You are in:

Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).

See the MOPC website for further information.

Evaluation report following the re-classification of cannabis

Report: 14
Date: 25 November 2004
By: Commissioner

Summary

The purpose of this evaluation report is to update members on the effects of the reclassification of Cannabis post 29 January 2004. It outlines the operational effects of this change and describes any associated crime trends or relevant issues.

A. Recommendation

That the Authority notes the contents of this evaluation report

B. Supporting information

Background

1. Members should note that that this evaluation report is based on data which may require further evaluation. This is due to current MPS systems having to operate outside their original design remit to obtain the required data for this report. Notwithstanding this point, a period of five months prior to the reclassification has been compared with the same period post 29 January 2004. The period 1 April 2003 – 31 August 2003 will be compared to the same period this year.

2. Performance Information Bureau (PIB) is the corporate data warehouse for the MPS and has provided data for the evaluation period. The tables provided cover a borough breakdown of cannabis possession offences, age, gender and proceedings breakdown. Prior to the reclassification such persons were shown as ‘normal accused’ following their arrest and subsequent creation of the relevant offence report.

3. Following reclassification, data has been collected in a different format to cover those instances where an individual was not arrested for possession of cannabis. This proved problematical for current IT search engines and therefore the figures produced for April to August 2004 are shown as a broader category of ‘expanded accused’ in order to capture the not arrested records. (‘Expanded accused’ includes the following proceedings decisions: charged, summonsed, caution and other i.e. formal warning administered in the street).

4. Tables 1-6 (Appendix B) cover the data obtained for 2003. The data provided is based on ‘cannabis accused’ by borough, gender, ethnicity, age and proceedings decision. Tables 7 - 12 show the same data post reclassification, with an added dimension to show those individuals dealt with in the street and not arrested (as per the new Government policy) and those that are arrested. It must be remembered that arrest for cannabis possession will also include those occasions where an individual is arrested for a subsidiary offence, along with persons arrested for another offence and once at the station they are searched and cannabis is found on them.

5. Table 1 shows data between April and August 2003 for the total persons arrested for cannabis possession as 6231. The top five boroughs for cannabis possession offences along with their individual arrest totals are as follows: Haringey (596), Westminster (494), Newham (309), Hammersmith & Fulham (304) and Camden (286). The monthly average for persons ‘accused of cannabis possession’ across the MPS was 1,246.

6. Tables 2 and 3 highlight a very large disparity between the male and female ‘accused of cannabis possession’ within the MPS. Males account for 94% of the total (5880) whilst women account for only 6% (351). In relation to females, due to such low figures it is difficult to identify any real conclusions. Broadly speaking the three female age groups 10-17 years (69), 18-21 years (99) and 22-25 year olds (70) account for 68% of the female total of 351. In relation to males ‘accused of cannabis possession’ a similar picture is produced in that the same three age groups contain the highest numbers of ‘accused’, some 69% of the male total, 5880. 10-17 years (1003), 18-21 years (1917) and 22-25 year olds (1162). However it markedly identifies that the 18-21 year group is by far the biggest, accounting for approximately 33%.

7. From table 4 it is apparent there are two main ethnic groups ‘accused of cannabis possession,’ accounting for approximately 79% of the total, 6231. These are ‘White Europeans’ (45%, 2806) and ‘African-Caribbean’ (34%, 2137). This data also highlights that one age group (18-21 years) came top throughout the entire five month period examined (April – Aug 2003). This age group provided 32% of the total.

8. Table 5 provides a breakdown of the proceedings decision based on ethnicity. Concentrating on the two main ethnicity groups the data shows that in relation to females during the period under examination 25% were charged and 74% cautioned. With relation to males the figures follow a similar pattern in that charges are less than cautions but are much closer together. Charges are reflected as 44% and cautions as 55%. In both cases 1% is unaccounted for due to compliance issues when inputting the data.

9. Table 6 appears to highlight an imbalance in proceedings decision(s) in relation to cannabis. The reasons for this are complex and affected by issues such as: arrested for another offence, admissions made during interview and previous offending history. These factors must be appreciated if taking the data at face value.

10 Comparing April – August 2003 with the same period post reclassification (Tables 1 & 7), it is apparent that their has been a 31% increase in the number of persons accused of cannabis possession. The figure of 6231 for 2003 is the number of people arrested in that period under normal counting rules. The figure of 8148 for 2004 includes this same count but in addition includes ‘formal warnings’ given in the street, where people are not arrested.

11 In relation to sex and age (Tables 8 & 9), a similar pattern is repeated post reclassification. During April – August 2004 males again made up 93% (7595) of the total and women 7% (553). The age group data again follows the pattern identified in 2003, in that for both sexes the age groups 10-17yrs, 18-21yrs and 22-25 yrs account for 68% (males) and 67% (females) of the respective totals. Again the 18-21 year old group is the highest, 33% of the male total and 30% for females.

12 Again in Table 10 White European (3207-39%) and African-Caribbean (3219-40%) again are responsible for 79% of the total of expanded accused (8148) for cannabis possession. Similarly the age group 18-21 years again came top across all five months in 2004 as it did in 2003.

13 With the change in proceedings following reclassification i.e. presumption not to arrest, charge and caution figures have obviously reduced (Table 11). Charge and caution figures for males April – August 2004 were 19% and 21% (44% and 55% in 2003) and females 13% and 27% (25% and 74% in 2003). What must now be taken into account are those incidents dealt with in the street in accordance with the new guidelines. These have been included under ‘other’ which now accounts for 59% of the proceedings total.

14 Therefore it can be presumed, that despite an overall increase in cannabis possession offences in 2004, operational time is being saved. Approximately 59% of people coming to notice for a cannabis possession offence are not being arrested, in line with ACPO policy. At this early stage it is not possible to accurately quantify these savings or whether the time saved allows officers to concentrate on Class A drugs.

Conclusions

15

  • A 31% increase in the number of cannabis possession offenders (described in this report as ‘expanded accused’), has been recorded.
  • A 53% decrease in arrests from the 2003 figure has occurred, 6231 down to 3307.
  • Over the five months this equates to an approximate saving in operational hours of 14,620 / £423,980.

Crime trends / relevant issues

16 Whenever drug laboratories are found, the Property Services Department (PSD) of the MPS is called out to arrange the safe removal of plants, equipment and chemicals (Table 13). For FYTD 2003/04 they received 74 callouts to such laboratories, which has been broken down into London boroughs. The top three boroughs were Waltham Forest (7), Newham (7) and Redbridge (6). For the first four months of the current FYTD (April-July 2004) 31 callouts have already been received. Early indications therefore are that large quantities of cannabis are being grown within London to meet demand. Comments in the media and elsewhere of a large increase in the potency of cannabis have raised concerns that the drug now available is much stronger than that available in the past. However, available data does not show any long-term marked upward trend in the potency of herbal cannabis or cannabis resin. (ECMDDA report 2004)

17 Officers from the TP Crime Squad have recently shut down a drug factory in Harlesden, capable of growing £500,000 of cannabis a year. It is estimated that the set-up costs are approximately £30,000, which would then enable four crops to be grown each year, with a profit of £120,000 per crop. It is believed that the factory had been operating for a period of 12 months. On 7 October 2004 following an intelligence led operation officers from Lewisham have uncovered three huge cannabis factories on an industrial estate in the Forest Hill area. Each factory is believed to contain over 2,000 cannabis plants. No arrests have been made, although enquiries are continuing.

18 Intelligence reports received over the last 12 months are indicating that drug dealers are adopting the tactic of using the postal system to import controlled drugs. It is suggested that organised crime is attempting to infiltrate the parcel company’s workforce with the aim to exploit the system. The majority of drugs sent through the postal system at present are Class A drugs but Cannabis has also been found. This method offers the trafficker greater anonymity and lower risk.

19 Intelligence received from HM Customs and Excise shows that large quantities of cannabis are entering the country in containers on board ships from South Africa. One such consignment was detected at Tilbury Docks and was found to contain 500 kilos of cannabis. Further investigation led to the seizure of 180 kilos of cocaine, both with a combined street value put at £10 million.

20 Intelligence would support the notion that organised crime groups are involved in multi-commodity trafficking. There seems to be a strong link between the trafficking of cannabis and cocaine from South Africa. The following case illustrates this point; in the week ending 26 September 2004 officers arrested a number of Nigerian nationals following a controlled delivery of cannabis. Subsequent searches of linked addresses resulted in the recovery of ½ kilo of cocaine, 30 kilos of cannabis and documentary evidence of money laundering.

21 Conclusions

  • Cannabis trafficking and use is still a significant issue in London.
  • Reclassification of cannabis has caused confusion in law enforcement circles around operational priorities and data capture.
  • Organised criminal groups are exploiting the cannabis market for profit.

22. Internal consultation – see Appendix A.

C. Race and equality impact

Equality and diversity implications have been concentrated on the two main accused groups, White European and African – Caribbean. Both of these groups make up the vast majority, approximately 80% of the total figures in 2003 & 2004. The figures for 2003 indicated a possible bias in the proceedings decision between the two groups, in that you were less likely to be charged and more likely to be cautioned if you are a White European. But these straightforward figures cover complex reasons as to why this may be the case. Some of the issues to be considered against these figures are: the ethnicity/age breakdown of the main boroughs responsible for cannabis offences, previous offending history and whether admissions have been made during interview which is part of the cautioning requirement.

When comparing the same proceedings figures for 2004, when again White Europeans and African Caribbean made up approximately 80% of the total for cannabis offenders, the figures are much closer and the perceived bias has been significantly reduced. In relation to women, if you are a White European you were more likely to be charged or cautioned than an African Caribbean. However the overall figures for females are quite low, 553 over the five-month period in 2004, therefore this must be borne in mind when drawing conclusions from the data.

In relation to the male groups for 2004, White Europeans and African Caribbean made up 38% (2902) and 40% (3044) respectively of the total accused. The difference of 2% is equivalent to 142 persons. The data provides that a White European was less likely to be charged (18% against 22%) and more likely to receive an official caution if arrested (25% against 18%). However, more African Caribbean males were dealt with in the street than White Europeans (60% compared to 57%). Again drawing significant conclusions from this data must bear in mind the issues outlined in paragraph 1 above.

Conclusion

This evaluation report finds no evidence to suggest that the change in classification and resulting operational changes by the MPS disadvantage any particular ethnic group.

D. Financial implications

Savings may have been made by the MPS due to the reclassification, but there is no current system in place to accurately measure how officers’ time has been redirected due to the unpredictable nature of daily operational demands. Despite these difficulties this evaluation report would support the argument that the savings are substantial.

The potential savings made by the reclassification has been calculated using the following formula: The average amount of time taken to deal with a cannabis arrest is approximately 5 hours, and this was multiplied by the number of accused in 2003 (6231 x 5). This reveals that last year 31,155 hours of operational police time was spent dealing with cannabis arrests. This has to be compared with two figures for 2004, the number of arrests for cannabis possession (3307 x 5) plus the time taken to deal with a ‘street warning,’ where no arrest is made. The average amount of time to deal with such an incident and completion of the necessary administrative records at the station is approximately 2 hours. Therefore the amount of operational time spent on cannabis arrests for the 2004 period was 14,620 hours (2924 x 5) and ‘street incidents’ 9,682 hours (4841 x 2). The totals for 2004 when added together (24,302) and taken from the 2003 figure (31,155 – 24,302) shows a saving over the five months of approximately 6,853 hours. In financial terms this equates to £198,737 (6,853 x £29 – cost of PC per hour) saved from April – August 2004. On a yearly basis this monetary saving represents a total of thirteen additional officers per annum.

Conclusion

This evaluation report supports the fact that the reclassification has resulted in considerable savings to the MPS.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Kiaran Wood, Inspector - Drugs Directorate SCD3(3)

The Performance Information Bureau (PIB) has provided data for this evaluation report. (The data required is outside the remit of current MPS data collection systems. Therefore the results obtained from the searches designed to capture the data comes with a 2-3% safety caveat.)

For more information contact:

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

Appendix A: Internal consultation

On 8 October 2004 representatives from various London BOCU’s attended a seminar held at New Scotland Yard, to discuss the operational impact of the reclassification. As a result several key points were made:

  • Communication
    The reclassification has sent out a mixed/confusing message to police officers and members of the public. It was reported that front line officers were finding that dealing with searches resulting in cannabis seizures were often confrontational. Youths were telling officers that they could not do anything about their possession of the drug. Local communities also expressed their concern about a perceived relaxation in drug enforcement. This is thought to have raised communities’ fear of crime because groups were seen to openly flout the law.
  • Streamlining of procedures
    Whilst it could be argued that operational time was being saved with the reduction in the number of arrests for cannabis possession, current procedures still required the officer to return to the station and complete several administrative tasks.
  • Data collection & refinement
    Current MPS data systems are not fit for the purpose of separating out the varied reasons / circumstances resulting in a cannabis report being entered. (ie. Cautions given at a police station following arrest for cannabis possession, incidents dealt with in the street where no arrest is made and were the cannabis offence is subsidiary to the original / more serious offence).
  • Targeting of youths
    A view was expressed that as a result of the reclassification the MPS were dealing with youths by way of criminalisation, i.e. arrest, which was at odds to the way adults were dealt with.
  • Reduced/increased conflict
    It was envisaged that the change in policy would lead to a reduction in police / public confrontations over a minor offence, with the presumption of not arresting unless one of the ‘aggravating factors’ was present. However, a perception was held that confrontations had actually increased due to the mixed message about the reclassification and officer’s interactions with the public.

Conclusion

The reclassification of cannabis has had a significant impact on the MPS. Current IT systems are experiencing difficulty in extracting the required data which could give a flawed picture. Operational implications would appear to highlight an increase in confrontations and a perception that youths are being criminalised for a minor offence, whilst adults receive a warning. The full implications of the reclassification will require more in-depth analysis. Currently it is estimated that over a 12 month period a total financial saving of £344,172 and / or 11,868 operational hours will be saved by the MPS.

Appendix B: Tables

Tables 1-6 in the following appendices covers the period April-August 2003.

  • Table 1. Persons ‘accused of cannabis possession’ broken down by Borough.
  • Table 2. Gender and Ethnicity of ‘persons accused of cannabis possession.’
  • Table 3. Gender and Age of ‘persons accused of cannabis possession.’
  • Table 4. Ethnicity and Age of ‘persons accused of cannabis possession.’
  • Table 5. Breakdown of proceedings decision for ‘cannabis possession.’
  • Table 6. Proceedings comparison for top two ethnicities.

Tables 7-12 provide the same information as tables 1-6 but cover the same period in 2004, post reclassification. Data collection for this period has proven to be more problematic than first envisaged, due to adapting searches on current databases. This may mean that results collated may be a few percentage points out. However, the data provided is as accurate as possible at this time and is categorised as ‘Expanded Accused.’ This enables the capture of those reports where persons are arrested for possession of cannabis plus those incidents dealt with where no arrest is made.

  • Table 7. ‘Expanded’ accused of cannabis possession by Borough.
  • Table 8. Gender and Ethnicity of ‘Expanded accused’ of cannabis possession.
  • Table 9. Gender and Age of ‘Expanded accused’ of cannabis possession.
  • Table 10. Ethnicity and Age of ‘Expanded accused’ of cannabis possession.
  • Table 11. Breakdown of proceedings decision for ‘cannabis possession.’
  • Table 12. Proceedings comparison for top two ethnicities.
  • Table 13. Hydroponic/Drug Factory Data (PSD)

Table 1. Persons ‘accused’ of cannabis possession by Borough, April-August 2003

Borough name April May June July August Total
Barking & Dagenham 42 57 33 63 47 242
Barnet 24 35 18 29 19 125
Bexley 24 40 32 21 21 138
Brent 39 69 49 46 47 250
Bromley 22 33 24 23 11 113
Camden 74 61 53 52 46 286
Croydon 45 45 43 46 28 207
Ealing 35 48 31 34 28 176
Enfield 23 27 24 23 9 106
Greenwich 44 46 22 22 27 161
Hackney 46 61 52 44 41 244
Hammersmith & Fulham 51 62 78 71 42 304
Haringey 100 110 159 154 73 596
Harrow 9 21 24 17 18 89
Havering 24 27 14 11 13 89
Heathrow Airport 7 4 2 5 4 22
Hillingdon 25 31 29 58 35 178
Hounslow 26 31 24 40 20 141
Islington 38 38 48 25 46 195
Kensington & Chelsea 35 40 34 41 43 193
Kingston upon Thames 14 14 10 15 21 74
Lambeth 10 10 9 9 12 50
Lewisham 57 65 55 42 36 255
Merton 11 8 13 14 15 61
Newham 62 81 64 43 59 309
Redbridge 28 17 21 24 23 113
Richmond Upon Thames 15 12 20 12 11 70
Southwark 47 67 59 50 34 257
Sutton 15 11 16 4 10 56
Tower Hamlets 55 50 41 48 27 221
Waltham Forest 39 38 30 41 21 169
Wandsworth 51 61 50 53 32 247
Westminster 91 97 90 138 78 494
Grand total 1228 1417 1271 1318 997 6231

Table 2. Gender & ethnicity of persons ‘accused’ of cannabis possession, April-August 2003

Ethnicity April May June July August Total
Female
White European 38 41 52 52 33 216
Dark European 3 3 3 6 1 16
African-Caribbean 11 21 13 28 25 98
Indian/Pakistani 4 3 2 8 1 18
Chinese/Japanese 0 0 1 1 1 3
Total 56 68 71 95 61 351
Male
White European 544 588 492 540 426 2590
Dark European 68 79 95 62 53 357
African-Caribbean 394 468 441 408 328 2039
Indian/Pakistani 141 175 138 179 113 746
Chinese/Japanese 8 13 8 3 6 38
Arabian/Egyptian 17 25 26 31 9 108
Unspecified 0 1 0 0 1 2
Total 1172 1349 1200 1223 936 5880
Grand total
Total 1228 1417 1271 1318 997 6231

Table 3. Gender & age of persons ‘accused’ of cannabis possession, April-August 2003

Age groups April May June July August Total
Female
10-17 13 14 15 15 12 69
18-21 15 22 18 25 19 99
22-25 10 11 15 20 14 70
26-29 9 5 7 7 2 30
30-39 6 7 9 15 10 47
40-49 3 6 5 13 3 30
50+ 0 3 2 0 0 5
Unspecified 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 56 68 71 95 61 351
Male
10-17 215 207 200 216 165 1003
18-21 391 448 412 386 280 1917
22-25 228 269 232 244 189 1162
26-29 112 139 109 113 102 575
30-39 152 203 177 179 132 843
40-49 58 66 52 63 49 288
50+ 16 16 18 21 14 85
Unspecified 0 1 0 1 5 7
Total 1172 1349 1200 1223 936 5880
Grand total
Total 1228 1417 1271 1318 997 6231

Table 4. Ethnicity & age of persons ‘accused’ of cannabis possession, April-August 2003

Ethnicity Age group Total
10-17 18-21 22-25 26-29 30-39 40-49 50+ Unspec
April
White European 128 190 94 63 75 25 7 0 582
Dark European 12 21 16 10 7 2 3 0 71
African-Caribbean 63 136 81 30 59 31 5 0 405
Indian/Pakistani 22 49 42 18 10 3 1 0 145
Chinese/Japanese 1 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 8
Arabian/Egyptian 2 6 5 0 4 0 0 0 17
Total 228 406 238 121 158 61 16 0 1228
May
White European 109 201 110 77 96 29 7 0 629
Dark European 8 22 17 15 15 3 2 0 82
African-Caribbean 80 157 99 32 77 35 8 1 489
Indian/Pakistani 18 75 50 18 14 2 1 0 178
Chinese/Japanese 3 6 2 0 1 1 0 0 13
Arabian/Egyptian 3 9 1 2 7 2 1 0 25
Unspecified 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 221 470 280 144 210 72 19 1 1417
June
White European 104 189 88 54 76 22 11 0 544
Dark European 9 37 24 7 13 7 1 0 98
African-Caribbean 78 134 94 36 82 24 6 0 454
Indian/Pakistani 20 57 35 15 11 2 0 0 140
Chinese/Japanese 1 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 9
Arabian/Egyptian 3 11 4 2 4 0 2 0 26
Total 215 430 247 116 186 57 20 0 1271
July
White European 132 163 103 48 102 32 12 0 592
Dark European 7 22 18 6 12 2 1 0 68
African-Caribbean 64 133 87 48 59 38 6 1 436
Indian/Pakistani 24 76 53 15 15 3 1 0 187
Chinese/Japanese 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 4
Arabian/Egyptian 4 16 1 3 5 1 1 0 31
Total 231 411 264 120 194 76 21 1 1318
August
White European 94 128 91 46 66 20 9 5 459
Dark European 9 17 7 11 6 2 1 1 54
African-Caribbean 64 102 69 33 54 27 4 0 353
Indian/Pakistani 7 46 34 13 11 3 0 0 114
Chinese/Japanese 1 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 7
Arabian/Egyptian 2 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 9
Unspecified 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total 177 299 203 104 142 52 14 6 997
Grand total
Total 1072 2016 1232 605 890 318 90 8 6231

Table 5a. Proceedings decision for cannabis possession, April-August 2003 [Female]

Ethnicity April May June July August Total
Proceeds: Charged/summonsed
White European 7 10 10 14 9 50
Dark European 0 0 0 1 1 2
African-Caribbean 4 6 4 10 8 32
Indian/Pakistani 1 0 1 0 0 2
Total 12 16 15 25 18 86
Proceeds: Cautioned
White European 30 31 42 37 24 164
Dark European 3 3 3 5 0 14
African-Caribbean 7 15 9 15 17 63
Indian/Pakistani 3 3 1 8 1 16
Chinese/Japanese 0 0 1 1 1 3
Total 43 52 56 66 43 260
Proceeds: Other
White European 1 0 0 1 0 2
African-Caribbean 0 0 0 3 0 3
Total 1 0 0 4 0 5
Grand total
Total 56 68 71 95 61 351

Table 5b. Proceedings decision for cannabis possession, April-August 2003 [Male]

Ethnicity April May June July August Total
Proceeds: Charged/summonsed
White European 212 227 202 212 192 1045
Dark European 22 22 25 27 18 114
African-Caribbean 217 248 237 190 173 1065
Indian/Pakistani 60 73 55 76 54 318
Chinese/Japanese 4 2 1 1 3 11
Arabian/Egyptian 8 12 12 11 7 50
Unspecified 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total 523 585 532 517 447 2604
Proceeds: Cautioned
White European 332 356 284 328 229 1529
Dark European 46 56 69 34 35 240
African-Caribbean 174 219 202 215 152 962
Indian/Pakistani 79 102 83 102 58 424
Chinese/Japanese 4 11 7 2 3 27
Arabian/Egyptian 9 13 14 20 2 58
Unspecified 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 644 757 659 701 480 3241
Proceeds: Other
White European 0 5 6 0 5 16
Dark European 0 1 1 1 0 3
African-Caribbean 3 1 2 3 3 12
Indian/Pakistani 2 0 0 1 1 4
Total 5 7 9 5 9 35
Grand total
Total 1172 1349 1200 1223 936 5880

Table 5c. Proceedings decision for cannabis possession, April-August 2003 [Grand total for male and female]

  April May June July August Total
Grand total 1228 1417 1271 1318 997 6231

Table 6. Top two ethnicity groups, proceedings decision, April-August 2003

Group Charged Cautioned Other
Females
White European 23% 76% 1%
African-Caribbean 33% 64% 3%
Males
White European 40% 59% 1%
African-Caribbean 52% 47% 1%

Table 7. ‘Expanded’ accused of cannabis possession by Borough, April-August 2004

Borough name April May June July August Total
Barking & Dagenham 16 38 20 20 34 128
Barnet 30 65 33 35 64 227
Bexley 34 23 15 8 14 94
Brent 55 62 73 74 67 331
Bromley 30 31 22 48 29 160
Camden 60 56 45 100 57 318
Croydon 39 34 62 37 53 225
Ealing 29 45 45 34 34 187
Enfield 27 32 30 26 20 135
Greenwich 18 26 40 59 54 197
Hackney 134 83 89 103 95 504
Hammersmith & Fulham 34 48 30 36 25 173
Haringey 60 90 92 114 58 414
Harrow 13 18 9 16 4 60
Havering 14 17 21 34 37 123
Heathrow 4 1 2 0 3 10
Hillingdon 22 32 26 33 20 133
Hounslow 39 27 16 18 24 124
Islington 55 48 40 49 64 256
Kensington & Chelsea 44 22 29 32 64 191
Kingston Upon Thames 18 26 10 10 15 79
Lambeth 135 197 229 172 169 902
Lewisham 54 53 65 52 64 288
Merton 30 26 21 22 14 113
Newham 159 41 53 61 52 366
Redbridge 35 18 39 31 20 143
Richmond Upon Thames 18 7 17 10 20 72
Southwark 83 38 98 81 51 351
Sutton 18 9 27 28 17 99
Tower Hamlets 19 188 38 59 57 361
Waltham Forest 54 26 44 44 19 187
Wandsworth 33 45 26 30 53 187
Westminster - AB 14 17 15 25 20 91
Westminster - CD 55 51 40 64 49 259
Westminster - CX 45 48 36 37 38 204
Westminster - DM 26 23 24 24 17 114
Westminster - DP 82 47 54 106 53 342
Grand total 1635 1658 1575 1732 1548 8148

Table 8. Gender & ethnicity of ‘Expanded’ accused - cannabis possession, April-August 2004

Ethnicity April May June July August Total
Female
White European 54 62 66 61 61 304
Dark European 7 3 7 14 10 41
African-Caribbean 32 34 33 40 36 175
Indian/Pakistani 3 8 5 3 6 25
Chinese/Japanese 0 1 1 0 0 2
Arabian/Egyptian 1 2 1 0 1 5
Unspecified 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total 98 110 113 118 114 553
Male
White European 590 587 558 595 573 2903
Dark European 111 119 87 114 88 519
African-Caribbean 607 584 615 658 580 3044
Indian/Pakistani 187 212 160 183 146 888
Chinese/Japanese 12 11 12 16 18 69
Arabian/Egyptian 24 27 22 39 21 133
Unspecified 6 8 8 9 8 39
Total 1537 1548 1462 1614 1434 7595
Grand total
Total 1635 1658 1575 1732 1548 8148

Table 9. Gender & age of ‘Expanded’ accused - cannabis possession, April-August 2004

Age groups April May June July August Total
Female
10-17 21 24 15 21 17 98
18-21 29 29 34 32 41 165
22-25 20 20 22 18 26 106
26-29 6 13 11 14 10 54
30-39 15 11 16 24 12 78
40-49 4 10 13 6 5 38
50+ 1 3 2 2 2 10
Unspecified 2 0 0 1 1 4
Total 98 110 113 118 114 553
Male
10-17 265 227 193 249 203 1137
18-21 487 525 460 525 483 2480
22-25 274 314 314 315 296 1513
26-29 161 176 155 168 160 820
30-39 231 205 219 237 190 1082
40-49 98 79 98 81 72 428
50+ 12 16 16 32 23 99
Unspecified 9 6 7 7 7 36
Total 1537 1548 1462 1614 1434 7595
Grand total
Total 1635 1658 1575 1732 1548 8148

Table 10. Ethnicity & age of ‘Expanded’ accused – cannabis possession, April-August 2004

Ethnicity 10-17 18-21 22-25 26-29 30-39 40-49 50+ Unspec. Total
April
White European 144 195 95 67 91 39 8 5 644
Dark European 16 28 25 18 22 8 0 1 118
African-Caribbean 97 204 122 53 105 51 4 3 639
Indian/Pakistani 24 70 42 24 24 3 1 2 190
Chinese/Japanese 2 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 12
Arabian/Egyptian 2 10 6 3 3 1 0 0 25
Unspecified 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 7
Total 286 516 294 167 246 102 13 11 1635
May
White European 126 207 116 60 89 44 6 1 649
Dark European 11 44 29 18 18 2 0 0 122
African-Caribbean 85 185 134 74 88 37 12 3 618
Indian/Pakistani 23 102 44 28 17 3 1 2 220
Chinese/Japanese 1 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 12
Arabian/Egyptian 3 8 5 7 3 3 0 0 29
Unspecified 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 8
Total 251 554 334 189 216 89 19 6 1658
June
White European 96 174 121 72 97 48 13 3 624
Dark European 9 33 30 6 12 4 0 0 94
African-Caribbean 83 205 131 64 108 53 3 1 648
Indian/Pakistani 15 67 45 18 15 4 0 1 165
Chinese/Japanese 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 13
Arabian/Egyptian 2 10 5 5 1 0 0 0 23
Unspecified 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 1 8
Total 208 494 336 166 235 111 18 7 1575
July
White European 118 206 99 66 118 31 15 3 656
Dark European 14 35 38 18 17 3 2 1 128
African-Caribbean 104 215 139 69 106 47 15 3 698
Indian/Pakistani 25 81 50 20 9 0 0 1 186
Chinese/Japanese 1 6 1 6 2 0 0 0 16
Arabian/Egyptian 7 11 6 3 5 6 1 0 39
Unspecified 1 3 0 0 4 0 1 0 9
Total 270 557 333 182 261 87 34 8 1732
August
White European 113 213 112 59 83 39 13 2 634
Dark European 5 30 30 14 13 3 3 0 98
African-Caribbean 85 194 132 70 88 33 9 5 616
Indian/Pakistani 12 71 41 17 10 1 0 0 152
Chinese/Japanese 2 5 0 4 6 1 0 0 18
Arabian/Egyptian 3 8 4 5 1 0 0 1 22
Unspecified 0 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 8
Total 220 524 322 170 202 77 25 8 1548
Grand total
Total 1235 2645 1619 874 1160 466 109 40 8148

Table 11a. Proceedings decision for cannabis possession, April-August 2004 [Female]

Ethnicity April May June July August Total
Proceeds: Charged/summonsed
White European 10 10 7 5 6 38
Dark European 0 0 1 2 2 5
African-Caribbean 4 4 1 4 7 20
Indian/Pakistani 2 1 1 0 1 5
Arabian/Egyptian 1 0 0 0 1 2
Total 17 15 10 11 17 70
Proceeds: Caution
White European 15 16 17 18 23 89
Dark European 2 0 1 4 2 9
African-Caribbean 11 4 11 11 6 43
Indian/Pakistani 0 4 1 0 0 5
Chinese/Japanese 0 0 1 0 0 1
Arabian/Egyptian 0 1 0 0 0 1
Unspecified 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total 29 25 31 33 31 149
Proceeds: Other
White European 29 36 42 38 32 177
Dark European 5 3 5 8 6 27
African-Caribbean 17 26 21 25 23 112
Indian/Pakistani 1 3 3 3 5 15
Chinese/Japanese 0 1 0 0 0 1
Arabian/Egyptian 0 1 1 0 0 2
Total 52 70 72 74 66 334
Grand total
Total 98 110 113 118 114 553

Table 11b. Proceedings decision for cannabis possession, April-August 2004 [Male]

Ethnicity April May June July August Total
Proceeds: Charged/summonsed
White European 116 104 88 104 105 517
Dark European 21 16 12 15 12 76
African-Caribbean 139 128 123 151 134 675
Indian/Pakistani 31 31 28 35 24 149
Chinese/Japanese 1 1 1 3 1 7
Arabian/Egyptian 7 5 7 6 7 32
Unspecified 1 2 0 0 0 3
Total 316 287 259 314 283 1459
Proceeds: Caution
White European 166 140 121 153 141 721
Dark European 29 21 18 26 27 121
African-Caribbean 114 114 85 121 114 548
Indian/Pakistani 47 27 27 36 30 167
Chinese/Japanese 5 5 6 4 5 25
Arabian/Egyptian 6 8 6 9 6 35
Unspecified 1 3 3 2 2 11
Total 368 318 266 351 325 1628
Proceeds: T.I.C.
White European 0 0 1 0 0 1
Total 0 0 1 0 0 1
Proceeds: F.P.N.
Indian/Pakistani 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 0 0 0 0 1 1
Proceeds: Other
White European 308 343 348 338 327 1664
Dark European 61 82 57 73 49 322
African-Caribbean 354 342 407 386 332 1821
Indian/Pakistani 109 154 105 112 91 571
Chinese/Japanese 6 5 5 9 12 37
Arabian/Egyptian 11 14 9 24 8 66
Unspecified 4 3 5 7 6 25
Total 853 943 936 949 825 4506
Grand total
  1537 1548 1462 1614 1434 7595

Table 11c. Proceedings decision for cannabis possession, April-August 2004 [Grand total for male and female]

  April May June July August Total
Grand total 1635 1658 1575 1732 1548 8148

Table 12. Proceedings comparison for top two ethnicities, April-August 2004

Group Charged Cautioned Other
Females
White European 13% 29% 58%
African-Caribbean 11% 25% 64%
Males
White European 18% 25% 57%
African-Caribbean 22% 18% 60%

Table 13. Hydroponic/drug factory data

Borough

Callouts FYTD

2003/04

Callouts FYTD

Apr-July 2004

Newham (KF) 7 3
Barking & Dagenham (KG) 4 1
Havering (KD) 1 0
Brent (QK) 1 1
Harrow (QA) 1 0
Redbridge (JI) 6 1
Waltham Forest (JC) 7 3
Bexley (RY) 2 1
Greenwich (RG) 3 2
Hammersmith & Fulham (FH) 1 0
Lambeth (LX) 4 0
Bromley (PY) 4 0
Lewisham (PL) 4 3
Islington (NI) 3 1
Tower Hamlets (HT) 2 1
Barnet (SX) 2 0
Merton (VW) 1 0
Haringey (YR) 3 3
Enfield (YE) 3 1
Southwark (MD) 3 0
Hackney (GD) 3 5
Sutton (ZT) 1 1
Camden (EK) 1 1
TP Crime Squad 1 0
Ealing (XD) 0 1
SCD 3 0
N/K 3 0
City of London 0 2
Total 74 31

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback