Minutes

Minutes of the Hate Crime Forum of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 5 January 2010 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

• Christopher Boothman – Chair, MPA Member
• Kirsten Hearn – Deputy-Chair, MPA Member
• Maria Cordero – MPA HCF Administrator
• Bennett Obong – MPA HCF Policy Officer
• Anne Novis – UK Disabled People’s Council
• Ruth Bashall – UK Disabled People’s Council
• Gerry Campbell – MPS
• Jim Foley – MPS
• David MacNaghten – MPS
• Paul Richardson – MPS
• Darren Williams – MPS
• Nicolette Movick – CPS, London Group
• Suresh Grover – The Monitoring Group
• Mike Whine – Community Security Trust
• Deborah Gold – GALOP

1. Introduction and apologies

The Deputy-Chair opened the meeting as the Chair was not present. Introductions and apologies were received.

• Andrew Morley – London Criminal Justice Board
• Yvonne MacNamara – London Gypsy and Travellers Unit
• Krishna Maharaj – City and Hackney MIND
• Hamzah Foreman – Muslim Safety Forum
• Cllr Adrian Knowles – London Councils 

2. Minutes of the last

The minutes of the last meeting were agreed.

3. Matters arising

Hate Crime Forum Workplan programme

1. Ruth suggested an invite all the Boroughs to present what they are doing to address disability hate crime, as it was felt the information provided by MPS did not reflect what boroughs are doing.

The HCF Policy Officer feedback:

2. Over the last 5 years the previous RHCF had invited all boroughs to present to the RHCF sharing issues on hate crime and providing a breakdown of local responses to hate crime. The focus of the previous RHCF was religious, homophobic and race hate crime and not disability which at that time was not part of its remit. The idea of the work-plan is precisely to decide how to move forward with the new HCF.

3. An independent report commissioned in partnership with the London Probation Service highlighted that boroughs were unlikely and less willing to embark on the same process again. The workplan is to establish how the HCF is going to look at that process. Bennett shared with Members that within the MPA there is a JEMs (Joint Engagement Meetings) process, chaired by Kit Malthouse. Each JEM meets with individual boroughs to explore specific themes, including hate crime. Bennett added that he is due to attend the next JEM and he will give feedback to the Forum on issues of hate crime.

4. Suresh, referring to item 4.2 of the last minutes, asked if CPS had provided any figures on detailed hate crime and sanction detection rates across the local authorities, as it was requested in the last meeting.

5. Nicolette replied that she had sent the CPS London Hate Crime Scrutiny Panel annual report published on the 30 September to Sharon Hull, which provided details of hate crime figures. The report is also available online. Bennett understood that Members of the Forum had received the report from Sharon; however some Members appeared not to have received it.

Action 1 - Bennett to email the CPS annual report to all the Members of the Forum

6. Bennett informed Members he was working on a report based on the work of the boroughs in matters of hate crime. The information received so far has been fragmented and he is in the process of returning the data so far compiled to the boroughs in order for them to give a better picture on the work they do on hate crime. The report will show the activities and involvement of borough partnerships and the local response to hate crime.

7. Anne Novis asked Bennett to put pressure on the boroughs to take action on hate crime during this year in line with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission Inquiry into the police services response and their duty to eliminate harassment against disabled people.

Post note: it is important that members are reminded that the MPA has no legal authority to scrutinise local boroughs and boroughs are under no obligation to engage with the MPA. Any engagement with local councils must be through a process of negotiation as was with the previous RHCF.

8. Kirsten Hearn, Deputy-Chair of the Forum agreed that the JEM process is the mechanism to ensure hate crime remains on the Local Authorities’ agenda. As with hate crime, domestic violence is also part of the JEMs discussions. The Deputy-Chair suggested talking to the lead MPA officer responsible for Equalities should ensure that hate crime is also incorporated in all the JEMs’ discussions.

9. A request from the UK Disabled People’s Council representative was to ensure all actions agreed in the HCF meeting should be listed under the heading of ‘actions’ in the notes and to be circulated, as not all the actions were listed in the previous notes of the meeting. The HCF administrator was asked to comply with the request.

4. MPS update on disability hate crime

1. Members received the following papers from the MPS: MPS response to the Leicestershire Inquiry and the CSU Service delivery paper, therefore the Deputy-Chair asked the MPS to highlight the key issues.

2. The MPS acknowledged that it still needs to improve on its recording of disability hate crime data. The data collection is in its early days and the MPS is currently in a learning phase on how to progress the improvements across borough areas. The MPS explained how the data is collected. The MPS CSU delivery team delivers a bespoke briefing to the Link Commanders, who manage the performance of the Borough Commanders. The briefing contains hate crime data and, recently it has incorporated data on disability crime, although the capture of this data is not exhaustive and is in the stages of developing.

3. The MPS has introduced changes to the crime reporting system to make it easier to identify when a disabled person has been, not only been the victim of the crime but also, a witness or involved in some other way in the offence so it can be recorded under the appropriate type and not, as before, hidden under the generic label. The MPS has some way to go in training its staff to appreciate the type of crimes that where defined under the umbrella of anti-social behaviour. From the call handlers at 999 to the investigating officers, there is a long process before the crime gets the right recognition.

4. The CSU delivery team is working with Senior Investigating Officers (SIOs), who deal with the most serious crimes such as, murders or rapes, on how early identification of disability hate crime will enable all the support services to respond appropriately.

5. All crimes are monitored daily by the CSU delivery team, who run checks to make sure that investigating officers have properly recorded the offences committed.

6. Another aspect to consider relates to the Media’s handling of these crimes. The MPS internal media relations services are part of the training process in terms of recognising the different approach that it is needed for recording disability hate crime.

7. The MPS do not have bespoke targets for disability hate crime. However, it is currently recording more disability hate crime than in the previous years. This is a positive step forward and encouraging message for disabled people to encourage them to report disability hate crimes.

8. The MPS is taking the lessons from ‘Every Child Matters’ and apply it to ‘Every Person Matters’, to support the recording of disability hate crime.

The Deputy-Chair invited Members to ask questions of the MPS.

Member question:

9. The flagging process had been in existence for over a year and therefore the learning should have been consolidated by now. She wanted to know if there is a training package as previously mentioned.

MPS response:

10. There are a variety of different training packages although not one specifically on disability hate crime. However, disability hate crime is on the training agendas for supervisors and investigating officers. This is an on-going process and training packages specifically on this subject are under development. Any training package devised will not be offered without proper consultation with the disabled groups.

Member question:

11. The Member from the UK Disabled Peoples Council highlighted a major concern is that the MPS has had over 5 years to develop its training. The UKDPC has offered advice on disability issues to the Advisory Group and a section is available on the MPS intranet and internet but it seems that most police officers are not aware. There is a sense that the MPS have not responded to the request and demanded that a more strategic response from the appropriate MPS directorate be provided on the subject matter.

MPS response:

12. MPS acknowledged and recognised that a more strategic response is required. The MPS pointed out to Members the action plan and recommendations drawn together from 4 main reports: the ‘Getting Away with Murder report’; the Domestic Violence Disproportionality report’; a paper for the MPS Diversity board report and the ‘MPS Response to Lord Bradley report’. In addition, the emerging issues in terms of the review around third party reporting are being taken on board and the MPS will work with internal and external stakeholders, such as disabled people and their representatives. The action plan, still in draft format, includes issues around disability training and it will be delivered to the deputy commissioner as Chair of the MPS Diversity Board.

Member question:

13. What is the role of the Link Borough Commanders?

MPS response:

14. MPS representative explained there are 32 boroughs, which are split into 5 individual links. Each link formed by a cluster of 5 Boroughs has an ACPO rank Commander who oversees the Borough Commanders. The Link Commanders receive monthly visits from the CSU to assess the crime data from each of the 5 boroughs they manage. The team monitors if Borough commanders comply with the new crime recording system.

Member question:

15. Further concerns was raised by the representative from the Monitoring Group about the specific reasons why police officers who comply with minimum standards on a particular hate crime may not comply with the minimum standards related to disability hate.

MPS response:

16. The MPS representative gave a personal view, i.e. officer’s lack of confidence and understanding of what disability hate crime is. Some officers may make assumptions and therefore not to ask the right questions to the victim to record the precise type of crime committed so disability hate crimes go unrecognised.

Member question:

17. Does the MPS have figures of complaints made by disabled people against the Police?

MPS response:

18. MPS Professional Standards Directorate would have the information. In answer to the Deputy-Chairs’ query about how to get hold of this information, the MPS agreed to request data from the Professional Standards Directorate.

Member comment:

19. A Member contested that the complaints’ officers at the MPS do not monitor disability so there were no figures available when this question was asked two years ago.

Action 2 - MPS to provide data on complaints made to the Police by disabled people.

Member comment:

20. The Member from the UK Disabled People’s Council thought that the complaint process at the MPS is very bureaucratic which may be the reason why people in general do not make complaints.

Member question:

21. What mechanism does the Violent Crime Directorate have in place to pick up the ‘low level’ information? I.e. the calls of victims to police stations or Met calls as she knows from experience that the 999 people still do not classify disabled victims as disability hate crime. How does the CSU team intervene in the training process?

MPS response:

22. The MPS explained that when a victim reports a disability hate crime for first time it is recognised that it is unlikely to be the first time they have been a victim. Early warning systems are built into the intelligent processes and into the Computer Aid Dispatch (CAD) and 999 systems. These are flagged when a crime has been reported more than once. In addition, the CSU delivery team consistently monitor borough CSUs to see how they are dealing with hate crimes.

23. The MPS accepts that this has not been looked at in enough detail but aims to continue engaging with disabled people to ensure service improvements continue. The next challenge for the MPS is how to deal with disabled people where there are issues of communication. The MPS is working on how to fill these gaps. Training packages have been written for PCSOs, Safer Neighbourhood teams, for call handlers and others. The Detective Inspectors, borough MPS hate crime leads, and Community Safety Units have approached the Violent Crime Directorate for training and learning is being developed to address shortfalls. The MPS recognised a real interest from boroughs and the Violent Crime Directorate to get this issue right through the consultation process.

Member questions:

24. The Deputy-Chair requested more information on:

• What training is offered?
• Who is it delivered to?
• What is the take up?
• What opportunities are being used to include this as part of the training process?

She indicated a desire to see how the MPS Violent Crime Directorate will evaluate the impact of the training on these issues and shared the example of Wandsworth where the reporting on disability hate crime incidents has gone up because of the training given to the Safer Neighbourhood Teams.

MPS response:

25. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner decides where and what specific training is rolled out.

Member question:

26. What can the MPS do opportunistically to ensure information is shared and addressed to influence change in how the MPS responds?

MPS response:

27. On a regular basis there are two management meetings on a daily basis, where every crime is reviewed. The learning from this process is shared with boroughs. The Violent Crime Directorate runs spot checks of all crime records and sends an email every night to boroughs with comments on every crime. If there are recurring problems on a specific borough where the information is missed, the Violent Crime Directorate raises the issue to the appropriate Borough Commander and offers to assist with bespoke training if required.

28. Members were pleased to accept the MPS’s offer to start the recording of incidents where the information is incomplete and present the results to the Forum.

Action 3 - MPS to report back to the Forum incidents where the recording of information is incomplete.

Member question:

29. Is the MPS publishing the cases where the MPS good practice has been demonstrated in respect of disability hate incidents/crimes?

MPS response:

30. The MPS referred to the recording system from where the data is retrieved.

Standards Operation Procedures (SOP)

31. In response to a Member query to discuss the MPS Hate Crime SOP document, the MPS replied that due to the Xmas festive period the document had not yet been signed off and that it is to go before the MPS Strategic Board; therefore it will not be ready until the end of January. It will be accompanied by an internal marketing campaign.

Member concern:

32. Member concern was expressed about the marketing of the SOPs and the importance that it gets in the knowledge of officers on the beat. He shared with Members his involvement in the production of the CPS Hate Crime booklet, which came to general notice when the booklet was being reviewed (18 months after publication).

Member question:

33. What is the roll out date for the SOPs and what is the process of roll out?

MPS response:

34. The SOPs will be available as a reference document as it would not be appropriate to email it to all and expect it to be read. Officers will refer to the SOPs as they need to but where issues arise, officers will be asked if they followed the SOPs.

Member question:

35. The Deputy-Chair wanted to know the Violent Crime Directorate’s involvement in the ACPO Hate Crime Guidance. MPS clarified that the Directorate has been involved in the process but new guidance is unlikely to be available/public before Easter.

Member question:

36. How is compliance monitored once the SOPs are launched?

MPS response:

37. There are many people within the MPS monitoring compliance however it is mainly the daily business of Violent Crime Directorate. Once the SOPs enter the system then it is possible to look into compliance over a pre-determined period of time. The process of monitoring and evaluation is already in place for other crimes. This can be reported to the HCF on request to share what if any areas are being missed and how the gaps will be addressed.

Member question:

38. How long it would take to prepare a report on SOPs compliance for the Forum?

MPS response:

39. Realistically it would take a year to give sufficient time for the SOPs to be embedded. HCF Members agreed to incorporate the work of the report into the Workplan programme and to see it in a years’ time.

Action 4 - Hate Crime Forum to incorporate the report on SOP compliance into the Work plan

Member comment:

40. The SOPs have not been seen by the Disability Advisory Group (DIAG) and they would wish to input to the process. Members from the UK Disabled Peoples’ Council suggested changing some of the wording in the SOP document. It was suggested that disability/vulnerability not be put together and these should be looked at separately. The MPS agreed to have a separate working group meeting with Members to discuss the SOPs paper before it goes out.

Action 5 - MPS/HCF to have a working group meeting to discuss SOP

41. There was discussion about the consultation process for the SOPs. Several HCF Members stated they had not seen the recent version of the paper. The Deputy-Chair asked what opportunities are there for Members to have an input in SOP and what the deadline is. The MPS agreed to give Members 2 weeks to email comments to the MPS on SOP.

Update. The forum lead officer confirms that the email containing the SOP was initially sent to all Members on 15 October 2009 and again on 4 November.

Update. The meeting to discuss the SOP document took place on 20 January 2010.

Report detailing the MPS response to disability matters raised by Members of the MPA Hate Crime Forum

Member concern:

42. Members discussed the data on disability hate crime offences presented in the MPS report. Members expressed concerns with the flagging of offences and a request was made to have a more detailed description of the offences in page 5 of the report. This was requested to be reflected in future statistics on any crime against vulnerable adults.

Action 6 - MPS to provide a more detailed account on the figures in page 5 of the report

Member request for information:

43. A request for a breakdown of sexual offences against disabled people and the sanction detention rates. It was said that this issue was also raised by the Domestic Sexual Violence Board. Members agreed to have a further analysis of this type of offences.

44. A further request for data to improve the understanding of disproportionality of offences against disabled people in comparison to offences against individuals in general.

Action 7 - MPS to provide data following analysis.

Leicestershire Police Authority report: Policing Issues arising from the Deaths of Fiona Pilkington and Francesca Hardwick

45. The Chair opened the debate on the Pilkington case by considering the language and terminology applied, such as crime and incident or anti-social behaviour.

Question from the Chair:

46. Does the difference between how hate crime and anti-social behaviour is handled in London result in victims falling between the cracks?

MPS response:

47. The MPS replied that although there is no perfect system the early warning system currently in place provides an intelligent framework that identifies specific offenders with a history of targeting disabled people. The system also detects harmful locations and repeated victimisation. There are 32 London boroughs, each with their own management system and early warning system. These are monitored by both the boroughs and centrally. However, MPS acknowledged that the system is not perfect and more work needs to be done.

48. In answer to the question what the MPS can learn from the Pilkington case, the MPS replied that this offence was labelled as low level crime and it was recognised as harassment and hate crime. Had this case happened in London the MPS’s early warning system would have linked it to a serious hate crime.

49. The Chair thought that the Pilkington case report highlights good practice for the Forum to adopt. He added that there is not enough detail in the report on what went wrong and suggested to draw on significant cases of interest to explore the mistakes made. The Chair made two recommendations:

• first, that the Forum approaches the CPS to request someone senior to engage with the HCF to discuss the cases, and
• second, that the Forum has more regulars meetings per year than the 4 stipulated. The Forum agreed the recommendations.

Action 8 - The Forum to approach Jackie Kerr / Alison Saunders from the CPS.

Action 9 - The HCF policy officer to share additional dates for meetings for the remainder of the year.

Update: email sent to members with future dates.

5. United Kingdom’s Disabled Peoples Council

1. The representative spoke of their disappointment and frustration with the MPS in relation to issues around disability hate offences. There was a request for more recognition of critical incidents. Concern was expressed that the third party reporting progress for disabled people is been reviewed after 5 years and she asked for its implementation. She concluded by asking the MPS to engage with the real disabled people, those who live day by day with the difficulties, and not only with the organisations that claim to represent the views of disabled people.

2. Finally, expressed disappointment with the MPS Diversity Directorate for the lack of outcomes in the ‘Getting Away with Murder’ report.

3. Members agreed to the suggestion of organising a trip to Leicestershire to meet with the Pilkington family.

Action 10 - HCF Policy Officer to meet with the Chair/deputy Chair to explore the logistics of a visit.

4. The MPS was asked to push forward the disability hate crime agenda by recording each crime under the appropriate terminology and moving away from recording crimes against disabled people under terms such as vulnerability, or anti-social behaviour.

5. It was suggested to look at the positive outcomes where disability hate crime incidents have been successful.

6. Any other business

None

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback