Gun crime scrutiny "revisit"

Report: 9c
Date: 4 November 2005
By: Clerk and Chief Executive

Summary

This report requests formal approval to reconvene the gun crime scrutiny to investigate the MPS response to rising gun crime incidents during 2005. It also puts forward a draft terms of reference for the review.

A. Recommendations

That Members approve the request to reconvene the gun crime scrutiny on the basis outlined below.

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1. The MPA carried out a scrutiny into gun crime during 2003. The final report was published in February 2004. The MPS has responded positively to the recommendations made and, as at March 2005, eleven of the seventeen recommendations had been fully implemented. However, it is clear from the performance information discussed at full authority meetings and planning performance and review committee in recent months, that performance against key gun crime related indicators is deteriorating. For example, in order to achieve the 4% reduction target in the 2005/06 policing plan, gun enabled crimes need to run at no more than 265 per month. This level has not been achieved since February 2005 [1]. It is also clear from these discussions that there have been changes to the victims and perpetrators involved in gun crime.

2. On this basis it is suggested that the gun crime scrutiny panel is reconvened to conduct a short review of what has been achieved since the scrutiny recommendations were published in February 2003, and what could be done to respond to the deterioration in performance.

3. The MPS has indicated that it would welcome the review.

Scope of the review programme

4. Clearly, any objectives will be subject to approval by the scrutiny panel and this committee. However, it is suggested that the terms of reference is focused on what has changed since the original scrutiny rather than revisiting all the areas covered in that review.

5. It is suggested that the review concentrates on the following objectives:

• Identifying trends in performance including in-depth analysis of performance information (perpetrator profiles age and ethnicity, weapon, location (trident v non trident boroughs) and incident locations (clubs, armed robbery etc), victims)
• The MPS response to trend analysis (TP and SCD, the role of Trident and other units) and any impact on intelligence processes and use of resources
• Partnership arrangements and the strategic response to gun crime.

Methodology

6. To date most of the scrutiny activity undertaken by the MPA has been comprehensive and has involved a programme of activity that has taken up to a year to complete. It is proposed that a different approach is taken to this ‘revisit’. It is suggested that a scrutiny panel is convened and meets no more than four times. This would include an initial meeting to agree the terms of reference, confirm who would be invited to give evidence and to task the scrutiny and review team. Two meetings would be used to hear evidence. It is suggested that these are held in quick succession. A final meeting should happen shortly afterwards to discuss report findings and any recommendations that are deemed necessary in response to the issues raised.

7. It is suggested that the timescale is as follows:

• Initial meeting Nov 2005
• Evidence hearings Jan 2006
• Report discussion Feb 2006

Scrutiny panel membership

8. The original scrutiny panel consisted of nine MPA members as follows: Cindy Butts (Chair), Reshard Auladin (Vice Chair), Jennette Arnold, Richard Barnes, Peter Herbert, Nicholas Long (withdrew due to other commitments), R. David Muir, Abdal Ullah, Rachel Whittaker.

9. In order to ensure some continuity, it is recommended that the original membership (excluding those who are no longer members of the Authority) should be invited to join the reconvened panel. If there is insufficient interest amongst this group, then the offer should be extended to the other members of the authority.

C. Race and equality impact

The original scrutiny set out to make contact with as many people as possible through the consultation process. Individuals and organisations from the community/faith sector were deliberately over-represented in the sample size and made up 65% of responses. The scrutiny identified that gun crime was an emerging problem for a growing number of communities in London and the expansion of Operation Trident was recommended as a result.

It is suggested that the themes identified in the original scrutiny are revisited during the trend analysis to ensure that any issues around disproportionality are identified and that if different communities than those identified in our original work are experiencing increased levels of gun crime, the MPS response can be challenged.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications to undertaking this project. Existing scrutiny and review team resources will be used.

E. Background papers

• MPA Gun Crime Scrutiny Feb 2003 (and update reports to MPA in Sept 04 and March 05)
• Corporate Performance Report PPRC Oct 2005

F. Contact details

Report author: Siobhan Coldwell, Head of Scrutiny and Review, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback