed under other methodologies. The access system should be equipped to allow each of the intelligence units to reap data benefits from colleagues (Gibbs, McGarrell and Sullivan, 2015). The National Strategic Assessment of Serious and Organized Crime (NSA) is one of such intelligence products created at the third level. The product is released by UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) that draws data from Customs and Excise, police forces, security and intelligence agencies as well as other law enforcing bodies. The NSA comprehensively paints the picture of the intensity of the risk posed to the Kingdom and how organized and serious crimes could be interested in it.

The NSA thus informs national response on the action priorities, results expected and predicted success levels. ” On the other hand, strategic assessments reports depict situations as per their responsibility areas and how the effects are changing both in the now and in future. “Tactical assessments report to the tactical and coordination group providing a basis for its working” (Wong, 2016, 15). Target profiles are the person-specific details required to initiate operation or investigation on an interlinked group or persons and stand-alone individuals. Hong Kong policing boasts of a value-driven and service-driven operational philosophy. The community expectations and values are known to greatly impart on Hong Kong’s policing. The demand Gap requires the government to use technology for it to detect crime and be able to stop it before it happens.

In Hong Kong, there is no demand gap existing as the crime rate continues to decline in the past 40 years. The need for ILP model in Hong Kong is minimal as the society have been working on how to reduce the crime rate. The continuous decline in the crime rate minimizes the need for an ILP in the policing sector. In addition, there are minimal terrorism cases in Hong Kong compared to the UK. The Crime analyst in HK work for a few years and then transferred to another department with different duties (Gibbs, McGarrell and Sullivan, 2015). The degree of crime rate in the UK has forced the security ministry to form specialized unit and crime detection unit is different from the police.

In the UK Crime analyst works closely with the police commander and influences him while the commander will give the analyst his intention while in HK Crime analysts are the subordinates of the police commander who usually direct the crime analysts. In the UK the relationship between police commander and Crime analysts is like that of work colleagues working at the same level (Ratcliffe 2016). The commander gives his intentions to the analysts and the analysts provide an informed feedback. The use of ILP in the UK has helped the police department in decision making when dealing with different types of crime. The use of intelligence has revolutionized the investigation and detection of crime processes allowing the police to make profound decisions and measures in dealing with crime.

Unlike the old days when security agencies would approach a problem without enough data. The use of Academics in the UK in collecting and analyzing intelligence has enabled ILP application in the UK. There is a lot of cooperation between academics and security agencies in the UK which have helped the implementation of ILP model (Gibbs, McGarrell and Sullivan, 2015). The use of technology to collect information on crime in the society. It has helped reduce the crime rate in the HK which has minimized the need for ILP in HK (Gibbs, McGarrell and Sullivan, 2015). The use of ILP in Hong Kong is not mandatory and its implementation is dependent on the police commanders in charge. In the UK the ILP has led to surveillance of personal information from materials such as emails, phone calls and texts.

Surveillance using cameras in the streets that have interfered with the life of the British people. In HK intelligence I based on police experience than asking help from academics to solve the crime. The use of academics is based on intelligence that helps police. While the use of academics is a strength for the ILP model in the UK, Police in HK prefers to use the experience they gain from the community (Gibbs, McGarrell and Sullivan, 2015). Conclusion The implementation of ILP in HK and UK have taken two divergent ways. While it is mandatory to implement the ILP in the UK according to Police Reform Act 2003, it is not a must in HK. , Loader, I. , Jauregui, B. and Steinberg, J. eds.