Report on gun, knife and serious violent crime recording

Report: 7
Date: 8 January 2009
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report outlines the latest position in relation to measuring gun crime in 2008/09, and sets out the position for dealing with recording issues associated with gun, knife and serious violent crime.

A. Recommendation

That Members are asked to note the report.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. Crime recording issues associated with Most Serious Violence (MSV), gun crime and knife crime were highlighted in a report to the Authority’s Planning Performance Review Committee (PPRC) on 12 June 2008. This paper provides an update on progress since June and identifies some emergent and ongoing issues in relation to the recording of those offences.

2. MPS Performance Board and the Strategic Crime and Incident Recording Group (SCIRG) have recently considered and endorsed the approach set out in the remainder of this report. The report summarises the current position as we near the annual target setting round, and highlights the likely impact arising from the transition to using new Home Office definitions for these offences from 2009/10.

3. The MPS performance regime for 2008/09 is guided by the new Assessment of Policing and Community Safety (APACS) framework developed by the Home Office, which includes Statutory Performance Indicators (SPIs) and is complemented by the introduction of a new set of Public Service Agreements (PSAs). These changes have brought about a shift in emphasis towards tackling the more serious types of offending, both serious violence and serious acquisitive crime.

4. The planning process for 2008/09 resulted in targets at both corporate and individual borough level. Territorial Policing (TP) is monitoring performance at borough level in 2008/09, based on comparison with the previous year. However, as the Home Office has changed guidance on crime recording standards for certain offences, a like-for-like comparison with last year is not possible for all crime types. In these categories, most notably Most Serious Violence (MSV), 2008/09 crime figures are being monitored for trend, and as a baseline for future performance.

5. In addition to MSV, changes were also made to gun crime and knife crime definitions. In respect of gun crime, CS and pepper spray no longer count as ‘guns’. For knife crime, the most significant changes are that burglary with a knife is no longer a ‘knife crime’ and a broader range of instruments is now included in the definition (e.g. from machetes and crossbows at one end of the scale to any sharp or pointed instrument at the other). Additionally, extra guidance was included that stated a weapon need not necessarily be seen to be counted. The guidance states: “Where the victim is convinced of the presence of a knife or gun, even if it is concealed, and there is evidence of the suspect’s intention to create this impression, then the incident counts”. This contradicts our previous understanding of knife and gun crime offences in that any weapon must been seen, presented or leave some physical evidence – not simply be ‘intimated’.

Most serious violence

6. In support of the new performance indicators in relation to Most Serious Violence the Home Office, at the request of ACPO, issued clarification on what crimes should be included within MSV for counting purposes. Whilst it was clear that Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) under s20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act should be included within MSV, the lesser part of the S20 offence, i.e. minor woundings (those woundings which would require only minor hospital treatment at most or leave no permanent visible disfigurement) should not. In the past both these parts were required to be recorded together under one Home Office Classification. The guidance now requires us to count these s20 minor woundings under the same offence code as Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) offences. The MPS has decided that it has no need to know the number individual number of s20 minor woundings it receives and has not allocated them their own classification code but given them the same code as ABH. Also, GBH with intent now focuses on the intent element of the offence irrespective of the fact that only a minor injury may have resulted.

7. Due to the new counting issue outlined above and the way the MPS has operationally interpreted the HOCR definitions for ABH and GBH in the past, it is not possible to compare last year’s data with this years, without reviewing the whole data set to ensure compliance with definitions.

8. As a result of police forces not having comparative data this year with which to assess relative performance the agreed position, therefore, was that 2008/09 would be a year in which a MSV baseline was laid down, in readiness for meaningful targets to be set in April 2009. However, the sheer volumes and the complexity of identifying assaults that should be recorded as MSV present a significant challenge in terms of ensuring data accuracy (there are around 50,000 ABH offences a year).

9. The consequences of failing to establish an accurate and reliable baseline are significant, not only in terms of judging MPS performance in 2009/10 but also with the 21 Local Strategic Partnerships who have selected MSV as one of their LAA target set.

10. To address this, Boroughs were required to undertake a self-inspection programme covering Assault With Injury (AWI – predominantly comprising ABH offences) for quarter one. The review work was overseen and audited by the Data Accuracy Team and has led to the identification of significant levels of under-recording. Further audit work is now being undertaken to ensure that Boroughs have continued to classify in line with the revised definition and clarification from July onwards. It is imperative that we are able to both establish an accurate baseline and reassure key partners, the Mayor and Home Office that this has been achieved. Based on the review of the first quarter data we anticipate a volume increase of around 80%.

Gun crime

11. This year saw the introduction of a new Home Office definition for gun crime, within the Home Office APACS Framework. As we do not yet have an established APACS baseline we continue to use the existing MPS definition of gun crime to monitor performance, whilst an accurate (APACS) baseline is being laid down for 2009/10. The following points should, however, be noted:

• In April 2009 the MPS will switch to the new (APACS) definition of gun crime, which is expected to lead to a 35% increase in recorded offences. Whilst the rates of gun crime will remain comparable, set against the APACS baseline being laid down this year, the apparent increase in volume will give rise to presentational issues next year.
• The gun crime statistics to be published by the Home Office in April 2009 will vary from police force statistics (even when the new APACS definitions are applied), as they still intend to include CS and pepper spray offences in their official statistics. Again, this is likely to create presentational difficulties next year, although these are primarily for the Home Office to explain.
• Scrutiny of how the new gun crime feature codes are being applied this year suggests that there are inaccuracies that amount to c2% under-recording. As this is ‘in-year’ data for a baseline year, a corrective process is being undertaken over the next 3-4 weeks to address this issue.

Knife crime

12. Recent scrutiny of how new knife crime feature codes are being applied revealed a similar issue to that affecting gun crime, i.e. that there are errors in respect of the use of new ‘intimated’ feature codes. It is estimated that this is leading to an under-recording of around 3%. Again, corrective action is being undertaken over the next 3-4 weeks, and - other variables being held constant - the likely result would be a shift in the current year-to-date performance from c-13% to -10%.

C. Race and equality impact

The way in which intimated gun and knife offences are reported on by the MPS is unlikely to have a direct effect on equality issues. An increase in MSV recording is likely to impact (positively) on vulnerable groups, but those impacts will be captured within existing Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s).

D. Financial implications

There are significant opportunity cost implications for Boroughs, the Data Accuracy Team and PIB arising from the work to review, quality-assure and back record convert against the new definitions. These have been estimated for 2008/09 at some £300k.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Commander Paul Minton, MPS

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback