Delivering the recommendations of the Fraud Review 2006 and the paradox of police leadership

The purpose of this context statement is to investigate those factors which either contributed towards or impeded delivery of key recommendations from the Fraud Review, Attorney General (2006). These public works comprise three independent but intrinsically linked projects; the National Fraud Reporting Centre (NFRC), National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) and the Economic Crime Academy (ECA). Critical analysis shows how the success of each project influenced and contributed directly to the next project. Examination is made of how, without vision and the continuity of leadership, these public works would either not exist today or would have failed to be as successful as they are. Reflection upon this, together with analyses of individual and organisational leadership styles, stimulated two unavoidable and fundamental questions to be raised: What does the Police Service now stand for? Is the current model of police leadership fit for purpose? Critical analysis of the role of police leadership in the delivery of these public works led to a further, specific question: Is the police response to fraud appropriate? This is because police responses to fraud often appear to be in conflict with Peelian Principles, ACPO (2012) and are more biased towards serving the criminal justice system rather than delivering social justice through interventions that are morally and ethically grounded. On commencement of this context statement the intention was for it to be read by like-minded leaders and visionaries, those who do not fit the norm or stereotype of a typical police manager; as the context statement evolved so too has the intended readership. Throughout reflective assessment and consideration of police leadership and today’s performance culture, it became increasingly apparent that this subject should be core reading for police leaders of the future. However, on completion of the context statement, it is apparent that readership audience should extend beyond the Police Service and the policy makers within government and the Ministry of Justice. The real audience should be the public we serve, those with whose consent we police. Therefore, it seems logical that public should be the ultimate critical assessors of this contribution, together with the effectiveness and appropriateness of the current and ongoing culture of police leadership and the response to fraud.