London Race Hate Crimes Forum

Report: 5
Date: 16 September 2002
By: Clerk

Summary

This report outlines progress of the MPA Race Hate Crimes Working Group. It identifies a lacuna in the provision of pan-London oversight of race hate crime strategy and actions and seeks member approval to restructuring the working group into a new London Race Hate Crimes Forum to enhance its role.

A. Recommendation

That

1. members note the development and progress of the MPA Race Hate Crimes Working Group;
2. members endorse the proposals for the next phase of the work in establishing the London Race Hate Crimes Forum; and
3. the future reporting of this work area be delegated to the Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board.

B. Supporting information

1. In 1989, the Home Office published a report, "The response to Racial Attacks and Harassment", which recommended the formation of multi-agency panels for dealing with issues of race hate crimes. The Home Office subsequently published a series of reports considering the ensuing development of panels. In its most recent report in 1998, "In This Together: Tackling Racial Incidents" the Home Office reiterated that a multi-agency approach was crucial in developing an effective response to racial harassment and violence.

2. In February 2001, the MPA, at an Authority meeting, agreed that a working group be established to look into the matters raised in a paper by the then Deputy Chair, Peter Herbert, following his attendance at an international conference on race hate crimes. The paper highlighted the need for a coordinated approach for dealing with race hate crimes across the key agencies in London. Other agencies, including the Probation Service and Racial Harassment Units, similarly highlighted the lack of consistency in practice and performance on matters of race hate crime, even in places where there was good multi-agency working.

3. The Race Hate Crimes Working Group was formed in July 2001 under the chairmanship of Peter Herbert. The working group drew its membership from a wide range of agencies who could contribute to progressing policies and influencing practices on race hate crime issues in London. Appendix 1 contains the working group membership.

4. The Working Group has completed the first phase of its work. It has

1. Reviewed the legal context (Appendix 2)
2. Reviewed practices across the key agencies and the voluntary sector.
3. Developed of a set of protocols, (Appendix 3), that has the support and approval of partner agencies with responsibility for addressing race and other hate crimes issues.
4. Mapped the work currently being carried out by crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs), (Appendix 4), with the aim of reviewing performance on race hate crime against objectives set in local community safety strategies.
5. Considered and approved a structure for how it wishes to progress the achievements to date.

5. The working group brought together and has benefited from the excellent knowledge and work of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and other key partners, including housing associations, local racial harassment panels and the Association of London Government.

6. The group has been mindful of issues relating to other hate crimes, such as religiously aggravated offences, and have considered these as they have arisen. Whilst the working group's focus has been on race hate, all members are keen to see the learning extended to partnership work in other hate crime areas e.g. informing the work on domestic violence being co-ordinated by the GLA.

Emerging fndings

7. The working group has focused much of its attention on the role of London's 32 CDRPs and their performance on race hate crime objectives as set out in their strategies.

8. It established a working relationship with the Home Office and the Government Office for London (GOL), which holds CDRPs to account and distributes government funding to them. GOL was supportive of the aims of the working group. The London Regional Crime Reduction Director is committed to ensuring that the working group's aims could be progressed with the support of, rather than duplicating the work undertaken by GOL.

9. Meetings with the GOL Regional Crime Reduction Director confirmed that there is currently no single agency or forum that has a responsibility for monitoring performance against the actions proposed in CDRPs' strategies. Furthermore, although several CDRPs include race and other hate crimes in their strategies, it was difficult to identify any agency or group that takes a specific interest in performance on the race and other hate targets submitted by the CDRPs. This is a specific role which the MPA is well placed to give leadership. There is support from the key stakeholders for this role to be progressed into the next phase of the working's group developments.

10. The MPA, formerly a 'co-operating body' in the 1998 Act, has become a 'responsible authority' under the Police Reform Act 2002. This gives it a role to ensure the police service contributes effectively to CDRP partnership work. The working group is of the view that the MPA can play a unique role in monitoring the performance and delivery against race hate targets of the CDRPs across London, as it is not carried out by any other organisation currently.

11. The MPS has a separate and distinct responsibility under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for investigating and influencing the judicial disposal levels of race hate crimes. The Joint Community Safety Steering Group (JSG) is an existing forum, chaired by the Deputy Commissioner, Ian Blair, that takes an overview of community safety matters in London. In addition to GOL, it plays a significant role in the coordination and implementation of crime and community safety initiatives involving the principal agencies under the Crime and Disorder Act. The membership of the JSG is wide. It has a developing and responsive work programme. However, it does not have a specific focus on race hate issues in its work.

12. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 places a duty on all public authorities to take steps to eliminate unlawful discrimination, promote race equality and good relations between people of different races in all work and services delivered. This duty will apply to many of the key agencies dealing with race hate crimes. To meet the duty, there needs to be greater dialogue and co-ordination between the relevant agencies to ensure their policies deal with race hate crimes effectively.

Enhancing the working group

13. The findings confirm the need in London for a forum which can add value to the work carried out by all relevant agencies, help improve the co-ordination of work carried out by different agencies, monitor activity with respect to tackling race hate crime and provide an advisory role. It is the view of those involved in the working group, and those consulted, that such a forum complements existing work and processes, rather than being a stand alone structure. An umbrella forum can also involve several relevant agencies that are not involved in local partnerships but which have a vital role to play in affecting policies and practices.

14. Much of the deliberations of the working group have identified the need to enhance the influence of the working group. It is the view of the working group membership that greater attention must be given to its engaging with key decision-making forums, policy formulation groups and networks at strategic levels.

15. The enhanced role of the MPA as a 'responsible authority' within the CDRP field, places it in a position of leadership.

16. The working group has set out a new proposed model for discussion. The model is outlined below.

London forum - terms of reference

17. The official name for the enhanced group will be the London Race Hate Crimes Forum.

18. The purpose of the Forum will be to seek to:

1. Influence the development of policies and guidance by central and local government the, police service, the judiciary, criminal justice organisations, the voluntary sector and others on matters relating to race hate crime issues.
2. Promote consistent and co-ordinated policies and practices amongst all agencies dealing with race hate crime issues in London.

19. The purpose of the Forum could be reviewed after six months, particularly to explore extending it to deal with hate crimes more broadly.

20. The proposed forum could act as an advisory role to the JSG, assisting it, not only on race hate issues, but on other matters which have a significant impact on black and minority ethnic communities. The forum will not be a sub-group of the JSG but would be in the position to offer it objective advice. The group could act in a similar advisory role to other organisations, where it feels it can add value.

21. The terms of reference of the Forum will be to:

1. Establish policies, protocols and processes that will contribute to improving CDRP performance in dealing with race hate matters as set out in their crime and disorder strategies.
2. Monitor CDRP implementation of initiatives for dealing with race hate crime.
3. Engage with key central government departments and pan-London agencies, as well as local partnerships, to secure their agreement to a London protocol on:
   1. the sharing of personalised and depersonalised information.
   2. co-ordinating and disseminating good practice amongst key statutory and voluntary agencies in London.
   3. accountability for delivery against targets.
4. Provide policy guidance to local CDRPs in dealing with race hate crimes.
5. Continuously monitor and review arrangements for dealing with race hate crimes to inform the development of policies, protocols and practices in other hate crime areas.
6. Establish proactive relationships between all stakeholders, local partners, central government departments and pan-London agencies.

Forum structure

22. Based on the discussions of the existing working group, it is proposed separating the strategic and policymaking function from the development and monitoring function through a two-tier structure comprising:

1. A Policy and Strategy Committee.
2. A Performance Monitoring and Practice Committee.

23. An outline of the structure is shown in Appendix 5 (see Supporting material).

The Policy and Strategy Committee

24. This will have responsibility to:

1. Liaise with central government departments to monitor and review policies and guidance on race hate matters.
2. Influence key agencies (including the judiciary) at pan-London and borough levels in order to progress the objectives of the forum.
3. Publish papers and holding seminars and conferences etc in order to support and complement the work being progressed by partner agencies (and others).
4. Take a broad strategic overview of key legislation and other policies that could inform and impact on race and other hate crime issues.

25. This committee will comprise senior representatives of the key agencies and will meet quarterly.

The Performance Monitoring and Practice Sub-Committee

26. This will take an overview of practice and performance of London's CDRPs. As such, this committee will:

1. Review and map the audits and strategies of CDRPs, consider the performance of CDRPs against their race hate targets and report progress to the Policy and Strategic Committee.
2. Identify developments and publish examples of good practice.
3. Consider potentially difficult cases presented by agencies and make recommendations on outcomes.
4. Identify emerging issues that could be progressed by the Policy and Strategic Committee.
5. Propose the annual work programme for the Forum.
6. Use the lessons learnt to provide advice and guidance to those involved in addressing other hate crime issues.

27. Depending on the circumstances, it could also examine cases which have London-wide significance or which  would help to inform policy development and practice. The committee could receive regular reports from CDRPs and would need to be empowered to call for multi-agency case conferences to consider learning outcomes that could improve policy and practice.

28. Membership of this committee will be broader and more community based than the Policy and Strategy Committee. It will include local authorities and voluntary organisations who operate at a casework level.

Financing and resourcing the forum.

29. The working group doesn't want to create a structure that is resource-intensive. Rather the work of the Forum should be allowed to evolve alongside and complementary to existing capacity. A lot of goodwill has also been invested in the work to date by many agencies.

30. However, to enable the research of good practice, collation of information, provision of advice and guidance to local groups and others as well as to support the work of the committees, it is proposed that dedicated administrative support be sought. Whilst the MPA has been able to support the set up arrangements, it may not be able to continue to do so for the new Forum.

31. A new administrative post will cost up to £30k inclusive of on-costs.

32. Preliminary discussions with the Government Office for London have indicated its willingness to support the funding of this post. Other partners and stakeholders have already indicated a willingness to provide a range of in-kind contribution. It is therefore proposed that in the first instance GOL should be approached to fund this post in the financial year 2003/04.

33. Discussions regarding the office location of the postholder will be explored with partners. The MPA will contribute up to £10k to assist with the setting up of the post.

Launch

34. The working group proposes a launch date of the new Forum in November. Other members of the working group are signed up to this suggestion and the views of the MPA members is being sought on this event, which will primarily be a press launch.

Conclusion

35. The MPA Race Hate Crimes Working Group has demonstrated there is commitment to address race hate crimes in a multi-agency way. Its work to date, and the work of the MPS and other agencies, provides an excellent platform upon which to build further partnership working. Outside the working group, there is a seeming lack of strategic direction, co-ordination and monitoring of race hate crime initiatives in London. The working group is recommending a new structural model that will enhance its work and influence. A consultation phase is to commence to widen membership of, and participation/contributions to the new forum. The matter of administrative support needs to be resolved and various options will be explored. Members are asked to pledge their support to the establishment of the new London Race Hate Crimes Forum.

36. The work of the London Race Hate Crimes Forum has the potential for being a leading joined up government, public and voluntary sector initiative, dealing with a significant community issue. Furthermore, if the forum can continue to build on the progress of the working group, the MPA's credibility to lead and work in partnership would be aptly demonstrated.

C. Equality and diversity implications

37. Improving policies and the co-ordination of arrangements for dealing with matters of race hate crimes as well as performance in dealing with these crimes could significantly improve confidence and trust of London's diverse racial communities in the policing of London.

D. Financial implications

There is a budget to meet the current requirements of the working group, including the launch, subject to members' approval. The proposals for the new forum will require an increased level of full time administrative support estimated at £30,000 per annum from 1 April 2003. It is proposed that the authority contributes £10,000 toward this sum with other partners making up the balance. The postholder would be employed by partners in the forum rather than by the Authority. If members support this proposal it will be necessary to seek approval to a growth bid of £10,000 in 2003/04 and a full year as part of the overall Equalities and Diversity growth bid.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author: Julia Smith/Jude Sequeira, CDO, MPA.

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Current Race Hate Crimes Working Group Membership

The following organisations are currently involved in the Race Hate Crimes Working Group:

• Association of London Government
• Chartered Institute for Housing
• Circle 33
• Commission for Racial Equality
• Crown Prosecution Service
• Dept for Education and Employment (DfEE)
• Ethnic Minorities Advice Bureau
• Greater London Authority and Mayor’s Office
• Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority
• Hackney Borough Council
• Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council
• Haringey Borough Council
• Independent Advisory Groups
• Lewisham Borough Council
• Metropolitan Police Authority
• Metropolitan Police Service
• National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO)
• National Black Crown Prosecution Association
• New Cross Circle project
• Prison Service
• Private Sector Housing Unit
• Probation Service
• Race On The Agenda
• Refugee Housing Association
• Searchlight Information Services
• Society for Black Lawyers
• Southwark Borough Council
• Southwark Legal Contract Services
• The Stone Ashdown Trust
• Victim Support (London)
• Westminster Racial Equality Council

Appendix 2: Legal content

1. A new offence of "intentional harassment", which has no racial element was added as section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. This new section came into force in February 1995. It has however, been difficult to prove intention and the offending conduct and the resultant harassment, alarm or distress.

2. In the Housing Act 1996, Parliament strengthened the hand of all residential social landlords with a new statutory ground for eviction, which encompasses racial harassment. This Act also gives local authorities a power to protect their tenants and their visitors from repeated harassment by means of an injunction where violence has been used or threatened.

3. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (a 'stalking bill') created a criminal offence of harassment and an offence of causing fear of violence which could be utilised to arrest and prosecute where harassment or threats are racially motivated. A novel feature of the 1997 Act is the ability of the trial court to impose a restraining order (comparable to conditions of bail), breach of which is a fresh offence carrying up to five years' imprisonment. The 1997 Act also enables civil injunctions to prevent recurrence harassment, with criminal sanctions for any breach.

4. The Court of Appeal ruled in respect of sentencing, in R v Ribbans that a proven racial element in an offence of violence is a gravely aggravating feature justifying an increase in sentence.

5. In June 1998, the passing of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 [1] placed a clear legal obligation on the local authority and the police - in partnership with other agencies, particularly those representing the voluntary sector and minority ethnic communities - to develop and implement a strategy for tackling crime. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (sections 5-3) made it mandatory that a multi-agency approach is taken in tackling racial harassment. Section 17 recommends the creation of local partnerships and multi-agency working generally.

6. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 contains three areas of specific relevance. These are the new Racially Aggravated Offences; Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships.

7. Part 11, Section 28-32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, introduced a new offence, which deals specifically with action in relation to racially aggravated offences. Thus the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides for the first time new offences of racially aggravated violence, harassment and criminal damage, and courts are now obliged to ensure that any crime with a racial aggravation will result in tougher punishment for the perpetrator.

8. The Act under section 1 also contains the implementation of new anti-social behaviour orders. These are civil orders similar to injunctions for which the police or the local authority, in consultation with each other and other relevant bodies can apply to a magistrate’s court. The orders will cover anti-social behaviour, which is defined as behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. These orders could be used to tackle low-level persistent racial harassment.

9. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 also provides for the setting up of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and places a new duty on local authorities and the police along with other key partners to work in partnership at a local level to produce a Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy. In discharging these duties, local authorities and the police will be obliged to involve others, and specifically "it must work with a body, which promotes the interests of, or provides services to…. those of different racial groups within the meaning of the Race Relations Act 1976"

10. Guidance in relation to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 state that it is essential that the views of Black and minority ethnic communities are fed into the Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy.

11. Home Office documents indicate that as well as victims of race hate crimes themselves, multi-agency panels are ideally placed to provide information on the level of racially motivated crime and have the expertise to comment on what mechanisms need to be put in place to tackle it efficiently and effectively. A London wide multi-agency Racial Harassment Forum is therefore critical to the development locally and across London of crime and disorder strategies.

The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry

1. A gang of white young people murdered Stephen Lawrence on 22 April 1993. "Stephen Lawrence's murder was simply and solely and unequivocally motivated by racism" [2]. The Inquest jury returned an unanimous verdict after a full hearing in 1997, that:

2. "Stephen Lawrence was unlawfully killed in a completely unprovoked racist attack by five white youths"

3. The report of the Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence was published in February 1999, yet to date nobody has been convicted of this awful crime.

4. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report makes a number of recommendations, which calls for action by all agencies involved in Multi-Agency Racial Harassment Fora and the Crime and Disorder Partnerships.

5. Recommendation 17 of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report points to the need for a multi-agency response and close co-operation between "police services, local government and other agencies, including in particular Housing and Education departments, to ensure that all information as to racist incidents and crimes is shared and is readily available to all agencies".

6. Recommendation 70 states: -

"That in creating strategies under the provision of the Crime and Disorder Act or otherwise, police services, local government and relevant agencies should specifically consider implementing community and local initiatives aimed at promoting cultural diversity and addressing racism and the need for focused, consistent support for such initiatives".

7. Recommendations 48-54 point to the need to review and revise the provision of racism awareness and valuing cultural diversity training by all agencies.

8. It is our belief that the recommendations arising from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry have implications for all agencies and consequently agencies have a responsibility to draw up relevant action plans and targets which address those key recommendations. Reports on progress should be regularly fed into bodies like the London Multi-Agency Racial Harassment Forum and should be open to routine monitoring by local Racial Equality Councils and active relevant voluntary organisations operating on the ground and others.

Appendix 3: Protocols

Data protection principles

The Data Protection Principles as outlined in Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1988 are as follows:

Personal Data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless:

1. At least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and
2. In the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the Schedule 3 conditions is also met.

• Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose of those purposes.
• The purpose of obtaining data on racial incidents is or should enable these to be dealt with according to the law, and / or prevent future incidents.
• The data subject has the right under this principle not to have information about them disclosed to any person or organisation that is not mentioned to the Data Protection Commissioner as being entitled to receive it. So unless the victim / client gives consent to disclose information about their complaint to the Working Group members you cannot do so.
• Personal data shall be adequate and relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose for which they are processed.
• Personal data shall be accurate and where necessary kept up to date.
• Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary, kept up to date.
• Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept as long as is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.
• Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights if data subjects under this Act.
• Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of or damage to personal data.

Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area unless the country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data.

Security of data

Any data on cases (Victim / perpetrator details) should be secured by partners receiving / holding the information. The information should be kept in a lockable drawer or cabinet and should only be accessible to authorised staff involved in the case.

In the case of computerised data this should be guarded with passwords that are changed regularly.

Any information relating to the Working Group should be clearly marked “Private and Confidential”

Minimum standards

All member organisations of the Working Group will seek to adhere to the following minimum standards when investigating race hate crimes or ensuring that investigations are undertaken.

1. Recording and monitoring of race hate crime
Departments must ensure that they:

• Record each and every incident.
• Record incidents on a standard reporting form.
• Obtain the victims signed consent to liaise with other departments.
• Open a case file the moment the first allegation is made
• Monitor the progress of the case every ten days.
• Write to the client when the case is closed / or when no further action is intended and enclose a client satisfaction questionnaire.

2. Interviewing the victim
When interviewing victims it is essential that reporting officers:

• Identify a suitable room ensuring privacy in order to maintain confidentiality.
• Ensure language needs are met via interpreters (or interpreting services on the phone).
• Ensure that victims are treated sensitively.
• Agree an action plan with the victim following the first complaint.
• Confirm the action plan in writing to the victim the next day.

3. Statement taking
It is imperative that a detailed statement is taken from the victim. All statements must include the following details:

• Name /age / Ethnic origin of the victim.
• Address / tenure / How long the victim has lived in the property.
• Date and time when each incident occurred starting with the most recent one. (If the victim cannot recall the exact time take a specification)
• Each incident should be recorded in detail including (where possible) the exact words used by the perpetrator.
• Other relevant factors including the impact on the victim / family (e.g. their fears, effects on their health, their children’s schooling etc).
• The names and addresses of others present at the incident (s), including children.
• Details of the perpetrator(s) if known i.e. name and address.
• Whether or not the police have been informed. If they have, the details must be obtained of the police station and the officer handling the case as well as the date it was reported.

4. Preserving evidence

• Evidence, such as injuries to the person, damage to property or racist graffiti, should be photographed by the reporting officer.
• The reporting officer should take items of evidence into safe custody and facilities should exist for obtaining photographs where appropriate.
• Where photographs are taken they should be kept in an envelope together with the negatives and the envelope marked as follows: Date / photo taken where / taken by whom.

Appendix 4: Crime and disorder reduction partnership survey

An desktop survey has been carried out of strategies and targets within borough crime and disorder strategies. This has found that

• Most partnerships have included strategic objectives and targets for dealing with hate crime and harassment issues, a number specifically referring to race hate crime and racial harassment.
• Targets deal with a number of issues, commonly:
  • Reducing the level of incidence of race hate crime.
  • Reducing the incidence of repeat victimisation.
  • Increasing the level of reporting.
  • Increasing judicial disposal rates.
  • Achieving a parity in victim satisfaction in how race hate cases are dealt with compared to satisfaction with how other crimes are investigated.
• Not all boroughs have set quantitative targets. Where these exist on the above issues, they range from 5% to 20% improvements.
• A range of other aims and objectives have been set. These include:
  • Improving support to vulnerable victims;
  • Increasing the number of prosecutions and legal proceedings on the matter of race hate.
  • Promoting third party reporting.
  • Developing the use of anti-social behaviour orders and injunctions etc.
  • Increasing community confidence in the investigation of cases.
  • The need for greater awareness raising and prevention activity.
  • Setting up a hate crime database.
  • Fostering better multi-agency working, particularly around victim support.
• Race hate crime has increasingly featured in crime and disorder strategies (compared to the 1998-2002 round of strategies.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback