Strategic overview of criminal justice

Report: 10
Date: 29 March 2007
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report outlines the major developments in criminal justice in London over the last few years and how the relationships between the major criminal justice agencies have developed.

The report demonstrates the transformation of criminal justice based on the London Plan 2007- 09 and supports the concept of criminal justice being a service rather than a system.

A. Recommendation

That the report be noted.

B. Supporting information

Background and developments in Criminal Justice

1. Previously, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) concentrated its activity in relation to criminal justice by way of administrative units at a large number of police stations across London and a centralised Criminal Justice Policy Office based at New Scotland Yard. In 1998, the various administrative Criminal Justice Units (CJUs) were amalgamated at 32 Borough-based sites.

2. Prior to 2002, strategic issues for the MPS relating to criminal justice were managed from within the Criminal Justice Policy Office. This department was responsible for researching and developing new policy. It was not in a position to sufficiently interact with the delivery of criminal justice within Borough CJUs, and thus, policy appeared to be remote and did not appear to fit in with the strategic direction of the MPS.

3. Key initiatives in relation to criminal justice since then have placed the whole criminal justice agenda into sharp focus. Central to these were the Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales published by Sir Robin Auld in September 2001, the Home Office White Paper entitled "Justice for All" published in July 2002 and the introduction of new legislation in the form of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Subsequently, the London Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) was introduced in April 2003.

4. In preparation for criminal justice changes, the MPS introduced the Department for Criminal Justice and commissioned the Criminal Justice Improvement Project (CJIP) and business development work which was undertaken by external consultants. From this work, a new model of criminal justice delivery was developed.

5. During 2002, within the Department of Criminal Justice, the Justice for London Project (JFL) commenced improving processes relating to criminal justice. This project concentrated, initially, on three key strands of activity:

• Enhanced victim and witness care;
• Enhanced investigation and preparation of case papers; and
• An enhanced IT environment, including the possibility of a single electronic case file.

6. In 2003, the Department of Criminal Justice developed into Operation Emerald. The changes in criminal justice meant that Operation Emerald was responsible for undertaking one of the largest business change programmes throughout the MPS.

7. Operation Emerald drew together the policy-making elements that had existed previously, together with an executive arm that was able to introduce new systems into Boroughs and ensure compliance. This was placed under the supervision of a Commander, and embodied partnership working with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in dealing with criminal justice issues as the Prosecution Team. A strict performance regime was introduced, with criminal justice performance measured and published by Operation Emerald. This served to steadily focus attention on the importance of criminal justice performance and to raise this issue with local Borough Commanders.

8. Fundamental to the success of Operation Emerald was the development of partnership working with the various criminal justice agencies, most notably the CPS. Operation Emerald was responsible for implementing Witness Care Units (WCUs) on all Boroughs across the MPS, in accordance with the 'No Witness No Justice' initiative. This was done in partnership with the CPS. The partnership working had a direct impact on performance by reducing the amount of ineffective trials due to witness non-attendance.

9. Case Progression Units (CPUs) were implemented concurrently, to improve the initial investigation and subsequent handling of cases where persons were arrested and, also, to ensure that case papers were submitted to a high standard. The principle of a ‘right first time’ approach to the completion of case papers was adopted. CPUs provided support and supervision to the growing and relatively inexperienced workforce. Operation Emerald also provided an important training function to officers on CPUs. This was the first occasion on which specific training, in relation to criminal justice activity, had ever been provided by the MPS to its staff.

10. The formation of CPUs was an essential foundation that enabled the MPS and CPS to locate Duty Prosecutors at police stations across the MPS. The provisions for statutory charging, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, made it a legal requirement for the CPS to make charging decisions in all but the most minor routine cases. Statutory charging was introduced to ensure that the correct charge was made from the outset of the case, to weed out non-viable cases at an early stage, and to improve the readiness of cases at the point of charge. This was introduced in November 2004, by a joint MPS/CPS team. The collocation of CPS Duty Prosecutors with police in police stations, together with the use of the out-of-hours CPS Direct Scheme, were key features in improving partnership activity between the two organisations, directly leading to a reduction in the number of cases being discontinued.

11. Operation Emerald was also responsible for the delivery of the Criminal Case Management Programme across the MPS, and in particular, the establishment of Case Progression Officers within the MPS, to work in conjunction with their counterparts in the CPS and Her Majesty's Court Service (HMCS). The Case Progression Officers were introduced to deal effectively with out-of-court case progression. Enhanced case progression was an essential element in reducing the Ineffective Trials rate as part of the Effective Trials Management Programme.

12. One of the major success stories of Operation Emerald has been the establishment of a London-wide computerised Warrants Management System, the Emerald Warrants Management System (EWMS), which commenced in December 2004. This replaced locally kept records, and now forms part of the computerised transfer of information between courts and the police. The number of outstanding warrants in December 2004 was 18,000. This has now been reduced to 7,187, a reduction of 61% (15 February 2007). The team is part of the national Warrant Handling Strategy Project sponsored by the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA). The team also has a group of officers working in partnership with HMCS Central Accounting Office to deal with the enforcement of confiscation order warrants.

13. Borough Criminal Justice Groups (BCJGs), have become increasingly proactive in terms of focus on performance issues, and accountability for matters such as the Effective Trials rate and achieving the Persistent Young Offender pledge.

Improvements in Criminal Justice performance

14. The development of joint working between the various criminal justice agencies, combined with the activity of Emerald and the LCJB has led to the following improvements in performance:

• Sanction Detections increased from 13% in September 2003 to 21% in Feb 2007.
• OBTJs increased from 12% (129,116) in July 2003 to 21.9% (204,486) in Jan 2007.
• Public confidence increased from 41% in June 2003 to 48% in June 2006.
• Ineffective Trials reduced from 38% in September 2003 to 19.3% in Jan 2007 in the Magistrates' Courts.
• Ineffective Trials reduced from 25% in September 2003 to 12.9% in Jan 2007 in the Crown Courts.
• FTA warrants reduced from 18,000 in Dec 2004 to 7,187 in Feb 2007 – a 61% reduction.

The London Criminal Justice Board

15. New members to the LCJB in the last 12 months include Lee Jasper, Mayor’s Office and Mr Justice Bean. Otherwise membership over the last two years has been:

• Metropolitan Police Service;
• City of London Police;
• British Transport Police;
• CPS;
• HMCS;
• London Probation;
• Youth Justice Board;
• Her Majesty's Prison Service;
• Victim Support London;
• MPA;
• IAG representative;
• Legal Services Commission; and
• LCJB team members.

16. The Executive Team has expanded in the last 12 months following a review by the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit (PMDU) which questioned whether the Board had the necessary support to deliver its work programme. Originally, there was a Performance team, a Programme team and a Communications adviser. The team now also includes a Chief Executive, a Strategy Team and a Relationships Team, which incorporates the Communications Adviser. All members of the team are on secondment from CJS agencies or Government departments. The LCJB now has a stronger Board Advisory Group and Support Team, and has demonstrated an effective response to the PMDU Review. For 2007/8 the LCJB will continue to receive funding from the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR). Additional resources are provided by some agencies, either in terms of funding or staff on attachment.

The London Plan

17. The London Plan is the LCJBs programme of reforms for 2007 to 2009, with the shared aim to be the best Criminal Justice Service in Europe. The LCJB will deliver a coordinated and ambitious reform programme for London, with the following key themes:

Delivering a quicker service:

• Diversion of simple cases away from court.
• Improved case preparation at the outset.
• Virtual courts implemented across London.
• Integrated Prosecution Teams to reduce duplication.
• Reduced running costs.

Keeping it simple

• Consistent file content.
• Proportionate file preparation for cases.
• Reduced duplication of data entry.
• Always use of clear language.

Supporting the public

• Exceeding the Victims Code.
• Implementation of the Witness Charter.
• Highest public confidence in the country.

Making people safer

• Strengthened links with CDRPs and local authorities
• Strengthened MAPPA
• A consistent risk assessment process across all agencies
• All CJS partners actively engaged in community justice

Looking to the future – youth

• Radical reform of youth strategy
• Greater use of community/restorative justice
• Young people understand what happened to them in court
• More joined-up youth diversion strategy

Challenges for the future include anticipated significant budgetary reductions in the next two years, increased pressure on prisoner accommodation and the Probation Service, and the need to improve community safety.

Integrated Prosecution Teams and Case Build Project

18. The Prosecution and Partnership Team is responsible for implementing one of the most fundamental and far-reaching recent changes in criminal justice in relation to the Integrated Prosecution Team (IPT) project, where the police and CPS will be co-located at police stations, working on a single case file. IPTs will result in realising business efficiencies between the two agencies, reducing duplication and increasing efficiency savings.

19. It will be possible to realign the traditional role of the case clerk to work alongside CPUs as Case Builders, to build case files to a high standard, thereby reducing the need for remedial activity. Police staff will also be released to perform essential post-prosecution work in terms of resulting and archiving completed cases, thereby enabling the MPS to address vulnerabilities arising from the Bichard recommendations. The principles of Criminal Justice Simple, Speedy, Summary (CJSSS) will form the basis of day-to-day criminal justice activity within the IPTs. Three pilot sites will commence at Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest in April 2007, with full rollout across the MPS by April 2008. This is a major challenge to both organisations involving large-scale reorganisation.

Criminal Justice Simple, Speedy, Summary

20. In partnership, TP Emerald has co-ordinated the pilot schemes for Simple Speedy Summary Justice (CJSSS - Magistrates' Courts Streamlining) at Camberwell Green and Thames Magistrates' Courts. CJSSS has introduced a simple, consistent file content which, with early service of advanced information results in a reduction in the number of court hearings, ensuring that low level criminal cases are dealt with in a timely fashion. Improved and proportionate file build at an early stage has increased guilty pleas at first hearing, reduced adjournments and interim hearings and improvements in the time cases take to come to trial within the Magistrates' Court. Full rollout of CJSSS will be undertaken between April 2007 and April 2008.

Director’s guidance ‘quick process’

21. TP Emerald is developing the theme of proportionate file build, which arose at the pilot sites where the Simple Speedy Summary Justice initiative (CJSSS) took place. As a result of this, a significantly reduced case file, the Director’s Guidance Quick Process (DG QP) Procedure, is being piloted to reduce the unnecessary bureaucratic burden of producing files for cases, which are anticipated 'guilty' pleas at first appearance. Case files will be streamlined and this will develop speedier justice and reduce waste. Pilot sites have commenced at Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Lambeth and Southwark in March 2007.

Virtual courts

22. The Police and Justice Bill will permit first appearance courts to take place in London police stations. Virtual courts will use video-conferencing technology to link police stations to courts. It will allow defendants to be heard at court from police stations shortly after charge, enabling some cases to be disposed of in a matter of hours. A prototype will be operational in April, with Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court being the virtual court for Kennington, Brixton, Walworth and Peckham police stations.

23. Anticipated benefits are:

• Improved timeliness by enabling a faster throughput of cases;
• Fewer delays caused by the non-appearance of defendants, missing papers or personnel;
• A faster resolution for victims and witnesses due to speedier first hearings; and
• An increased number of early 'guilty' pleas.

24. Anticipated cost savings are:

• Increased courts capacity;
• More effective reduction in the number of outstanding warrants;
• Reduction in prisoner transportation costs; and
• Police released to primary functions due to speedier case completion.

Conditional cautioning

25. TP Emerald is working in partnership with CPS and HMCS to introduce Conditional Cautioning in London. Conditional cautioning is a case disposal option available for adults who are willing to admit their guilt for relatively low-level offences. The condition of the caution must be reparative or rehabilitative and if the conditions are breached, will result in the original caution being overturned and the offender charged with the original offence. This disposal option diverts cases from Magistrates Courts relieving the pressure on their listings. It is being piloted at Hillingdon, Ealing and Hounslow and is to be implemented across London by March 2008.

Victims and witnesses

26. The MPS introduced Victim and Witness Care Units in all BOCUs in 2004, which informed the introduction of the National No Witness, No Justice Project. This ensures consistent minimum standards for victim care nationally. The Victim and Witness Care Units adopted the national Witness Care Unit identity, providing support from point of charge to completion of the case.

27. Witness Care Units ensure that an immediate and practical support package, tailored to the needs of victims, is provided. This exceeds the minimum standards required by the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime.

28. Emerald is responsible for improving victim and witness care, ensuring compliance with the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, which became statutory in April 2006. In addition, Emerald is implementing Victim Focus desks to extend victim care from the point of an allegation of crime to charge or completion.

29. The forthcoming Witness Charter will provide greater clarity for witnesses about the services and level of care that they should receive from criminal justice agencies. This will lead to an improved and consistent service. Awareness and compliance will be implemented in 2007/2008. This will have a direct and positive impact on community confidence in the CJS.

Community justice

30. The aim of community justice is to make the CJS responsive to the community, ensure that community needs are listened to and acted upon and that they then do not recur. The link to Safer Neighbourhoods is critical. It will break cycles of re-offending by involving a range of agencies in a problem-solving approach. It will ensure that compliance with the courts' orders and other penalties is seen and recognised by the community. London already has significant arrangements in place through 632 Safer Neighbourhoods Teams and 300 Neighbourhood Panels, which are chaired by members of the local community. It is intended to build on these links and widen these to all criminal justice partners, to divert people from court and to focus on youth issues and increase visibility.

31. There are four delivery elements to community justice:

• Community Engagement
• Problem Solving and Re-integrating Offenders
• Robust and Speedy Courts
• Repairing Harm to Victims and Communities

32. At the meeting on 20 February, the LCJB agreed to develop community justice initiatives in three Boroughs – Wandsworth, Newham and Haringey. The HMCS Regional Director for London agreed to become the Board lead for Community Justice. The next step is to identify project managers and set up the local governance structures - Wandsworth already has a project manager and governance structures in place. A parallel piece of work will be to develop a pan-London Community Justice Strategy that, with the lessons learned from the three sites, will enable London implementation to be achieved by the end of 2008. Safer Neighbourhood teams and panels will obviously form a key part of the strategy.

National Enforcement Service

33. The National Enforcement Service (NES) will rationalise the way that enforcement professionals work together and will deliver real improvements to enforcement activity. It will reduce duplication and improve information and data sharing within and between agencies. The NES will standardise the police and HMCS approaches to enforcement and will provide enforcement staff with the appropriate powers and tools to get the job done. Warrants will be allocated to the most appropriate agency depending on risk. The aim is to improve enforcement of Court Orders and ensure the more efficient execution of ‘fail to appear’ warrants. There is a pathfinder site currently in operation in North West England. The LCJB has commissioned work to determine how London progresses this programme in 2007 - 08.

Custody developments

34. The Service Improvement Review into custody capacity recommended the formation of the Custody Directorate, which commenced operation in November 2004. Good working relationships exist with criminal justice partners involved in the transfer and detention of sentenced prisoners. This has enabled the MPS to provide an effective response to Operation Safeguard, the national contingency plan to relieve critical pressure on Prison Service accommodation. Currently, approximately 50 spaces per day are being provided.

Borough based Custody Centres

35. The Borough based Custody Centres project aims to replace our aging custody suites through a programme of new buildings, supporting the custody capacity needs of each Borough. The first sites to benefit are likely to be Leyton (Waltham Forest) and Wood Green (Haringey), where it is anticipated that applications for planning permission will be submitted in April/May 2007. Other areas also under consideration now are Hayes (Hillingdon), Wimbledon (Merton) and Kingston/Richmond as a brigaded site.

Short-term holding facilities

36. The Short-Term Holding Facility Project provides an alternative custody facility for the fast tracking of some detainees who are arrested for high volume low-level crimes within the retail environment. The project utilises smaller, modular cells located in close proximity to high volume shopping facilities. A trial of this concept and evaluation of benefits for detainee processing is due to commence later this year subject to investment board approval.

Beacon

37. The Beacon Project proposes an improvement of custody processes through a fundamental change in the way custody suites are staffed. There are three elements to the Beacon Project, namely:

1. Custody Processing Clerks;
2. Forensics;
3. Custody Forensic Medical Provision

38. The custody-processing clerk is an extension to the role of Designated Detention Officers dealing with inputting of custody data instead of the custody officer performing this function. This is intended to generate efficiency savings and release sergeants for other duties. The first phase of the trial is scheduled to commence at Newham in April 2007.

39. The forensics aspect, which is still at the conceptual stage, is intended to reposition forensic retrieval and support to the point of a detainee’s arrival within the custody suite, thereby securing forensic evidence at the earliest opportunity and supporting the “golden hour” principles.

40. Forensic Medical Provision relates to a review of forensic and medical care provided for detained persons and seeks to improve its availability whilst reducing delays within the custody process. The newly written draft National Occupational Standards for forensic medical provision are due to be tested across the UK, with the MPS contributing through evaluation of the existing nurse provision at Charing Cross. A Forensic Medical Provision Model is being developed and is scheduled to be piloted later this year. Currently, the MPS anticipates spending approximately £13 million for FME services this financial year. The intention is to improve service delivery through greater availability of medical expertise without exceeding the current expenditure.

National Guidance on Safer Detention Handling of Persons in Police Custody

41. The Custody Directorate are taking the lead to implement the Home Office and ACPO national guidance on The Safer Detention and Handling of Persons in Police Custody. This is a significant document that will influence the future way in which all detainee encounters are considered. Resources to coordinate the MPS response have been agreed and are in the process of being recruited. The National Guidance has been compared to current MPS policy and procedure and a gap analysis is complete. Work is on going to address the issues identified.

NSPIS Custody and Case Preparation

42. The NSPIS Custody and Case Preparation (NSPIS CuCP) system is an ICT application for the management of detainees and the subsequent processing of cases within the CJU environment. It is intended to replace the existing legacy Anite custody system currently used by the MPS. The application enables the electronic transfer of defendant and charge information to the Police National Computer (PNC), the HMCS Libra court system and the CPS Compass system thereby reducing administration and re-keying of data. It also has the capacity to receive magistrate’s courts results from the Libra system and support the electronic transfer of case results to PNC.

43. Delivery of the application to boroughs is managed by the NSPIS project team, a joint enterprise between TP Emerald and the Directorate of Information. The NSPIS CuCP, together with associated business changes, is currently being rolled out across the MPS by the NSPIS project team. Seven boroughs are currently NSPIS CuCP live (27 February 2007) and additional boroughs will continue to be rolled out on a regular basis across 2007-08.

44. Activity is on going to identify how the NSPIS CuCP application will be utilised within IPTs in order to best support the concept of a single file process and to maximise business efficiencies. As such, it is a key and complementary strand of criminal justice transformation.

Foreign National Prisoners - Nationality Identification Pilot Project

45. The aim of this project is to improve the identification of foreign nationals within the CJS and to ensure they are considered for deportation at an appropriate stage. It will examine ways in which a single identifier linking nationality and identity information, for those passing through the CJS, might work.

46. The new process will involve a lead role for the MPS and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) at the point of charge, a new role for the Probation Service at the pre-sentence report stage and an ongoing role for the Prison Service and IND at a later stage. Key to this will be the improvement of information exchange between the various agencies.

47. The objectives of the project are to:

• Improve the timeliness with which nationality is established;
• Improve the quality of the information about nationality that is generated;
• Test out the detail of the resource implications of delivering this new process;
• Understand the impact from a race and equality perspective; and
• Understand the value of a unique identifier.

48. Pilots are being developed for Westminster, feeding through to the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court, Southwark Crown Court and HMP Wandsworth.

49. Hillingdon and Waltham Forest will implement the process at a later date, involving Uxbridge and Waltham Forest Magistrates' Courts, Snaresbrook and Isleworth Crown Courts and HMP Wormwood Scrubs and Pentonville.

C. Race and equality impact

Each of the proposed projects has a specific Equality Impact Assessment in order to ensure that equality issues are identified and considered. At Appendix 1 is an MPS note regarding Race and Equalities impact in the context of policing immigration issues.

D. Financial implications

LCJB priority projects

1. The forecast of the ongoing delivery costs regarding the priority projects, namely CJSSS, IPT, Virtual Courts, Directors Guidance ‘Quick Process’ and Community Justice over 2007/8 and 2008/9 is anticipated to be in the order of £17.5 million across all the agencies involved. This is however purely indicative at present and is subject to formal business case development which will identify the police costs. Project costs will be met predominately by support funding from OCJR and DCA. Early IT costs will be met from the CJIT innovations fund.

2. Many of the efficiency benefits realised by the CJSSS Programme are anticipated to be opportunity costs and, therefore, non-cashable, but will enable agencies to sustain future budget reductions whilst maintaining performance. The estimated efficiency benefits of CJSSS, IPT, Virtual Courts and the Directors Guidance ‘Quick Process’, by 2009 to 2010, are forecast to be in the region of £28 million, again across all the agencies involved. Therefore, a net efficiency of £11 million.

Custody projects

3. The overall capital cost for the delivery of Borough-based custody centres across the MPS is £152 million. The short-term holding facility is anticipated to cost £805,000. Revenue costs for both projects have yet to be established but Borough-based custody centres are anticipated to be cost neutral and short-term holding facilities to be funded from within existing Borough funds. The Beacon Project will involve opportunity costs and the national guidance will also involve opportunity costs.

E. Background papers

The best Criminal Justice Service in Europe: A programme for reform and change: 2007/09 - The London Plan - 12 January 2007 (Published by LCJB).

F. Contact details

Report author: Chief Superintendent George Clarke, MPS.

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

MPS note regarding race & equalities impact in the context of polcing immigration issues

This note has been prepared to provide colleagues connected with the scrutiny of the LCJB project for identifying nationality in the Criminal Justice System with information about what has and will be undertaken by the MPS in terms of engagement and consultation for equalities issues.

A. Current MPS work on immigration issues

The MPS has been developing new plans for working jointly with IND over a number of months and has been putting in place governance arrangements to ensure that all strategic issues associated with policing and immigration are considered from a corporate perspective and that the relevant safeguards are introduced in relation to race, equality and community impact.

The fundamental principle behind the current plans for joint working is harm reduction. In broad terms, this means more effective and consistent use of immigration powers to deal with those people who are causing most harm to communities. This is in contrast to previous arrangements where the majority of immigration enforcement activity has been to reach targets that relate to the removal of those within the category of failed asylum seeker. This is seen as one of several factors contributing to a situation where we may have been failing our communities by not addressing the immigration offending of those who are engaged in criminal activity and failing to identify those convicted of crimes whose suitability for removal should have been more clearly established at an earlier stage.

The MPS and IND are currently engaged in positive dialogue about how best to achieve harm reduction through joint working and the result is a pilot process that will involve small joint teams with responsibilities for monitoring those coming to police notice as a result of criminality and who are deemed harmful, to establish whether or not immigration tactics are suitable.

The LCJB project, which is focused on establishing nationality at an early stage of the criminal justice process, is recognised as being connected and relevant to the overall strategy of the MPS as far as immigration issues are concerned. Specifically, harm reduction working relies upon the police establishing the identity of an individual who is involved in criminality, in terms of their citizenship or immigration status at an early stage, in order to best assess how to respond to their offending in partnership.

It is our view that this level of scrutiny is necessary in order to support crime reduction and to promote community safety by dealing more effectively with those individuals who may pose the most risk. It is important to note that this work is not considered by the MPS to represent an indiscriminate escalation of enforcement activity in relation to immigration. Indeed, it is seen as supporting what many migrant, refugee and asylum seeker communities have been arguing for; namely more proportionate and risk-based application of immigration legislation that is designed to protect the public.

B. MPS engagement to date

The MPS have been developing the concept of harm reduction working in the context of immigration for some time and have been engaged with key stakeholders. The following is a summary of the main stages in this process:

• Working conference to develop the concept of harm reduction including the MPS, MPA, IND, IAG, GLA and NCTT (ACPO National Community Tension Team)
• The discussion of joint working plans with the MPA at COP in the form of a submitted paper and a verbal presentation, which included the synergies of this work with the FPN project.
• The formation of a project team to implement new joint working arrangements at MPS pilot sites from April 2007 responsible for developing an equalities impact assessment and a communication and consultation plan.
• The formation of an MPS strategic group to oversee immigration issues with membership form the MPA, IAG and IND colleagues.

C. Ways forward and early actions

Governance for police related EI issues for the FPN project

The MPS have already developed a process for engaging the MPA and IAG in relation to immigration work and to allow scrutiny from the perspective of communities and in terms of race and equalities impact.

Whilst this work has already involved reference to and discussion of the FNP project, there is now an opportunity to include this as a strand of work for which equalities issues can be raised and addressed specifically.

Production of a police related EIA (Equalities Impact Assessment)

The MPS will complete an EIA that specifically relates to the FNP project. It will deal with the police part of the process and focus on custody practice. This product will build on work already in progress for the wider MPS immigration strategy. The product will take the form of an MPS Equality Impact Assessment using a corporate template. This will be completed by the MPS in consultation with the project team as soon as reasonably practicable. Notwithstanding, the MPS is able to take an interim position on some of the specific concerns raised by IAG and GLA colleagues at the recent board meeting and these will be included in the latter part of this note. In any event, it is our belief that the impact of the new process will not be fully understood until it has been tested and evaluated during the design phase, and that adequate safeguards and controls are in place to allow the action research at Westminster to continue. The EIA is a therefore a document that will be revisited continually as the work at Westminster unfolds.

Community engagement issues

The MPS consider that a community engagement plan for the FNP project is a separate piece of work. It will clearly take into account the information in the EIA but is much more about a framework for communication and consultation through which important messages can be shared and through which views can be sought. This will look different in each pilot borough and will also have a corporate dynamic. It will evolve as the project matures and in light of evaluation and roll out. This is an urgent piece of work that needs to be developed from within the project itself in consultation with Borough Commanders at the pilot sites.

Summary of early actions

• Early Action 1: MPS to monitor equalities issues through the MPS Strategic Group
• Early Action 2: MPS to develop a bespoke Equalities Impact Assessment for the policing component of this work
• Early action 4: Project Team to develop an overall Equalities Impact Assessment
• Early Action 3: Project Team to develop a community engagement strategy

D. Major areas of concern and early recommendations

This part of the briefing note deals at a high level with the major areas of concern raised. These issues will be more fully explored within the EIA in due course.

1. Establishing nationality in custody and the discretionary decision to inform IND

We are aware that of specific interest to colleagues is the ‘evidence rater’, which will be used to determine whether or not an individual will be referred to IND. The ‘evidence rater’ is applied once a custody officer has asked an individual three basic questions about nationality:

• What nationality are you?
• What passport do you hold?
• Do you have evidence of this and can you get that evidence?

Once these questions have been completed, the custody sergeant will need to assess whether the individual is believed to be a foreign national.

This will then determine whether IND are contacted for the purposes identifying or indeed verifying nationality as far as possible. The most problematic referrals will be those made in cases where police are rating an individual who may be asserting they are British as ‘self declared but disputed’

Potential equalities issue: That police discretion to refer to IND may result in a disproportionate number of British BME communities becoming the subject of unnecessary additional checks.

Safeguard: The MPS has considered the potential equalities implications of this part of the process and share the concerns raised. The MPS will need to be assured that the proposed process is sufficiently robust on several points:

• That decision-making that leads to action (or indeed inaction) is defensible.
• That the monitoring process surrounding the decision either to include or disregard an individual is robust. In short, that we are not only evaluating the effectiveness of the decision to select individuals for checks, but also the decision to deselect. Both will be relevant to the overall equalities impact of this work
• That custody officers have additional information available to them to assist in their decision making, for example the documentation capable of supporting an individual who is self-declaring as British.
• That greater clarity is achieved by the project in relation not only to equalities impact issues, but how it supports the general duty under RRAE to promote and reinforce positive race relations.

Recommendation 1: That the monitoring process is made available to colleagues for scrutiny and covers the concerns about sample selection outlined above.

Recommendation 2: That the training and briefing of staff at pilot sites deals directly with the equalities and proportionality issues raised. This should include the framework that will be applied in order to support defensible decision making by officers charged with this responsibility.

2. Detention implications

Once a referral to IND has been made for a person believed to be a foreign national, a process of checks will commence which could result in IND actively asking questions of an individual at the site. This process of establishing nationality could therefore be prolonged.

Potential equalities issue: The additional scrutiny that results form a referral to IND may involve individuals remaining in custody for longer than would otherwise be the case. This is of great significance if there is shown to be any disproportionality in the decision to refer an individual.

Safeguard: The MPS feels that absolute reassurance can be given on this point. There is no additional power available to detain somebody in order to establish nationality. No person who is the subject of IND checks for these purposes will be held in custody longer than would otherwise be the case.

Recommendation 3: Reassurance and clarity regarding detention should be incorporated into the community engagement strategy for this project.

3. The implications of current activity at Westminster Borough

Concerns have been raised that activity at Westminster in relation to this project should be curtailed pending resolution in respect of the equalities issues raised by colleagues.

It is the MPS view that equalities issues are and will be effectively managed. It is the case that the current activity at Westminster is contributing to the design of the pilot phase, which will not become live or be expanded to the other two boroughs until April. An iterative ‘action learning’ approach is being taken with constant evaluation. Without this design phase it is difficult see how a full and effective Equalities Impact Assessment can be undertaken into the longer term.

Recommendation 4: Development work at Westminster should continue, provided that IAG, MPA and GLA colleagues are satisfied that the actions and recommendations contained here address their most pressing concerns.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback