Pan London Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) Strategic Group

Report: 7
Date: 26 April 2007
By: AC, Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

To inform Members of the formation and development of the Pan London Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender (LGBT) Strategic Group. This multi-agency group has accountability for developing a London strategic and operational response to key areas affecting MPS (and criminal justice system) service delivery to LGBT people living, working or visiting the capital.

A. Recommendation

That

1. the MPA continues to support the work of the multi-agency pan London LGBT strategic group (and the accompanying sub groups); and
2. the Members agree to receive a guidance note on the management of public sex environments (PSE).

B. Supporting information

1. This report reflects the culmination of 18 months work to develop how the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) meaningfully engages with LGBT matters including the management of public sex environments (colloquially referred to as ‘cruising grounds’), citizen focus and service delivery (including performance outcomes), staff development and the management of critical incidents. The project which saw the formation of a multi-agency pan London LGBT Strategic Group is led by Commander Rod Jarman, Chief Superintendent Joe Royle and Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) members John Roberts and Elizabeth Howlett and MPA Partnership Support Officer Hannah Sharp.

2. Chief Superintendent Royle chairs the steering group, which meets quarterly, and aims to:

• Review and develop, a corporate MPS Strategic and Operational response to key areas affecting MPS service delivery to LGBT people creating a safer environment for LGBT people to live, work or visit London, and
• Improve partnership working and performance of the Criminal Justice System agencies (pan London) towards victims of homophobic and/or transphobic hate crime.

3. The strategic drivers for the formation of the steering group (and the three sub groups) was the homophobic murder of Mr Jody Dobrowski, the previous lack of structured development of LGBT liaison officers and a number of critical incidents.

4. The strategic group, which works to the above terms of reference, has the following representation:

• TP Violent Crime Directorate (VCD) and BOCU representatives
• Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA)
• Voluntary sector agencies
• LGBT Advisory Group
• DCFD LGBT Strand
• DCFD Performance and Development Management Unit (PDMU)
• DCFD Critical Incident Advisory Team (CIAT)
• Parks Operational Command Unit
• Gay Police Association (GPA)
• British Transport Police (BTP)
• City of London Police (CoLP).

5. Cognisant of the recommendations and outcomes arising from debrief processes, other learning and advice the following three sub-groups were formed to support the work of the LGBT strategic group;

• Public Sex Environments (sub group 1)
  To develop a Strategic, Operational and Tactical menu of options for multi-agency management of Public Sex Environments.
• LGBT Liaison Officers (sub group 2)
  The recruitment, selection, training, development and support (strategic and local).
• Critical Incidents (sub group 3)
  To assess the MPS Critical Incident response to incidents involving LGBT matters and identify, develop and introduce a response structure to enable effective and professional management of LGBT related critical incidents.

6. The MPS has developed a Race and Diversity Strategy (2006 – 2009) (a copy of this document is available in the members room) a key component of which is the development of Borough local action plans. It is essential to recognise that the work of the LGBT strategic group fully recognises and is aligned to this overarching strategy.

Background - The murder of Mr. Jody Dobrowski

7. On 15 October 2005, Mr. Jody Dobrowski, a 24-year-old gay man, was attacked, kicked and beaten to death by Scott Walker and Thomas Pickford on Clapham Common, South London. Clapham Common is located between Clapham, Battersea and Balham, policing is shared by Wandsworth and Lambeth borough police.

8. The murder investigation led by the MPS Specialised Crime Directorate (SCD) was supported by MPS Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender (LGBT) liaison officers (LO), Gay Police Association (GPA), MPS LGBT Advisory Group (LGBT AG) and LGBT specialist non-government organisations.

9. On 22 October 2005 Scott Walker, 33, a decorator, and Thomas Pickford, 25, unemployed, were arrested and subsequently prosecuted with Mr. Dobrowski’s murder. On 16 June 2006 they were sentenced to life imprisonment [1] with a recommendation that they serve at least 28 years imprisonment.

10. This was a landmark case in Britain, where Section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 [2] was utilised in sentencing the killers. This Act empowers courts to impose tougher sentences for offences motivated or aggravated by the victim's sexual orientation in England and Wales.

The operational debrief

11. Following on from the murder investigation and supporting operational activity a debrief was conducted by the MPS Internal Consultancy Group (ICG) with key staff, stakeholders, agencies and partners involved in the murder investigation and accompanying operation. The aim of the debrief was to discuss the positive elements and areas for development arsing from the operation at both an organisational and local level.

12. There was recognition that although the outcome of the investigation was positive, organisational learning and areas for development had been identified and needed to be taken forward. This information was used to develop MPS strategy including the management of Public Sex Environments (PSEs), inform future investigative processes, further recognition and development of LGBT LOs, improve service delivery to LGBT people and improve strategic relationships with LGBT focussed specialist organisations.

Learning and areas for development

13. The key issues from the debrief were agreed as:

Positive

• The fact that offenders were apprehended quickly,
• The way the informal networks were effective (and the enthusiasm of the staff),
• The early identification that it was a homophobic incident,
• The credibility of the SIO who had successfully investigated another homophobic murder.

Areas for development

• How to sensitively manage/police PSEs and gather intelligence,
• Difficulties with third party reporting and how to use the intelligence gathered through this medium,
• Gaps in the formal networks and systems identified.
• The importance of a Pan-London approach to policing and gathering intelligence in PSEs regardless of which section of the community uses them.

Public Sex Environments Sub Group

14. This forum’s overarching aim is to develop a Strategic, Operational and Tactical menu of options for multi-agency management of Public Sex Environments (PSE). The membership of this strand included police officers, police staff members, Parks Constabulary and NGOs. The membership traverses the equality strands.

15. The sub group is currently in the process of finalising a guidance document, which meets their stated overarching aim. The guidance note does not cover commercial sexual activity or sexual activity in public toilets.

16. A Public Sex Environment (PSE) is any open space, public or private that is habitually used for the purpose of engaging in consensual sexual activity. This definition includes those areas commonly referred to as ‘cruising grounds’.

Overview of Public Sex Environments

17. PSEs are common across London and vary in type, size and activity. One common feature is that they will be known as areas where an individual can go to engage with others in sexual activity. Historically a number of PSEs have been established over many years and are well known. However other PSEs will be less well known or temporary in nature and can include lay byes, car parks and other public spaces.

18. PSEs have no legal designation and the term is merely used to describe an area that is used by individuals for sexual activity. There is no offence of being found in a PSE, nor do the police have any power to eject an individual from a PSE unless other legislation or regulations exist.

19. People that use PSE’s do not as a matter of course commit an offence by doing so. It is an individual’s behaviour that may constitute an offence dependent on the circumstances.

It is not against the law for:

• People to loiter or walk around a PSE with the purpose of meeting others, or for
• People to engage in conversation or activity that does not contravene existing legislation.

Offences that could be committed are:

• Behaviour that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to other users contrary to the provisions of the Public Order Act 1986, and offences of voyeurism and exposure are provided for within the Sexual Offences Act 2003. However it should be noted the latter only creates an offence of sexual activity in public lavatories. It is important to recognise that the legislation applies to anyone regardless of sexual orientation or gender and previous offences of ‘gross indecency’ etc. have been repealed.

20. Within the United Kingdom the European Convention of Human Rights has been enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998. It should be recognised that under the Act the following rights are conferred on individuals:

• The right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence [Article 8]; and
• The right to freedom of assembly and association with others [Article 11].

21. No restriction is placed on these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

22. In addition, when police officers and police staff are responding to a specific complaint of public sexual activity any response must be proportionate, legal, accountable and necessary.

23. The presence of an individual within a PSE is not unlawful and it is therefore essential that police officers and staff do not prejudge people within PSEs. In addition this doesn’t give a police officer grounds to stop a user and ask for an account of their presence in that area, nor does it give the officer / police staff member authority to ask a person to leave. The grounds for any such police action should be lawful, intelligence-led and accountable.

24. There have been numerous academic surveys that have attempted to rationalise the use of PSEs with no definitive answer being found. Some conclude that the anonymity of the sexual encounter is a motivation, others that the risk element plays a key part. For others, personal circumstances may dictate a need for secrecy, which a PSE may provide. In any event it is not for the police to take the role of moral arbiter. The police role is to ensure that any complaints relating to the inappropriate use of PSEs are dealt with professionally and fairly, and that where individuals are engaged in lawful activity they may do so safely.

The management of Public Sex Environments

25. Public sex environments have historically been linked primarily with gay and bisexual men, reinforced by previous legislation that provided an offence of gross indecency specific to those people. As a consequence police activity would often be focused on pro-active enforcement of this legislation often in the absence of specific complaint. Ostensibly, in the past PSEs were considered solely as an LGBT issue – this is no longer the case.

26. The draft guidance recognises that our knowledge and understanding of PSEs has changed and as a consequence the approach to managing them needed to be reviewed and updated.

It is now recognised that;

• That unless research and analysis suggest otherwise, it should not be assumed that PSEs are a LGBT issue. (An increasing cause of complaint in the MPS and other force areas concern sexual activity between heterosexual couples and voyeurism),
• Previous methods of policing PSEs have adversely affected the relationship between the police and LGBT people, significantly impacting on LGBT peoples’ trust and confidence in police,
• Previous methods of policing PSEs have discouraged users from reporting crime to the police,
• In light of the above, serious offences are being committed against users of PSEs that are going unreported e.g. serious assault, robbery etc,
• Criminals are committing serious offences within PSEs aware that the victims are unlikely to report incidents to the police,
• That PSEs should be considered as part of any Borough policing plan and included in mainstream policing,
• That in the absence of complaints, crime prevention and public safety should be the key priority for policing PSEs, and
• That consensual sexual activity can be upsetting and distressing for other people who witness it, and that specific complaints should be investigated in accordance with existing ACPO Guidance on Policing Public Sex Environments (see appendix 1).

Methodology employed

27. Given the dynamics and complexities of managing PSEs it is essential that the MPS work effectively with users, the local community and community partnerships, including non-government organisations e.g. Terrence Higgins Trust, GALOP, etc.

28. Given the diverse range of issues highlighted in paragraph 22 it is essential that the police and partners effectively gather information, intelligence and/or evidence, analyse it and develop a partnership and engagement plan for the PSE management operation. This includes;

• identifying and profiling the PSE, and
• Identifying the conflicting/diverse range user groups.

(It is possible that research may identify that the PSE has been subject of both complaint and as an area where users are vulnerable to crime. If conflict between user groups is identified then it is that conflict that should be managed).

• Identifying the geography of the PSE
• Information gathering and research
• Analysis.

29. Once the above process is completed it is essential to identify the policing, partnership and other management priorities for the effective management of the PSE. The developed Problem Profile [3] allows investigators and operational managers to identify and prioritise the policing (and partnership) response. For example there maybe a PSE that regularly receives complaints about public sexual activity, so the key objective may be to respond to those complaints or research and analysis indicates that criminals are targeting users, the approach therefore may be focused on intelligence gathering and crime reduction.

30. It is essential however that any intervention is managed as part of a well thought through and developed plan with clear lines of responsibility, accountability and communication, as indiscriminate or inappropriate management activity can have a negative impact on users trust and confidence in the police service (and that of community partners co-deployed).

31. As previously highlighted the management of PSEs can be a complex and sensitive business given the diverse uses and the range of people who may frequent or otherwise make use of such open spaces.

32. Essentially any police intervention and/or management may fall into the following specific categories:

• Managing and responding to complaints relating to Public Sexual Activity

ACPO has published guidance on responding to and managing complaints. The MPS has contributed to, and supports the ethos of this document (see appendix 1). One of the key points to note is that any complaint should to be specific and incident related.

• Managing and Responding to crime within/on PSEs

It is accepted that there is an underreporting of crime that occurs within PSEs, however the levels of underreporting by its nature is difficult to establish. Recent intelligence gathering and reassurance operations on PSEs within the MPS and anecdotal information from partner organisations indicate that a large number of crimes such as robberies and assaults go un-reported. In relation to LGBT people, there is under-reporting of all crime regardless of venue. In 2005 Sigma Research [4] conducted a national annual survey of gay men, which included a question whether the respondent had been the victim of assault due to their sexual orientation and if it was reported to the police. Of 4355 respondents within London, 6.8% stated that they had been subject of an assault of whom 63% did not report it to the police.

33. Whilst this guidance outlines recommendations for dealing with consensual sexual activity in public, it has to be recognised that non-consensual sexual activity can occur within PSEs and for similar reasons is not reported due to the fear of being prosecuted for other offences.

• Responding to the NIM Intelligence Requirement

When developing any assessment under the auspices of the National Intelligence Model (NIM), PSEs should be considered as a potential rich source of information particularly in relation to robbery and hate crime. PSEs are a potential source of information and intelligence for hate crimes as criminal offences perpetrated in these environments will often be motivated by homophobia [5] on the part of the perpetrator regardless of the sexual orientation of the victim.

Communication and engagement

34. The Violent Crime Directorate and partners recommend that if there is a PSE within a Borough or OCU then regardless of the levels of reported incidents and crime, a community consultation and engagement strategy should be developed with key partners and users to build trust and confidence. The consultation strategy should form part of an overarching communication and engagement strategy. It is essential that all interested parties work together in unison as an effective partnership to ensure that any open space is a safe and crime free place for all its law-abiding users irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender etc.

35. All users must be clearly sighted on why the partnership activity is taking place, what the operational and management plan’s objectives are and what the users’ responsibilities are in realising these objectives. Everyone, every group of individual and identified stakeholders have a key role to make certain the open space is a safe and crime free place to visit.

36. The legacy of the management of PSEs is such that regardless of worthy intentions police and other partnership activity may still be interpreted as one of enforcement. It is therefore important that all stakeholders are consulted, listened to and supportive of any police/partnership approach. A thorough profile will provide the basis for any engagement activity.

37. Any engagement activity with PSE users needs to include the proviso that whilst the focus is on public safety, reassurance, and improving crime reporting and intelligence provision, any specific complaints of sexual activity in public will be investigated.

Engagement methodologies

38. A range of strategic and tactical engagement options are used, including partnership working, direct engagement with PSE users, managing enforcement and public safety and the conduct of high visibility police patrols (including the deployment of safer neighbourhood teams).

LGBT Liaison Officer Sub Group

39. This sub group’s overarching aim is to improve how the MPS recruits, selects, trains, develops and supports (at strategic and local level) its LGBT liaison officers. In addition the group have worked to develop a job description, a person specification and role profile to support the principal aim’s human resource strategy. The membership of the group is represented across the equalities strands, and includes police officers, police staff members and LGBT Advisory Group representatives.

40. Allied to the above the sub group, which works to the mantra of ‘recognising and professionalising the role of LGBT liaison officers’, identified that one of their key business objectives was to develop systems and processes to ensure that the continuity of quality service delivery by a LGBT liaison officer was not affected by staff transfers and other abstractions.

41. Who are LGBT liaison officers? Essentially LGBT Liaison Officers are police officers and police staff members committed to improving the service provided to LGBT people by the Metropolitan Police Service.

42. Liaison officers first came into being when gay and lesbian police officers responded to the tragic events at the Admiral Duncan public house when it was targeted in 1999 by nail bomber David Copeland. They offered advice and guidance to senior investigating officers and those working with the families and local communities. The combination of the officers’ professional and life skills improved the way the MPS communicated with victims and witnesses of the tragedy and with LGBT people in London and across the UK.

43. Since then, the role has grown to include six full time and 149 part time officers [6]. The majority of the LOs are employed across Territorial Policing on ‘front line’ boroughs, with further representation in other specialisms including the Specialist Crime Directorate (SCD), Transport Operational Command Unit (TOCU), Parks OCU and the Territorial Support Group (TSG). There are 142 police officers and 13 police staff members of different ranks and grades performing the role.

44. The officers advise, support and guide their MPS colleagues and in partnership with LGBT focussed organisations and statutory groups, work to improve the investigation of homophobic/transphobic hate crime and policing in general for LGBT people who live, work and visit London (fuller details of the LOs roles and responsibilities can be found in appendix 2).

45. LGBT liaison officers are deployed to incidents and investigations both pan-London and at a local level. They were an active part of the investigations into the tragic deaths of David Morley and Jody Dobrowski. Beyond London, the liaison officers advise colleagues from other UK forces and non-police organisations.

46. The Diversity, Citizen Focus Directorate and the Violent Crime Directorate Community Safety Unit Service Delivery Team supports the concept of every Borough having LGBT liaison officers but do not believe that all should, at this time be deployed in a full time capacity. This is very much a future aspiration. However, the active development of the generic role and responsibilities of the post and the identification of suitable hours and proportionate resourcing to deliver against the identified citizen focus service delivery objectives. Both directorates strongly advocate the need for corporate structure and deployment programmes to achieve this.

47. In August 2006 a business case relating to the MPS corporate development and governance of the liaison officers was submitted to Territorial Policing and Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate, Deputy Assistant Commissioners by the DCFD LGBT strand lead and DCI Violent Crime Directorate CSU Service Delivery Team (background paper).

48. The above paper, which was supported by both DACs, clearly outlined the rationale for a corporate development process to professionalise our staff and the direct link to improving service delivery to LGBT Peoples (internal and external to the MPS), and realisation of business plan performance outcomes.

49. The MPS recognises that LGBT liaison officers are a vital part of delivering the best quality bespoke police service for LGBT Londoners, visitors and other service users. The officers help us build trust and confidence among LGBT people so that together we can bring hate crime perpetrators to justice and provide a meaningful service to LGBT people who might not otherwise have the confidence to engage with the police service.

50. The MPS further recognises that a professionally trained and motivated LGBT liaison officer who is visibly supported by his/her Senior Management Team (SMT) and further supported with financial, equipment and knowledge products e.g. National Intelligence Model (NIM) products e.g. Problem and Subject Profiles in hate crime investigations will ensure that staff are more productively employed with other police colleagues and multi-agency partners. Through their implementation the following MPS business benefits would be realised;

• Taking on the men of violence and targeting of Prolific Offenders (MPS Objectives FY06/07).
• Supporting the MPS aims of making London safer and for taking citizen focus policing into the heart of LGBT peoples.
• Reflect the MPS wide commitment to corporately building trust and confidence with LGBT peoples.
• Provide advice points at both borough and specialist directorate levels for all colleagues and provide specialist support to those officers investigating homophobic and transphobic incidents and crime.
• Improve quality service provision to LGBT peoples with a positive impact on operational performance.
• Increase the number of sanctioned detections relating to the above crimes (which positively impacts on other hate/violent crimes).
• Increase the number of offenders brought to justice relating to such crimes.
• Aid strategic support to boroughs and specialist directorates local initiatives and training,
• Increased reporting of homophobic and transphobic incidents and crime and improve associated community intelligence, and
• Aid the recruitment, retention and progression of colleagues to/in the MPS family from minority groups.

51. In addition to the above outputs and outcomes, wider benefits are derived including:

• Improving service delivery and victim satisfaction level,
• Reducing repeat victimisation,
• Reducing repeat violent crime reducing other incident offending affecting the wider community, and
• Increasing trust and confidence of LGBT peoples in the MPS.

Staff training

52. There is comprehensive staff training in place encompassing the subject areas discussed in this paper. Details of previously submitted reports are included in the Background Papers section of this report.

Historical overview

53. At present there is no official bespoke training programmes for LGBT liaison officers nor have there been dedicated budgets set aside to take programmes forward. Historically this has been managed by a series of Awareness Day events and two, one-day national conferences in 2004 and 2006. The Greater London Authority (GLA) have continued to monitor the corporate progression of the LGBT Liaison Officer role. Updates are provided at the quarterly LGBT organisations and service providers meetings, attended by DCFD.

54. Since the creation of the TP Pan London LGBT Strategic Group and the LGBT Liaison Officers sub group significant work has now been taken forward to ‘recognise and professionalise’ the role of the LGBT liaison officer.

Training programmes to date

55. The LGBT Liaison Officer Sub-Group has recognised that training remains a key priority and since late 2006, have sought temporary, innovative options to aid and build the skills profile for role holders, which include the following;

• TP VCD have now aligned two dedicated CSU training days per year which have incorporated specific areas of understanding in support of the LGBT Liaison Officers' role (target audience are both leads and representatives of BOCU CSU teams and local LGBT strategic partners),
• Attendance on the CSU five day Hate Crime Investigators course at the Crime Academy. A key role of the LGBT liaison officer is one of hate crime investigator. This course builds on their previous investigative knowledge, which when complemented with their life skills makes there an invaluable resource within the LGBT service delivery specialism. The first of these course placements took place in January 2007, and
• Funding has been identified from existing DCFD/TP budgets, which will be used in support of Awareness Days scheduled to take place in April and May 2007.
• Problem solving training from the Safer Neighbourhoods command.

56. The LGBT Sub Forum view the above training as key measures to aid and develop essential skills of current and newly deployed role holders pending submission of a business case for a bespoke training package. The report will be co-authored by TP/ DCFD and will be premised on the findings of the DCFD scoping exercise undertaken in December 2005, alongside TP operational drivers identified within the body of the Corporate Business Case entitled ‘Recognising and Professionalising the role of LGBT Liaison Officers’.

Long term training objectives

57. Both TP and DCFD strongly advocate a two-tier approach to the proposed bespoke training modules. This would comprise a series of LGBT Liaison Officer Induction Days with a two-day bespoke training package comprising amongst other subjects; negotiation and communication skills, hate crime investigation, access to LGBT specialists/NGOs, legislation and examples of 'real life' experiences.

58. In addition it’s also pertinent to note that the recently published Greater London Authority's (GLA) Sexual Orientation Equality Scheme entitled ‘From Isolation to Inclusion’ also identifies within its strategic action plan, adopting closer working relationships with the MPA and MPS to operationally enhance LGBT community safety within London with key focus being given to:

• Encourage LGBT Londoners to report homophobic/transphobic crime to the police, and
• Increase LGBT Londoners confidence levels in the criminal justice system.

59. The GLA recognises and values the role performed by the LGBT liaison officers and note that the MPS are seen as leaders in this area of work. In support of their strategy for continued improvement of operational service delivery, the GLA have strongly indicated that a further national one day LGBT Liaison Officers Conference will be held again to highlight operational best practice and to reflect "where we were to where we are now" with citizen focused delivery at the forefront of operational business.

Critical Incident Management Sub Group

60. The critical incident sub group’s principal objective is to assess the MPS’ response to critical incidents involving LGBT matters and identify, develop and introduce a response structure to enable effective and professional management of such incidents.

61. A critical incident is any incident where the effectiveness of the police response is likely to have a significant impact on the confidence of the Victim their family and/or the community.

• Effectiveness: this is a measure of the professionalism, competence and integrity evident in the police response to an incident.
• Significant Impact: ‘significant’ should be interpreted as being particular to each incident but critically relates to the ‘impact’ on the individual, family or community.
• Confidence: this is a reference to long-term confidence in policing – of victims, families and communities.

62. The MPS has a dedicated team called the Critical Incident Advisory Team (CIAT), whose overarching aim is to improve critical incident identification and management through four main functions. These functions being; the conduct of critical incident reviews, provision of documented advice, pan-London and national training, and policy development.

63. The MPS recognises that critical incidents, of which there are approximately 6000 per annum, can manifest themselves in so many different ways, and if not managed effectively can have a notable impact on victims, specific and wider communities and the MPS. Such impact can often include;

For the MPS:

• Impact on trust and confidence in policing.
• Costly in terms of human, financial and equipment resources spent recovering situation.
• Stretching of limited resources diverting from other crime projects.
• Loss of credibility from the community and community/strategic partners.
• Potentially the loss of support for future projects.
• Increased local media interest/criticism, which can inform the views of others and exacerbate the problem further.
• Increased suspicion of police actions or inaction, and the damage to police/community relations.
• The potential loss of future community intelligence.
• The above also has the impact that without meaningful crime data, then the MPS cannot effectively direct MPS and partnership resources to tackle or otherwise manage crime.

For communities/victims:

• Loss of trust and confidence,
• Increased suspicion of police actions,
• Loss of faith in the support and protection being offered,
• Concerns raised about institutional racism, discrimination, inherent negatives attitudes of police officers/staff,
• Reduction in providing community intelligence,
• Victims and other community members do not report crimes and other incidents impacting on personal safety and that of family, friends etc.
• The above also has the impact that without meaningful crime data, then the MPS cannot effectively direct MPS and partnership resources.

64. Significant events of the last few years have been instrumental in defining the MPS response to LGBT peoples in London, most notably being the homicides of Mr. David Morley and Mr. Jody Dobrowski. The deaths of David and Jody identified issues in LGBT related Critical Incident responses by police and highlighted a number of areas for improvement in terms of establishing community confidence and managing incidents, which was a significant part of the rationale for establishing the pan London LGBT Strategic Group.

65. The MPS faces the daily challenge of identifying and managing Critical Incidents as they occur and improvements to the response to LGBT Critical Incidents are inextricably linked to this generic discipline. LGBT matters form a unique strand that constitutes a specific critical element that, if present within an incident, may cause an incident to escalate very quickly into a Critical Incident on a pan London and UK basis.

Areas for development

Policy and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)

66. The CIAT is in the process of publishing SOPs for the MPS response to Critical Incidents. This will be analysed, evaluated and piloted in the London Boroughs of Newham, Southwark and Wandsworth between June and July 2007. During this pilot the responses to Critical Incidents will be quality assured and those relating to LGBT people will be highlighted. The pilots will test the reliability and relevance of the SOPs and assess their effectiveness in identifying and managing Critical Incidents. A LGBT representative is part of this pilot programme’s strategic management group.

67. The CIAT has also published a strategic manual for the management and prevention of Critical Incidents and this is available for managers and practitioners on the CIAT Intranet site.

Training

68. The CIAT is at the forefront of providing MPS and UK national training on Critical Incident management. LGBT matters are central to the training content and training is delivered in the following fora:

• At the specific request of a Borough Operational Command Unit (BOCU) Commander,
• Inspector’s Management Course at the Leadership Academy, and
• Awareness and decision making for Independent Advisory Groups. This has been delivered both for MPS BOCUs and nationally through National Centre For Policing Excellence (NCPE).

Leadership and support

69. The CIAT has developed an operations and information guide for issue to Inspecting ranks across the MPS. This support document will be delivering to the 700 staff by the end of April 2007. Within this guide is a checklist to help identify and manage a Critical Incident and guidance when a Homophobic crime is identified. The checklist acts as an aide memoire and highlights essential points to consider including; achieving Golden Hour Principles [7] in the effective investigation and management of the crime/incident, available strategic and operational assets including specialists e.g. LGBT liaison officers, LGBT Advisory Group representatives (LGBT AG) etc, community engagement advice and single points of contact, and community impact assessments etc.

70. It is essential for MPS personnel involved in the management of LGBT related incidents to recognise the potential critical nature and importance of what they are dealing with. Police Community Safety Units, under the leadership of the VCD, continue to be responsible for investigating hate crime affecting LGBT people. The CIAT have a vital role in supporting this and can co-ordinate and assist in bringing in the most appropriate human assets to assist professionally, quickly and effectively. The Critical Incident SOPs will provide a system for dealing with LGBT related Critical Incidents through a complete spectrum of response, from initial reporting to strategic management.

Staff support/promulgation of good practice

71. The MPS is committed to ensuring that their staff has the best supporting information relating to Hate Crime, to enable them to make informed decisions when it matters most.

72. To service this objective the VCD CSU Service Delivery Team and DCFD have comprehensively populated their intranet sites, which offer staff with meaningful advice and guidance to allow to them to make informed decisions and provide a meaningful/qualitative service.

73. The MPS recognises that when interacting with Hate Crime victims and witnesses it is essential to get it right, first time, every time. An inappropriate and ineffective service can cause irreparable damage to relations, negatively impact on trust and confidence, put the victim’s safety at risk and allow perpetrators to continue offending.

74. Each OCU, which has a front line service delivery responsibility, has a SMT and senior detective officer on-call 24 hours per day, seven days per week to offer advice and guidance to front line staff and managers. This borough response is further supported centrally by the Violent Crime Directorate, Cultural and Community Resources Unit and the Special Crime Directorate – each of these specialisms provide an on-call facility, which is available 24 hours per day.

75. Knowledge and information are imparted to operational delivery teams, be that at a strategic or tactical level via a variety of sources, which includes the following:

• Senior Management Team meetings,
• CSU managers meetings (32 BOCU CSU Detective Inspectors attend),
• CSU seminars,
• CSU Intranet site,
• VCD and DCFD Intranet sites,
• E-communication,
• Special Interest Groups,
• Tri-monthly visits conducted on all borough CSUs by the VCD CSU Service Delivery team,
• Strategic Gold review meetings,
• Strategic reviews of individual boroughs response to DV and Hate Crimes/incidents,
• Crime Control Strategy meetings
• Show Case events (the most recent was held on 14 December 2006),
• The MPS Diversity Board monitoring framework includes an oversight of hate crime performance both in terms of detection rates and victim satisfaction levels.

Overview of MPS hate crime investigation and performance

76. An overview of the current MPS hate crime investigative processes and policy and performance outcomes can be found in the background papers. This is important given that LGBT people are targeted in the perpetration of hate crime and gives the reader an overview of the current position.

77. Overall the impact on service delivery is such that the financial year to date (FYTD) – 25 March 2007 the Racist crime Sanctioned Detection Rate (SDR) is 31.1% (Charges = 76.5%, Cautions = 23.5%) and Homophobic crime SDR is 28.5% (+6.9% compared to FY05/06) (Charges = 69.2%, Cautions = 30.8%). These current performance outcomes are the highest that they have been for these generic crimes groups in the history of the MPS. A Hate Crime perpetrator is now more likely to be charged or otherwise brought to justice than at any other time.

Abbreviations

ACPO

Association of Chief Police Officers

BME

Black and Minority Ethnic

BOCU

Borough Operational Command Unit

CIAT

Critical Incident Advisory Team

CSU

Community Safety Unit

DAC

Deputy Assistant Commissioner

DCFD

Diversity & Citizen Focus Directorate

DCI

Detective Chief Inspector

FYTD

Financial Year to Date

GLA

Greater London Authority

HQ

Headquarters

IAGs

Independent Advisory Groups

LGBT

Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender

LGBT AG

Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Advisory Group

LO

Liaison Officer

MPS

Metropolitan Police Service

NCPE

National Centre for Policing Excellence

NIM

National Intelligence Model

NGOs

Non-Government Organisations

OCU

Operational Command Unit

PSE

Public Sex Environment

SDR

Sanctioned Detection Rate

SMT

Senior Management Team

SOP

Standard Operating Procedures

TP

Territorial Policing

VCD

Violent Crime Directorate

C. Legal implications

1. Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, Disability Discrimination Act 2005, Equality Act 2006 and Sexual Orientation Regulations 2006 et al.

2. There are no legal implications in the production and replication of this report.

D. Race and equality impact

1. The MPS is mindful of any adverse impact or disproportionality that may occur as a result of the delivery of its services. In the delivery of its services the MPS fully embraces the need to engage with and consult with LGBT peoples, the wider community and their informed representatives.

2. The MPS recognises that there is a wide spectrum of diversity within LGBT peoples, which traverses social, economic, ethnic, cultural and gender differences including people with disabilities. We recognise that LGBT people who live, work or visit London is as multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, diverse and representative of the broader London population.

3. Furthermore the MPS recognises that we must gain a better understanding of compound discrimination issues affecting LGBT people and how we shape our services to meet such needs. A parochial approach is neither acceptable nor tolerable.

4. Work is underway with the MPS Communities Together Strategic Engagement Team to develop a corporate engagement infrastructure to support a Community Engagement Strategy. This will enable the MPS to introduce a more systemic approach to understanding London’s communities, so that an environment of trust and confidence is developed and maintained. It is by taking these steps in partnership that the MPS can tailor its services and give people the confidence to report hate crime.

5. An equality impact assessment has been commissioned for the work of the pan London LGBT Strategic Group. It is essential to recognise the impact of equality and diversity and ensure that such considerations are threaded throughout the strategy group’s work, including its three sub groups.

E. Financial implications

1. Future financial implications may be generated through training and providing further resource support to the liaison officers. That said sponsorship opportunities have been obtained to support LGBT liaison officers and LGBT people (as victims, witnesses and service users) e.g. in the provision of mobile telephones for liaison officers and hate crime victims, marketing space etc. Sponsorship opportunities will continue to be researched to off set potential costs.

2. A budget of £25,000 has been/will be spent on training and marketing materials to promote the role of the LGBT liaison officers and deliver key messages inside / outside of the MPS regarding tackling LGBT hate crime. This budget has been allocated from existing TP and DCFD budgets. These funds equate to £714 per OCU supported around LGBT matters and represents exceptional value for money.

3. Future financial implications may be generated as the MPS seeks more creative and innovative methods/mediums re community engagement and outreach work.

F. Background papers

• MPA report of 5 January 2007 detailing Domestic Violence (presented to the MPA DV Scrutiny Board on 6 February 2007)
• Diversity & Citizen Focus Directorate’s paper to the MPA entitled ‘Relationship between SLIR training recommendations and Police Race and Diversity Learning and Development Programme 1A’
• MPA report of 20 February 2007 entitled ‘An update on the achievements of Operation Athena, including responses to domestic violence & hate crime and community engagement and support’.
• MPA report of 20 February 2007 entitled ‘Training for police officers and police staff members on domestic violence (sic and hate crime) within the MPS.
• TP/DCFD Business case entitled ‘Recognising and Professionalising the role of LGBT Liaison Officers

G. Contact details

Report author: Gerry Campbell, Detective Chief Inspector, MPS

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

ACPO Guidance on the Policing of Public Sexual Activity

Introduction

In 2000 the newly formed Association Of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Working Group identified a need for national guidance for responding to complaints from the public of men visiting public toilets and other public environments for the purpose either of engaging in sexual activity with other men there (cottaging) or elsewhere (cruising). The intention was that this model would assist police forces throughout England and Wales in providing a consistent response to complaints from members of the public within the framework of a comprehensive LGBT policing strategy centred around anti-homophobia.

It soon became clear that to comply with both the spirit and legal requirements of anti-discrimination, such a model needed to address all consensual public sexual activity and not just such activity between men.

That said, two important points need to be kept in mind. Firstly, that it is likely that the majority of complaints from members of the public are still likely to be about public sexual activity between men. Secondly, there needs to be a clear public acknowledgement that the reasons why men engage in public sexual activity are several and complex, in many cases reflecting personal experiences of homophobia. Thus, this model emphasizes the value of building trust with local LGBT communities and engaging in consultation at all stages of the process. This will help ensure that action, if and when taken, will be seen by all members of the community as fair, necessary and legitimate. Thirdly, there is no doubt that men who engage in such activities run a risk of falling victim to homophobic crime and the clear message needs to sent (and received and believed) that victims of such crimes will be supported by police.

Protecting lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people from homophobia, and reducing crime in general and disorder is a responsibility of police and other statutory agencies acting in partnership and this is reflected in the model.

Principles:

• Sexual behaviour in public can cause offence to those who unwillingly witness it, and may result in people feeling intimidated when using public spaces and facilities.
• Anti-discrimination, with recognition of the proposed changes in sexual offences legislation. Should not discriminate unnecessarily between men and women or between those of different sexual orientation.
• Responses to complaints must be fair proportionate, legal, accountable and necessary, and based on best information.
• Responses should be set within the duty to reduce crime and disorder and provide a safe community for all its members.
• Where it is a same-sex issue the response needs to be an integral part of LGBT Policing Strategy – at national, force and local level– with a recognition that people engaged in public sex activities are also potential victims or witnesses of hate crime.
• The SARA (Scan-Analyse–Respond-Assess) problem-solving approach should be used to address complaints (see The Police Research Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 85, Getting the Grease to the Squeak – Research Lessons for Crime Prevention).
• The model should be adopted only after consultation with a wide range of consultative groups, including LGBT and C&D partners, and should be a C&D Partnership (not just police) policy.
• The process should be set out in a clear, transparent public document.
• There should be built in methods of regular policy review, at national, force and local level, through consultation with community consultative groups.
• Because of the sensitivity required in responding to public sex issues it is essential that all stages of the process are subject to a strategic (Gold) overview and review.
• All stages of the process should be monitored and evaluated, and carefully documented through the use of a policy, decision, and action log.

It is recognised that occasions will arise where a police officer witnesses sexual activity in a public place, or receives a complaint from a member of the public that such an activity is taking place or has just taken place. The officer should assess the circumstances and determine if immediate action is required. Such a decision should be guided by the above principles.

Stage 1 – receipt of compliant of public sex activity

Within police service, responsibility and accountability for initial processing of a complaint from a member of the public should rest with the sector inspector.

The sector inspector should carry out an initial assessment of the validity of the complaint and apprise the appropriate member of the BOCU senior management team. BOCUs should have in place a system to allow a strategic decision and review, in concert with their C&D Act partners, and where appropriate with the advice of community groups.

Gold Review of initial complaint and decision whether to proceed.

Stage 2 – scanning and analysis

• Is it an isolated incident or one of several, i.e. a community problem? What other information is available? What is the nature of the complaint, i.e. is it about observed behaviour, hearsay, or about unhygienic litter, etc?
• Has the issue been raised at sector consultative groups or the PCCG?
• Local community groups (e.g., LGBT groups) are a valuable source of information and advice and should to be an integral part of this process.
• Should be carried out as a C&D partnership process (this assumes that the Crime and Disorder partnership have in place mechanisms for analysing nuisance and quality of life issues)

Gold Review and decision. Should there be a more focused approach to information scanning by interrogating own and other agency databases and community intelligence systems, with view to verifying nature and extent of problem? It is important to realise that valuable information may have been captured on an existing CCTV system.

Gold Review and decision Consider use of formal information gathering by use of plain-clothes officers, cameras, etc. (however, this raises serious human rights issues). This is to help inform, not to detect and gather information about individuals. This proactive gathering of information should only be approved if the use of such evidence gathering techniques is considered proportionate to the problem. Where appropriate, LGBT groups should be closely involved in this decision.

Gold Review and decision Is commercial sex involved? If so, the problem should be dealt with under the force commercial sex policy.

The problem analysis triangle (PAT) breaks incidents down into features of: the victim, the offender, and the location. The analysis should determine when, where, how, by whom, and reasons behind peoples’ behaviour, and those at risk from or disadvantaged by the behaviour. Again, community groups (particularly, where appropriate LGBT groups) will be able to contribute to this process.

Is there likely to be a displacement of the problem if action is taken?

Time spent on scanning and analysis will help ensure:

• Police and partners are able to frame the issue in proper terms and in context.
• Action is not (and not seen as) knee jerk.
• That police and partners are able to evidence decisions to take action.
• Police and partners are able to counter allegations of negligence when the decision is not to take action.

Do not forget to keep the complainant informed of what is being done to examine and address the concern.

Gold Review and decision. Is there a community problem and if so, should a stepped response be implemented? Not every complaint will result in a response. The scanning and response stage may show it to be an isolated incident and not a symptom of a problem. If this is the case the reasons should be explained to the complainant. It may also be decided, that whilst there is a problem, on strategic grounds it would be inappropriate to implement a stepped response at that stage. This decision should be taken in consultation with the appropriate community groups (including LGBT). The decisions, and grounds, should be recorded.

What do we want to achieve and how will we know when we achieve it (see Stage 4)? Ideally, the C&D Partnership should have a mechanism for agreeing on the allocation of resources.

Stage 3 – stepped response

Step one – inform, dissuade

• Use of health outreach workers
• Posters
• Media
• Through LGBT network

Gold Review and Decision before embarking on:

Step two – situational crime and disorder prevention measures

The aim here is opportunity reduction and the following options should be considered:

• Target removal, e.g. closure of facilities.
• Access control, e.g. restricting hours of opening of facilities.
• Capable guardians, e.g. toilet attendants, park patrols. It is important that such personnel are provided with proper training and work within intervention protocols.
• Signage.
• Landscaping and cutting back of shrubbery.
• Lighting.
• Overt surveillance, e.g. CCTV.
• Staff vigilance and guidance (e.g. gardeners).
• Environmental design (long term).

Gold Review and Decision before embarking on:

Step three - preventative patrolling

• Use of local officers in uniform.
• Risk assessment to be conducted before such deployment.
• First line supervision of operations.
• Briefings:
  • The Police Service commitment to anti-discriminatory should be emphasised and explained.
  • Consideration should be given to the participation of community groups such as LGBT, and where appropriate LAGPA officers, in briefings.
  • Problem should be placed in strategic context, i.e. LGBT policy, tackling homophobia, etc.
  • Awareness by officers of issues of public sex issues - a key role for community groups such as LGBT.
  • Officers to be provided with clear explanation on why action is required and what is hoped will be the result.
  • Officers should be given clear instruction that purpose of the patrol is prevention, but that offences coming to light should be dealt with in an appropriate manner.
  • Clear instruction on powers and options open to officers.
  • Clear guidelines on how to use discretionary options.
• All such patrols need to be effectively supervised.
• Offenders arrested or reported for offences should be dealt with in accordance with the force case disposal policy.
• Facilities should be agreed for counselling referrals where appropriate.

It may be appropriate depending on the location and responsibility for venue that the patrols are undertaken by local authority or private security patrols, either alone or jointly with police. In these cases it will be essential that similar guidelines are agreed, understood and signed up to by these agencies.

Important: this model does not include a separate detection or enforcement stage, nor does it allow the use of plain clothes officers for any purpose other than information gathering in the scanning and analysis stage. There is no evidence that using plain-clothes officers in a detection and enforcement role is an effective means of solving problems of this type. Indeed, such a tactic risks actions of agent provocateur.

Stage 4 – Assess (throughout and at conclusion of above structured stages)

It is essential that the whole process is monitored and evaluated. Both the police and their partners, and the community need to know what the process has cost and what it has achieved, i.e. has the problem identified been solved?

(Getting the Grease to the Squeak – Research Lessons for Crime Prevention, provides a model for monitoring and evaluation as part of the SARA method of problem solving.)

Gold de-brief. Learning needs to be fed into the C&D Act crime and disorder prevention programme, and shared nationally.

Policy review

The policy should be reviewed regularly at the local level and formally reviewed at the national level within twelve months of adoption.

Appendix 2

Recognising and professionalising the role of LGBT Liaison Officers

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) Liaison Officer

Role profile

Investigation

• Liaison officers are first and foremost hate crime investigators. They are a fundamental part of homophobic (HO) and transphobic (HT) hate crime investigations – that doesn’t mean they take the lead role in all HO/HT motivated crimes and/or incidents.
• To assist and advise units (e.g. CSUs) in proactive/reactive operations that involve or impact on LGBT people
• To act as a resource for Hate Crime investigators with regards to liaison with victims, witnesses (who identify as LGBT) and referrals to appropriate support agencies.

Liaison both internally and externally

• To actively develop links with local borough based LGBT groups and venues.
• To assist the setting up of LGBT forums.
• To provide advice, guidance and information to internal and external agencies.
• To encourage and facilitate LGBT representations on borough IAG’s , Consultative Groups etc.
• To aid linked community stakeholder awareness with local LGBT contact organisations.
• To ensure the list is kept up-to-date and relevant, and is immediately accessible to MPS staff, LGBT People and community service assets e.g. voluntary agencies.

Promoting awareness of LGBT matters

• To promote the role of the LGBT LO internally and externally.
• To raise the profile of their role (at stations) across their borough to ensure that police officers and police staff are conversant with their roles and the service available e.g. refer suitable Incidents.
• To develop an understanding of general LGBT matters with colleagues and the diversity which exists amongst LGBT people.
• Highlighting LGBT matters for consideration in developing local crime and disorder strategy and boroughs strategic plans e.g. hate crime strategy.
• To have monitoring systems in place that raise awareness of LGBT crimes/incidents within the borough – including sharing PIB statistics with community partners.

To increase the trust and confidence of LGBT People

• To develop initiatives to encourage the reporting of LGBT crime/incidents
• To facilitate effective two way communication between LGBT people and the MPS (including BOCU command teams and investigating officers. LGBT L.O.s are not FLOs unless otherwise trained to perform this role – they could however be co-deployed or otherwise act as an advisor to the FLO).

Continuity

• To ensure that the LO keeps a record of all work conducted on the borough in a format that is accessible to all colleagues and for those who are taking on the role as LGBT LO.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback