Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Domestic and Sexual Violence Board held on 1 June 2010 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

DSVB Members

• Kirsten Hearn, MPA
• Denise Marshall, Eaves
• Davina James-Hanman AVA
• Natalie Ker Watson, Victim Support
• Anthony Wills, Standing Together
• Jennette Arnold, MPA

MPS

• DCS Caroline Bates, MPS SCD2
• DSU Bryan Sweeting, MPS SCD2
• DCI Mark Yexley, MPS SCD2
• A/DCS Darren Williams MPS VCD
• DCI Sam Faulkner, MPS VCD
• DI Anthea Richards, MPS VCD
• DS Sharon Stratton, MPS VCD
• Steve Wisbey, MPS Waltham Forest
• Kevin Bending, MPS Waltham Forest
• Adrian Hutchinson, MPS Waltham Forest
• Declan Williams, MPS SCD2
• Paul Trevers, MPS Waltham Forest
• Peter Terry, MPS Redbridge
• Nick Simpson, MPS Redbridge

MPA

• Siobhan Coldwell, MPA
• Lynne Abrams, MPA
• James Bushell, MPA

Apologies

• Nicola Speechly, GOL
• Louise Smith, CPS
• Colin Fitzgerald, Respect
• Yeliz Osman, GLA
• Valerie Brasse, MPA
• Marion Winterholler, Havens
• Jo Clarke, Havens
• Elizabeth Harrison, Havens
• Sophie Davies, Victim Support
• Yvonne Traynor, RASASC Croydon

Guests

• Hilary Wears, Waltham Forest
• Alistair McCorkindale, Waltham Forest
• Kieran Box, Redbridge
• Kathy Nixon, Redbridge
• Margaret Morrisey, CPS
• Bridget Chohan, CPS
• Madeline Coy, London Met University
• Annabel Compass, Victim Support
• Shaminder Ubhi, Ashiana
• Michael Verrier, Freedom Training
• Valerie Scanlan, Redbridge
• Natalie Harvey, RAADA
• Linda Fitzpatrick, RAADA

Session One

5. Waltham Forest

5.1 KH welcomed the MPS representatives and community members, and invited Borough Commander Steve Wisbey (SW) to introduce the report. SW gave an overview of the borough demographically and explained the structure of and response to domestic and sexual violence in the borough through the MPS and the local partnership joint funding. He said though crime had overall reduced in the borough, domestic violence (DV) had increased and 15% of all calls to police were domestic violence. DSU Bryan Sweeting noted from the SCD2 perspective that the main challenges had been through recruitment, staffed initially by detachments.

5.2 KH opened up the discussion to questions, and asked about the 38% conversion rate from incidents to crimes. DCI Kevin Bending (KB) stated some aren’t dealt with as crime, but are well responded to in terms of victim care and victim support, and if there is evidence of an offence and there is suspicion, then officers will arrest. However further debate uncovered the issue that the data for Waltham Forest (WF) was wrong, the conversion rate is 56%. Jennette Arnold (JA) said we should be wary of just looking at data; we need to look at trends over time to see the whole picture.

Action: LA to access correct data and share.

5.3 DJH noted the report did not include information on prostitution, girls in gangs, female genital mutilation why is this not here? LA stated we don’t ask about much of this because prostitution is under SCD9, FGM under SCD5, and they are not represented round the table. DM stated that as an Olympic borough they should have a local plan as SCD9 don’t pick up cases on the front line. DJH asked about sexual violence training. SW noted that all officers receive a package of training as initial probationers and then as detectives. Hilary Wears noted that partnership training is held with MARAC and SCD2.

5.4 KH asked about the lack of recording on sexual orientation. KB acknowledged that it is an area for improvement, but our homophobic crime sanction detection rate shows that we are interested in this area.

Action: Waltham Forest to identify actions which will support increase of recording of LGBT DV and sex offences, and provide data for 6 months post-DSVB which evidences that these actions have been successful.

5.5 DM asked about the Crisis Intervention Worker and the proportion of their cases between domestic and sexual violence. HW said the proportions are not available but it is mostly DV, they are based in the CSU. DM stated that the report in somewhat misleading in this respect. AW asked about the supervision of 124D completion, and the confidence that sergeants understand the issues around DV. DSU Adrian Hutchinson (AH) said he was very confident that the officers have the required level of understanding; DV is a key part of our main business. We dip sample 124Ds and though I can’t give figures here, it hasn’t been raised as an issue.

Action: WF BOCU to outline how many 124Ds are dip sampled over the course of last 6 months and whether all these were fully and satisfactorily completed by response officers.

5.4 Natalie Ker Watson (NKW) asked about SCD2 partnership work with the voluntary sector. HW responded that the local authority have good relationships with the Havens, Ashiana, and Victim Support. NKW stated that VS had seen a reduction in referrals recently. Declan Williams (DecW) there are a range of support options available to victims so VS is not the only provider. He noted there is a new system with a flag to measure referrals locally but this is not fully embedded yet.

Action: WF SCD2 to provide update on number of referrals to Victim Support and compare with number of reported offences, to ensure all suitable cases are referred.

5.5 AW asked about the DV & SV Forum, and asked if this was two separate bodies, and what police involvement and strategic drive there was. Shaminder Ubhi (SU) stated that reps from the CSU and SCD2 attend. Alastair McCorkindale (AM) stated that DV is strategically anchored though the CDRP strategy and gender equality scheme. Any issues are raised to the strategic partnership and there is a clear oversight structure.

Action: Waltham Forest to identify how the police in BOCU and SCD2 are strategically supporting the DV & SV Forum.

5.6 DM asked about the HBV action plan, noting that the report doesn’t answer the question of whether it is fit for purpose. The volume of HBV is one of the highest the DSVB has seen. She said the report is also confusing in the way it talks about feedback – in one section it refers to not accessing feedback but later refers to feedback received through partners but doesn’t detail what this is.

Action: WF BOCU to outline how it uses feedback from partners to improve services.

Action: WF BOCU to describe how it plans to address HBV.

5.7 JA asked about the development and staffing of SCD2. DecW responded that the transition from TP has not been completely smooth, partly due to shift patterns. All the DC officers were posted on attachment, 3 of the 7 have stayed, and there is an ongoing recruitment process, including an open day coming up.NKW asked about third party reporting sites and how much these have supported reporting. KB stated that he didn’t have the figures to hand.

Action: Waltham Forest to identify how successful the third party reporting sites have been in helping victims of domestic and sexual violence to report.

5.8 DJH queried the wording of the report which suggested that officers accused of domestic violence would be dealt with on BOCU, whilst cases of gross misconduct would be investigated by DPS. SW stated that IPCC and DPS would investigate if necessary. JA added to close that the borough needs to start promoting its work and that looking at borough issues in detail help to see the good work in the borough. KH summed up by thanking the Borough Commander and SCD2 for attending and saying that Waltham Forest would receive a letter with the follow-up actions shortly.

Session Two

6. Redbridge

6.1 KH welcomed the MPS representatives and community members, and invited Borough Commander Peter Terry (PT) to introduce the report.PT provided a borough overview and noted the mixed socio-demographics and current hung council. He said the CDRP had recently restructured and now works to a model focussing on victims/ offenders/ locations. BS noted that SCD2 is the same unit as in WF so there is nothing to add to the comments; the only difference is the SCD2 unit is located within Redbridge.

6.2 NKW asked how much funding for violence against women and girls has gone towards sexual violence, as much of the focus seems to be on DV. Kathy Nixon stated that Redbridge is the lead borough in East London creating a Rape Crisis service, jointly funded by local authorities and the GLA. Kieran Box (KB) added that part of this development includes a current application for an ISVA post. AW asked about the victims/ offenders/ locations (VOL) structure and how they make sure that domestic violence is a strategic and operational priority rather than a peripheral issue. PT stated DV would never be a peripheral issue, outcomes from MARAC to go the victims group and our performance on sanction detections and arrest rates over the last 12 months show this is a key issue for us. DSU Nick Simpson (NS) stated Chairs of the VOL groups all report to the same group, which also feeds back down. KB added the system is currently being independently evaluated to assess impact.

Action: Redbridge to feedback on outcome of independent assessment, highlighting how the VOL system improves the borough response to DV and SV.

6.3 AW asked about the 38% conversion rate from incidents to crimes and how this could influence the SD rate. PT responded that officers are encouraged to record every single incident no matter what to ensure there is the greatest bank of intelligence available. AW referenced the WF data of 56% conversion rate and asked what is done differently in Redbridge? PT responded that he’d rather that officers report any even small chance of a case of DV so that it goes on to the CRIS system, and he is very satisfied that Redbridge recording practices are ethical.

6.4 DJH asked about no recourse to public funds and how this is dealt with. KB stated this was a common problem across boroughs and the MARAC did an analysis of victims needs, though this didn’t capture their status. DM noted the volume of work that the IDVAs carry and asked whether they needed more. KB replied they did, and knew that the referrals were above the recommended CAADA limit.

6.5 KH asked about the increase in reported sex offences. DW stated there had been a drop previously so they were back on the expected volume. CB added there has also been an improved consistently across the Directorate in terms of recording.

6.6 AW noted paragraph B5.6.1 where it was stated that Sanction Detections are not always the best way of doing the best for victims, how does the borough balance the need to prosecute with the need to support victims. PT responded that SD rates are a crude way of measuring success, and taking a victim through the court process when they don’t want that can be counterproductive. Having a victim-centred approach is not currently being tracked through figures and this misses an enormous amount of work by officers. NKW asked about the positive rate for sex offences which remained BOCU-investigated since SCD2 was implemented, how this was achieved. Nick Simpson (NS) responded that the figures may be skewed by the previous Sapphire team, which had turned around a very poor SD rate, from 7% to 80%. However the good practice within the BOCU includes all sex offences included within the Daily Management Meeting, even if investigated by SCD2. All named suspects are also included and the process is intrusive. PT added this is reflected across all violence types.

6.7 DM asked about the timeline for an honour based violence action plan. KB stated the borough was looking at a VAW strategy and this would be part of that wider response. This is due in October. DM added there was nothing in the report on gang violence and sexual violence and violence towards young women. There are four cases in which there are multiple offenders, are these gang-related? NS stated that gangs are not a big issue in the borough. DW stated he couldn’t give details on these cases here but was aware of one alleged incident related to gang initiation.

Action: Redbridge to provide update on volume of sexual offences which may be gang-related, and any actions taken to engage with young women (e.g. through schools or through recommendations from the Female Voice in Violence report) around reporting.

6.8 LA asked about unsupported prosecutions. Bridget Chohan from the CPS responded that they don’t collate this data. LA also asked about the volume of cases with multiple victims – 398 cases in comparison with 76 from the previous borough. MPS responded that this could be including non-crime domestics, as both parties are recorded as victims.

Action: Redbridge to provide commentary on the reason for the high number of cases with multiple victims and update with any actions to be taken as a result of the analysis.

6.9 DJH asked about the tackling extremism grants to deal with BME victims.PT responded saying they have high levels of extremism in the borough and have an Understanding Communities Group to manage this. A survey also identified disproportional concern. Targeted engagement resulted in increased reporting of DV and therefore resources are being directed to deal with this.

6.10 AW noted that with 2500 referrals to victim support, 10% of these are high risk, this means 250 cases for IDVA, which is a lot how do you deal with medium to low risk? KB replied that IDVA workload was very high and Victim Support volunteers deal with a lot of lower risk cases. AW added that with London and National VAW strategies how do the borough balance the VAW requirements with maintaining existing provision for DV?KB said that VAW activity is parallel and complimentary, for example leading on the Rape Crisis centres for East London in partnership with the GLA. KS stated the partnership have to ensure that the focus remains on risk and need.

6.11 KH summed up by thanking the Borough Commander and SCD2 for attending and saying that Redbridge would receive a letter with the follow-up actions shortly.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback