Witness Protection and response to ‘Stop Snitching Campaign’

Report: 6
Date: 7 July 2011
By: Assistant Commissioner Specialist Crime on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report gives an overview of the MPS Witness Protection management and the MPS response to the “Stop Snitching” campaign.

A. Recommendation

That Members note the report.

B. Supporting information

1. Witness protection in the MPS is provided by SCD10, Criminal Justice Protection Unit (CJPU). The CJPU primarily deals with the protection of witnesses who have or will be identified in any criminal proceedings, and where there is a real and immediate threat to their lives. This allows for appropriate measures to be implemented, such as the removal of the individual from an area to ensure their future safety.

2. Once a witness is accepted onto the scheme the investigating unit transfers all management of the witness to the CJPU. This provides a sterile corridor between the investigating team and those charged with managing the witness to prevent compromise.

3. The MPS also makes extensive use of special measures and witness anonymity in conjunction with the courts to preserve the identity of a witness who is required to give evidence in criminal proceedings. The use of anonymity is legislated in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The legislation allows for measures to be taken to ensure the identity of a witness is not disclosed in criminal proceedings; for example names withheld or pseudonyms used.

4. Experience shows that individuals are reluctant to move from areas in which they, their friends and families reside. Such moves can have an impact on employment and the education of children. The process in requesting anonymity for a witness demands that the investigating unit should first consider moving a witness into the CJPU, if this is refused a witness can be considered eligible for anonymity.

5. It is not practical to detail all of the activities or actions that investigating units will undertake to manage witnesses, either to preserve their anonymity or protect individuals from harm. Many witnesses are prepared to give evidence in their own name but request that they are hidden behind screens at court. Others may be prepared to face the defendants but request that their name is not released. The key point is that in each case, the most appropriate and proportionate measures are employed from the available options.

6. Witness protection and other forms of witness care are often extended to witness’s families and associates, dependent upon the circumstances. The practical support offered as part of witness care can involve:

• Facilitating house moves between local authorities and housing associations
• Additional security measures
• Enhanced police response to witness e.g. extra police patrols
• Support regarding immigration applications
• Practical or financial support for living adjustments
• Support for application to courts to reschedule cases to protect witnesses, e.g. trial heard during school holiday period so that the absence of a witness would not be noticed at the school.

7. Investigating units are regularly in contact with witness and families before, during and after trials to ensure their safety and well being.

The role of partners in delivering witness protection.

8. For security reasons, it is not possible for the CJPU to provide information on the role of partners in delivering witness protection.

9. Witnesses accepted on to the scheme are given Protected Person Status. This is a legal status, which is granted within the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. This allows the witness to be managed more effectively by the CJPU, by requiring the support of other Public Bodies in the process. All clients within the CJPU system are offered a psychological assessment and support where necessary.
10. Additionally, investigating units, such as Trident or the Homicide and Serious Crime Command, liaise with various agencies to provide support for witnesses. The National Witness Mobility Service NWMS is a national unit that provides support in re-housing individuals in need of support or protection. The NWMS have assisted in re-housing over 1000 families since its creation in 2003. This has included re-housing 76 families for Trident in this period.

11. The NWMS rely upon the goodwill of local authorities to assist in re-housing family units. There is no legislation that places an obligation on local authorities to supply premises to the NWMS. As such the level of service depends on the commitment of each authority area.

Level of activity and cost of providing witness protection.

12. Owing to the acceptance criteria for protection at this level, all of the clients are essential witnesses in serious cases where a real and immediate threat to their lives or other serious harm exists. Cases accepted by the CJPU require management and significant support that often extends over many years. An additional factor is the compounding effect in relation to the number of witnesses being protected. New clients are accepted at a rate greater than those being removed from the scheme and, consequently, there is a year on year increase. Support for witnesses who do not fall within this category are provided by the operational enquiry team or local (B)OCU.

13. Costs for individual cases can be extremely variable, due to the personal circumstances of the client and the length of time for which support is provided. The full details of CJPU costs are restricted. However, they are audited by the MPA and details, including financial issues, are reported to the MPA, CT and Protective Services Sub Committee in a closed session.

Future plans and risks facing provision.

14. The Witness Protection ACPO Lead – ACC Cooke, Lancashire, has drafted proposals for a National Protected Persons Unit to be established. It is proposed that this body would sit outside of the law enforcement agencies. This proposal is currently being considered by ACPO before further consultation with the Ministry of Justice.

15. Funding restrictions remain a significant concern and all witness management programmes are managed with appropriate budget controls. However, as the focus of witness protection is to return witnesses to a normal lifestyle as soon as possible, this also means that clients are provided with access to public funds as soon as possible.

Case examples

16. The following cases are provided to serve as a guide to the types of investigations that attract the need to protect witnesses from being identified to the defence and the community. They illustrate witness protection and witness anonymity.

17. A male was shot dead by two suspects who were later identified and charged. A witness heard the gunshot and provided a statement that they saw two suspects get into a car, and was able to provide the registration mark of the car. The witness was not prepared to enter the witness protection and move from the area, but refused to give evidence unless their name and address was withheld. An anonymity order was granted and the witness provided crucial evidence at trial.

18. A series of offences between rival gangs resulted in shots fired whereby another individual was shot dead. A witness provided crucial evidence as to who was responsible. Their evidence was such that they must be identified to the defence to allow proper examination at court. As a result the witness was accepted into the CJPU scheme.

19. A male was shot dead and the suspect is quickly identified and charged. A number of witnesses come forward and provided evidence regarding a dispute between the victim and suspect. The witnesses all lived locally and would not enter the CJPU due to the disruption such a move would have on their lives. The witnesses also refused to attend court unless their anonymity was protected. The police applied for anonymity orders, but they were refused, as a result the witnesses’ evidence was not called.

MPS response to “Stop snitching” campaign

20. The main instigator behind the “Stop Snitching” campaign was a witness in a Trident murder investigation. For operational reasons, not connected to the campaign, he was never used as a witness at court. This decision was taken by CPS prosecution counsel.

21. The Trident murder investigation team and Detective Superintendent have had a series of meetings, over many months, with the individual, to resolve his concerns. This individual had admitted to police and the media that although his complaint is not against Trident, he sees his campaign as a convenient tool to achieve his goals.

22. Following the start of the “Stop snitching” campaign in December 2010, the Detective Superintendent met with the author of the posters who, at the request of police, initially closed the website, but then re-opened at a later date. The advice of the Crown Prosecution Service has been sought, but there are no criminal offences and no offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice or witness intimidation. As a result the website cannot be closed by authorities.

23. Trident has provided background briefings to the media, particularly those have been contacted by the author of the website. As a direct result, the majority of the media has decided not to report on the campaign once they are aware of the circumstances of the investigation and police contact with the witness.

24. Apart from the website, “Stop Snitching” leaflets have been distributed on one occasion (December 2010) in Peckham. As a result both Trident and SCD1 Homicide Command have liaised with local communities around the sites of all murders to ensure that an early response to any subsequent leaflet drop is in place. Leaflets have never been distributed since this first incident.

25. This campaign appears to have had little direct impact on the communities of London. Following the shooting of Thusha Kamaleswaran, the five year old girl in Stockwell, the media raised the profile of the campaign. The campaign author himself took no additional action and there is no evidence to indicate that any leaflets were distributed.

26. Trident has engaged directly with affected communities and through local Safer Neighbourhood Teams. Communities are very much opposed to those responsible for the campaign, perhaps with the exception of local gang members who have a vested interest in ensuring that the community do not co-operate with police. Advice has been taken from the Trident IAG. They and other groups do not believe the campaign should attract media attention. This is in support of the current MPS media strategy and background briefings to journalists.

27. Trident, in conjunction with its IAG and local community groups, has previously undertaken road shows that dispel the myths and explain witness protection and witness care. Trident works closely with Safer Neighbourhood Teams and community groups in Boroughs most affected by gun crime to mitigate the effects of the campaign. As a result of IAG concerns that “stop snitching” is starting to enter the lexicon of the younger generation, the Trident schools and youth engagement is being used to provide reassurance on witness protection and witness care.

28. Trident is working with community members to facilitate a meeting with campaign author. It is hoped this might persuade the author to close the website of his own volition.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. The policy under which MPS witness protection functions has been subject to a full Equality Impact Assessment (a full copy is available) and developed according to those findings. All decisions made in case management are supervised by an officer at least two ranks above the initial decision maker and in many cases much higher in order to ensure full compliance with the policy. The MPS approach to protecting witnesses is fluid and every step allows for consideration of individual needs. Providing witness protection is always a process of discussion and negotiation with the witness in order that a balance can be achieved which addresses risk and needs of the individual. All CJPU officers have completed MPS equality and diversity training and receive enhanced training specific to the protection of witnesses.

2. The Stop Snitching campaign has an impact on all London’s communities and groups. However, with the campaign linked directly to Trident there is a disproportionate impact on those communities affected by gun crime and in particular London’s black communities. Trident is fully aware of this impact and through its engagement and work with borough police is mitigating the affects on these communities.

Consideration of Met Forward

3. There are no implications for the delivery of MET Forward. Activity described in this report both directly or indirectly contributes to and is in support of all MET Forward key outcomes.

Financial Implications

4. The costs associated with the activities set out above are all covered by existing budgets as approved within the business plan.

Legal Implications

5. This is a report for information therefore there are no direct legal implications that arise.

6. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 contains provisions, which allow the court to grant anonymity or take special steps to protect vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in the courtroom. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 places on a statutory footing the existing arrangements for protecting witnesses and other persons who are involved in investigations or proceedings where the risk to their safety is so serious and life threatening that a change of identity or relocation is necessary.

7. The MPS and other law enforcement agencies are open to provide alternative forms of protection such as security alarms, panic alarms and security locks, as appropriate.

Environmental Implications

8. There are no environmental issues associated with this report.

Risk (including Health and Safety) Implications

9. Witness protection exists to minimize risks to witnesses, their families and associates, individually tailored programmes are successful in protecting individuals. The national proposal for a National Protected Persons Unit, will require careful consideration to identify risks and opportunities in the development of witness protection.

Report authors:

D. Background papers

• None

E. Contact details

Report authors: Detective Superintendent Gary Richardson, SCD8 Trident, and Detective Chief Inspector Nigel Verrill, SCD10 CJPU, MPS

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback