Police chiefs have insisted that paying informants is cost effective after new figures revealed that forces have paid almost £20m for information over the last five years.
A freedom of information request revealed that the Metropolitan police alone paid £5.2m from 2011 to 2016, more than a quarter of the amount paid out nationally.
BBC Radio 5 Live asked 45 UK police forces to state how much they spent on informants. The 43 forces that responded collectively spent £19.59m. After the Met, the second highest payers was the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which parted with almost £2m. Only two other forces, Kent police and West Midlands police, spent more than £1m in the last five years.
Leicestershire’s deputy chief constable, Roger Bannister, the National Police Chiefs Council lead on informants, said there was no upper limit to the money forces were willing to pay for information. But he added that the practice was scrutinised and could help save money by cutting the need for months of surveillance.
“We ensure that is always very cost effective,” Banninster told 5 Live Breakfast. “We don’t pay excessively high sums, when there is not any need to. In fact quite often criminals are paid relatively small sums of money that lead us to evidence. It may be less than £100.”
Asked to how much forces would be willing to pay for information, Bannister said: “I can’t give you a specific figure. It’s on a case by case. There is no upper limit, but obviously it is taken in the context of the funding that forces have.”
He added: “In the main it is very serious and organised crime. So typically things like murder, terrorism, very serious sexual offences and serious assault, but even people’s home that have been burgled. We pay informants to help us solve crime as quickly as we can.”
Neil Wood, who worked as an undercover police officer, is sceptical about the tactic, claiming it reinforces a “cycle of violence and brutality”. Speaking to BBC News he said: “Nobody can call that effective. Overall it does little to bring down the level of overall crime.”
But Bannister argued that the practice helped prevent as well as solve crime. “We also pay informants to prevent planned and organised crime that is going to take place … for example one gang member trying to get hold of a firearm to try to shoot dead another. In those sort of circumstances it wouldn’t be unusual to pay an informant.”
He said there is no going rate for the amount paid. He said: “Cash strapped police forces don’t pay on a willy nilly basis, it is very much payment on results. So if property is recovered that turns out to be stolen, or drugs are recovered, guns are recovered, then at that stage a payment is made.”
Bannister insisted that the police forces were held to account for the money spent on informants. He said: “The courts have a very clear understanding of what the police do, and this has been going on many many years … There is certain legislation that governs what we can do and what we can’t do. The officer’s surveillance commissioners, who are typically very senior judges scrutinise what we have done and the reasons for doing it.”
