Redbridge update report

Report: 1b
Report for the Domestic and Sexual Violence Board
Date: 16 November 2010
By: A/DCI Paul Trevers

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the MPA Domestic and Sexual Violence Board of the continued work by Redbridge (B)OCU and SCD2, in furtherance of the MPA report for Domestic and Sexual Violence Board dated 1st June 2010.

1.2. In the current performance year, 1st April 2010 to 31st October 2010 there have been a total of 740 DV recorded offences, a reduction of 9.3% on the previous year period (source TP scorecard dated 3/11/2010). Of those offences, 51.7% are detected, exceeding the performance target of 46%. During the same period, arrests occurred in 76.9% of all DV offences, just 0.1% short of the challenging arrest performance target. However increased scrutiny of administration regarding this indicator has already increased this figure and extensions of this work will ensure this target is achieved.

1.3 Locally published figures show that between 1st April and 30th September 2010 there were 1778 DV incidents (non-crime), a reduction from the same period last year of 2.1% (source JI MMR).

2.1 Outstanding Actions

In response to the MPA Domestic and Sexual Violence Board meeting on 1st June 2010 the following paragraphs outline our responses to actions allocated.

•  Redbridge to feedback on outcome of independent assessment, highlighting how the VOL system improves the borough response to DV.

The application of the SSPCCS+ model continues to support effective risk assessment, identifying factors of relevance to the victim, offender and location.

Victim: On responding to the SSPEC+ factors, the victim is central to the risk management process. Where appropriate risk management tactics are implemented and referrals made to support partner agencies. Those at greatest risk are referred to the MARAC. All actions are undertaken by means of the RARA model (Remove, Avoid, Reduce, Accept) and in acknowledgement of the MPS’s duty of care to such vulnerable persons.

Offender: Similarly, information gathered during the initial investigation and subsequent research, not only from SSPEC+ information but also police databases such as PNC, play a significant role in risk assessing each DV incident specific to the alleged perpetrator. Repeat offenders are highlighted by the reporting procedure and SSPEC+, again assisting in the investigation and risk management of DV matters.

Location: As outlined in the meeting 1st June 2010, analysis of DV incidents and crimes in relation to location is of minimal relevance or assistance. However where repeat DV incidents or crimes do occur in the family home so locations are highlighted and may become “hot spots”. This method allows officers to examine other offences and incidents at the address, contributing to a better picture for risk assessment and intelligence purposes. High risk DV addresses are highlighted in daily briefings alongside other crime types such as Burglary and Robbery, and the need for “treat all calls as urgent” updates on CAD are just a few location led tactics in risk management.

Time: In addition to the VOL model, the MPS has commenced using the VOLT model - the additional factor of “time” being assessed. Such a tactic is particularly useful whereby proactive and intelligence led policing methods are employed to reduce and prevent DV. For example during the 2010 Fifa World Cup much analysis was carried out as to previous spikes in DV incidents and crimes during such tournaments. Redbridge B(OCU) resourced dedicated DV response vehicles at times relevant to matches played in order to respond to and prevent DV incidents and crimes.

•  Timeline for Redbridge HBV Action Plan.

The Redbridge B(OCU) HBV action plan was implemented in June 2010, with follow up guidance and instruction re-circulated recently.

On any officer being satisfied there is a risk of HBV, the CSU Detective Inspector (DI) and Detective Sergeant (DS) are made aware as soon as immediate risk factors have been managed. On recording a full risk assessment and investigative strategy, incorporating risk management tactics, HOCR compliance is validated by the CMU and the matter allocated to a CSU investigator. All investigations are subject of a DS and DI review, as is risk assessment. As in the previous report, the CSU continues to employ four DS’s, each supervising no more than four investigators, allowing intrusive supervision of such investigations.

HBV Action Plan protocol:

1.  Contact the victim, ask after their welfare, explain police/judicial procedure and possible outcomes and ascertain their needs;
2. Review complainant evidence. Establish if she is willing to make any allegations;
3. Review need as to whether the CRIS report has restricted access;
4. Discuss collection of personal belongings from the complainant’s address if she so wishes. Take photograph, DNA sample, fingerprints and record passport details;
5. Explain the options available to people facing forced marriage;
6. Advise regarding missing person advice and include MISPER unit;
7. Inform complainant of rights to seek legal advice;
8. Give personal safety advice;
9. “Signposting” of complainant to the local support networks or agencies such as the Ashiana Project;

On conclusion of the investigation, irrespective of the final outcome a CSU DS conducts and records a final risk assessment prior to closure by the Detective Inspector.

• 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.

Analysis carried out by SCD2 and SCD5 show that no recorded offences are gang related. However, two investigations identified refer to third party allegations by a school that two pupils had been raped as part of a gang initiation process. Both pupils were spoken to by SCD2 SOIT officers and it was established that there was no rape allegation. One of the girls had had consensual sex with her boyfriend (who she believed to be in a gang) as part of their relationship. The other girl had been asked for sex by someone she believed to be in a gang, said no, and no sexual activity took place.

Regarding input to schools, SCD2 has no such input. They have, however provided recent training to Redbridge B(OCU) front line officers and staff who visit schools, best practice in relation to first response. This has been expanded on by those Redbridge B(OCU) officers providing assistance and support in schools when delivering PSCHCE National Curriculum topics of sexual and domestic violence to year 9 students. Information including what constitutes abuse; how and where to report such matters; police processes and investigative options as well as details of support and welfare options available, are discussed.

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

On Redbridge B(OCU) officers attending emergency calls relating to DV incidents (i.e. no crime alleged) a Non-Crime Domestic Incident Cris report is recorded. The initial investigation process is identical to that where crimes are alleged, and thus the SSPEC+ is employed and recorded. In such matters none of the parties involved are referred to as a suspect. However to ensure all persons details are recorded each is referred to as a victim of the incident on the relevant Cris report. To detail how this process works, Redbridge has two couples who contribute a disproportionately high number of non-crime domestic incidents to overall recorded figures. In matters where no criminal offence is alleged or made out, each party is recorded on the CRIS as a victim. Thus these two couples alone, notwithstanding they are subject of frequent partner agency and MARAC referrals, feature significantly in the perceived large numbers of multiple “victim” DV matters. This, coupled with the consistent recording of Cris reports for non-domestic incidents accounts for the perceived high number of multiple victim matters. 

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback