Criminal justice update

Report: 4
Date: 16 January 2007
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an update on the work being carried out by the Department of Criminal Justice with the ultimate aim of bringing more offences to justice.

A. Recommendation

That Members note the report.

B. Supporting information

National Strategy for Police Information Services Custody and Case Preparation (NSPIS CuCP)

1. Waltham Forest, Kingston and Tower Hamlets have all now gone live with NSPIS CuCP bringing the total boroughs across the MPS to four. The Case Preparation element of the NSPIS CuCP application has not been activated at Kingston at this time as Kingston Magistrates’ Court is a pilot site for the Libra court computer system and the electronic link required to connect NSPIS CuCP and Libra is not yet available (see also paragraph 3 below). The next borough to go live will be Greenwich on 6 February 2007 and thereafter boroughs will be taken live on a regular basis throughout the year except during main holiday periods.

2. Processes are well advanced with boroughs scheduled to go live up until September 2007 in order to prepare them for roll out. Engagement is planned with all remaining boroughs commencing 8 months prior to each go live date.

3. In order to provide an electronic link between NSPIS Case Preparation and magistrates courts (other than those served by the Thames Magistrates Court server) there is a reliance on the introduction of the new Libra magistrates court system. The roll out of Libra is significantly delayed and current indications are that full roll out across London may not recommence until May 2007 at the earliest. This may impact on the ability to roll out the full NSPIS CuCP application across London by 31 March 2008.

4. In view of this, the MPS NSPIS team is reviewing options for the deployment of NSPIS CuCP in the event that the Libra system is not available by April 2007 when all boroughs served by the Thames Magistrates Court server will have gone live with NSPIS CuCP. As part of this review, the MPS NSPIS team are working with representatives from CJIT, HMCS and the DCA to influence the roll out of the Libra application and the electronic link required to interface it to NSPIS CuCP.

Performance

OBTJ Target Setting 2007/08

5. Nationally, the OCJR is in the process of calculating offences brought to justice (OBTJ) targets for local criminal justice boards (LCJBs) for 2007/08. The London CJB has offered 190,103 OBTJs as a target for the next performance year. This is the figure for London as a whole and includes a proportion for the City of London Police and British Transport Police in London. This is a rise from 185,000 for this performance year (see details on Offences Brought to Justice below for current performance).

6. Once agreed this target will lead to the setting of Sanction Detection rates and bespoke borough OBTJ performance targets. The target needs to be viewed against an overall fall in crime in the Capital and therefore reduced OBTJ opportunities. It is expected that the OCJR will also set targets for the more serious crimes to increase the number of these that result in OBTJs. This complements the proposals for new sanction detection and OBTJ indicators in the Policing Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF) from April 2007.

Sanction detections

7. The overall Sanction Detection rate for the performance year to date (April -Oct 2006) is 20.4% against the target of 20%. The MPS has consistently met this target since June, with the monthly details as follows:

• April 06 the sanction detection rate was 17%
• May 06 it was 19%
• June 06 it was 21.4%
• July 06 it was 20.9%
• August 06 it was 22%
• September 06 it was 20.5%
• October 06 it was 22%

Offences Brought to Justice (OBTJ)

8. The OBTJ target for 2006/7 for London is 185,000. The MPS contribution has been agreed at 181,212 London (including British Transport Police and City of London Police) has achieved 116,290 for the performance Year to date (April-06 to October-06). This is 8,373 ahead of the target for this period. The MPS had 16,837 OBTJ in October 06 (monthly target 15,101), which gives 112,552 OBTJ for the PYTD. This is 6,852 ahead of the target for this period. These are broken down as follows for the performance year to date:

Persistent Young Offenders (PYO)

9. On 17 November, the London Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) held a multi-agency PYO masterclass specifically aimed at reducing the number of days taken to bring PYOs to sentence. This identified several areas in each agency for improvement. The MPS has highlighted the need to identify PYOs early and deal with them within robust timescales. The MPS is committed to meeting its 5 day Arrest to Charge target and then working with all other CJ agencies to meet the overall 71 days Arrest to Sentence target.

10. The MPS has been communicating this at all levels of the organisation and an enhanced PYO process and escalation plan are being implemented. Each borough has been provided with a PYO tracker document. PYO performance and problem solving is now an agenda item on MPS and criminal justice partners monthly meetings.

11. Current London Criminal Justice 3-month average performance between April to June 2006 was 81 days.

Current Trial management performance

12. The current trial performance data is as follows:

Charts detailing this information are available in Appendix 1

Emerald Warrants Management System (EWMS)

13. The MPS has already reached the 2006/07 target for reducing Fail to Appear (FTA) warrants to 8500. The MPS currently holds approximately 7500 FTA warrants. (Performance to the end of September is shown in the graph below, however this includes figures from City of London police)

Chart 1: Reduce the number of outstanding ‘Fail to Appear’ warrants by 15% compared to 8,500 based on Mar 06 outturn of 10,000 (see supporting material)

Asset Recovery

14. Currently, the volumes of confiscation orders are below target at 230 against a target of 250 but the value of the orders made are on target currently at £10.2m. The challenge is to increase knowledge of the criminal justice agencies around confiscation orders and increase the number of applications made. The Economic and Specialist crime directorate run a number of courses for police managers to improve knowledge. HMCS has joint presentations planned for the new year to find ways of increasing the number of orders made.

Chart 2a: Asset Recovery – volume of confiscation orders London HMCS 2006/07 (see supporting material)

Chart 2b: Asset Recovery – reduce O/S collectable balance to 25% for confiscation orders made under POCA 2002 (see supporting material)

Chart 2c: Asset Recovery – reduce number of collectable O/S orders over 12 months old by 35% (see supporting material)

15. The two charts (chart 2b and 2c) measure performance around reducing the number of outstanding collectable orders. Although the first chart (chart 2a) shows amber green for reduction of POCA orders there are concerns at the current performance we will not meet target.

16. The current performance at reducing o/s orders over 12 months old is also off target. Historically these have been HMCS specific targets. The LCJB recognizes the need for greater collaboration, and a cross agency enforcement team is to be introduced.

17. Performance against these targets will improve with its introduction in the New Year. An experienced Detective Sergeant has been selected to head it up and the selection process for the rest of the team is underway.

18. Regular meetings are now taking place with the courts and police to resolve all outstanding orders.

National Enforcement Service

19. The principal of NES is a National warrants management System that allocates all warrants according to the grade of the warrant and the risk posed by the offender. These are then enforced by the most appropriate agency.

20. The MPS along with representatives from other national criminal justice agencies have been involved in a number of workshops run by the NES project team looking at the business process and IT requirements from the users perspective.

21. A presentation will be made to the London Criminal Justice Board regarding the benefits and potential risks in January 2007.

Detections

Taken into consideration (TICs)

22. Performance on TICs continues to show a substantial improvement, a total of 2872 offences were Taken into Consideration during the months of September and October 2006.

23. The requested additional report, detailing how TICs are being used, whether it is legitimate use or not, and the integrity of the use of TICs is attached at Appendix 2.

Cannabis Warnings

24. A total of 16,472 warnings have been issued since the beginning of the performance year (April-Oct), with 27,677 being issued in the rolling 12 months period to the end of October 2006.

25. The requested additional report, detailing the use and proportionality of cannabis warnings is attached at Appendix 3.

Penalty notices for disorder (PNDs)

26. The use of PNDs continues to increase across the MPS. On the current data available (to end of Oct), 10866 PNDs have been issued resulting in 7,900 OBTJs.

Victim & Witness Care

27. The concept of Witness Care was reinforced by the ‘No Witness, No Justice’ Victim and Witness Care Project which had it’s final review and handover in July 2006. This concluded:

“All those involved with implementing and delivering witness care in London should be proud of what they have achieved so far. The final review has shown that victims and witnesses throughout London are getting a considerably enhanced service compared to the pre-witness care service. Major achievements highlighted by the review include the provision of information to victims and witnesses through a single point of contact and via their preferred means of contact; the consideration of victim and witness needs at the point of charge; and the strong awareness across agencies of their obligations under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime.”

28. In regard to Victim Focus Desks it went on to say:

“During the review the two national project managers undertook visits to the Victim Focused Desks at Lambeth and Southwark to briefly consider the progress being made against the initial business case. Both units were considered to be adding considerable value with additional contact being made with victims directly after the report of the crime and as soon as the case has been ‘screened in’ for further investigation. In Southwark support would also be given to victims whose cases were ‘screened out’, if a request was made to them.”

28. The Victim Focus Desk pilot sites at Southwark and Lambeth have identified several areas of good practice. The pilots showed that an enhanced service was established for victims and that providing them with a single contact number helped greatly alleviate the issue of being passed from unit to unit before finally getting an answer.

29. Internally, relationships were built with investigators increasing their knowledge of the Victim’s Code of Practice as well as the provision of victim care. Victim Focus Desks have become an integral part of the pilot site BOCUs.

30. Partnerships were formed with local Victim Support Services who in turn were able to provide additional services such as a lock-fitting scheme. One pilot site had good links with the local Elder Care project to which victims of artifice burglaries were referred.

31. Lessons learned from the pilot sites are being addressed within the planning for MPS wide rollout. The training design will address any skills issues as well as ensuring knowledge requirements of the Code of Practice and victim care is of the highest standard.

32. Local contact directories will be drafted and maintained to ensure VFDs are aware of local support services and the important role they play with victim care and keeping people engaged.

33. The pilots identified poor areas of Victim Code compliance recording on CRIS. After further consultation, this has led to further changes being made to the CRIS software, which has in turn improved the accuracy of performance monitoring.

34. It is anticipated that utilising PCSOs in this role will further enhance and develop the role of the PCSO & encourage greater links between Safer Neighbourhoods allowing targeted visits to more vulnerable victims and problem areas within the community.

35. Work continues towards a London wide rollout of Victim Focus Desks. Collaboration between Emerald and MPS training will ensure a comprehensive and sustainable training package is developed for Victim Focus Desk PCSO.

36. Procedures are being put in place to ensure Safer Neighbourhood teams are not left under resourced, by the implementation of the Victim Focus Desks.

Integrated Prosecution Teams (IPTs)

37. The structure of Integrated Prosecution Teams has been agreed between the MPS and CPS, with CPS staff being located in police stations and taking on the role currently performed by MPS crime case clerks, enabling MPS case clerks to be redeployed as Case Builders in Case Progression Units (CPUs) or within a Post-Prosecution support function. Employment of Case Builders, together with enhanced quality assurance within CPUs, will lead to the improved quality of case papers and less remedial work being required, allowing for swift progression of the file through the criminal justice system.

38. Accommodation has now been identified at Hackney and Waltham Forest that appears to be suitable for CPS staff to be re-located to. Property Services Directorate (PSD) is involved with their CPS counterparts in agreeing this utilisation of MPS premises and arranging licensing agreements.

39. It is anticipated that IPTs will be piloted in the three Boroughs of Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Hackney from January 2007, with a view to full rollout across the MPS starting in April 2007.

40. A job description has been completed for those crime case clerks within CJUs who will be released by the integration process to work alongside police officers in Case Progression Units as Case Builders.

41. A training course is being developed to train those CJU staff who will be redeployed as Case Builders. Training will be delivered by the new Central London Training Unit.

42. IPTs will also enable the MPS to provide additional resilience in a Post-Prosecution function in relation to aspects such as timeliness relating to CICA claims, Impending Prosecutions on the PNC, and compliance with Records Management Branch policy concerning the archiving of case papers. This latter will serve to provide resilience in relation to issues arising from the Bichard Enquiry. Job descriptions for this Post Prosecution function are being completed.

43. Work is underway with MPS Consultancy with regard to identifying appropriate staffing levels in the Case Progression Units and the Post-Prosecution Teams in comparison to the demand on each Borough. This work will also identify the savings on each Borough that may be anticipated.

LCJB update

Virtual Courts

44. The purpose of this initiative is to allow speedy disposal of first court hearings, subsequent to guilty plea, and sentencing. The initial proposal is to install live video links between sixteen custody suites in police stations and one magistrate’s court. This could deliver significant economies in court time due to the high proportion of defendants charged who plead guilty on first appearance.

45. The Virtual Courts (VC) Project Team has now begun the detailed planning stage, building on the consultation already begun with key stakeholders.

46. Extensive work is currently in progress to identify potential police pathfinder sites. All 24/7 custody sites (53 in total) have been visited and comprehensive data obtained. This data is currently being analysed. The analysis along with a number of other important factors such as infrastructure availability and cluster suitability will be used to group police custody sites to help maximize any operating hours of the Virtual Court.

Abbreviations

CPUs

Case Progression units

EWMS

Emerald Warrant Management System

IPTs

Integrated Prosecution Teams

LCJBs

local criminal justice boards

NSPIS CuCP

National Strategy for Police Information Services Custody and Case Preparation

NES

National Enforcement Service

OBTJ

Offences Bought to Justice

PNDs

Penalty Notices for Disorder

PYO

Persistent Young Offenders

TICS

Taken into consideration

C. Race and equality impact

There are no race and diversity implications other than those already highlighted within Appendix 2, in regard to Cannabis Warnings. RADAG, chaired by Lee Jasper, is aware and has asked for further work, which has been commissioned by SCD.

D. Financial implications

There are implications in regard to NSPIS, Asset Recovery, NES, VFDs, IPTs and Virtual Courts. Each of these initiatives is to secure greater effectiveness and efficiency. Each has benefits to be realized, making them cost neutral or indeed capable of generating savings. Where this is not the case they are self-financing or funded otherwise than by the MPA.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Chief Superintendent George Clarke, Territorial Policing, MPS

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 2

Offences Taken into Consideration (TICs)

How they are being used, whether it is legitimate use or not. Detailing the integrity of the use of TICs.

In 1978, Lord Diplock made the following observation:

"The laudable object of the practice is to give a convicted offender the opportunity when he has served his sentence with a clean sheet and not be arrested at the prison gates for some other offence which he committed before the particular offence which was the cause of his conviction…..... If justice is to be done it is essential that the practice should not be followed except with the express and unequivocal assent of the offender himself”
(DPP v Anderson)

It is the Policy of the Metropolitan Police Service to use all legitimate and ethical means to ensure detainees admit to all offences they have committed. If these are like offences to those charged it might be appropriate to have them taken into consideration at a subsequent court hearing. The introduction of Sanction Detection and Offences Brought To Justice targets by the Home Office have emphasized the need to consider all possible opportunities to link individuals to other crimes. Offences that have been previously reported to police, count as a TIC for SD and OBTJ purposes, when a suspect admits to that offence and signs a schedule that is then put before a court. On those occasions where the offence admitted has not been previously reported to police, these will also be counted as an SD and OBTJ, provided that, in additional to the suspect signing a schedule of offences, the victim confirms that the offence occurred. In both cases, the sufficiency of evidence provision applies.

The MPS TIC Policy recommends intervention at the point of arrest and interview, thereby giving offenders the opportunity to ‘Wipe-The-Slate-Clean’ of any crimes that they are willing to admit to, rather than risk their involvement being discovered at a later date, resulting in production from prison, or a ‘gate-arrest’ upon release from sentence. All police actions taken in consequence of this process are done in compliance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, in particular Articles 5, 6, 8 and 14.

The interview for the primary offence is brought to a close when police have properly concluded that no purpose will be served by continuing. The investigating officer will then decide whether a ‘TIC Warning’ is appropriate. In making these decisions the OIC will initially consider whether the suspect has admitted their involvement in the primary offence, whether there is sufficient evidence to consider a charge and that the suspect has been given sufficient opportunity to talk about the primary offence. The OIC will then consider if the suspect is suspected of committing further offences and whether the suspect’s legal representative has been informed that the police may consider other offences being put before the court to be taken into consideration. Provided that these conditions apply then it is not necessary for the interview to be halted so that the person can be charged, as PACE permits a delay whilst other offences are being investigated. The investigating officer will then continue with the TIC procedure.

The encouragement to offenders to admit offences as TICs are:

• May assist with pre-sentencing reports to show those really wishing to start afresh.
• They do not count for a second or third conviction on the three strikes and out process. (Crime Sentencing Act)
• It provides an increased chance of getting onto a Rehabilitation program due to criminality.
• It is not Metropolitan Police policy to clear offences from serving offenders by prison visits (PSVs).
• Forensic evidence may become available some time later making them liable to further arrest
• The MPS will actively pursue all offences that are discovered and will arrest and charge offenders on release if appropriate.

The integrity of the recording process and the admissions in obtaining TICs by police is constantly monitored throughout the judicial process by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts. Additionally the MPS is subject to a number of internal and external audits by the HMIC and the MPS Data Accuracy Team. It is worth noting that the HMIC are about to complete the third year of a three year national process in auditing all types of sanction detections. In 2006, due to the volume of our crime, the HMIC elected to examine Brent BOCU as a fair representation of MPS performance. This Audit gave the overall detections grading as “Fair”. The 2007 Audit will be conducted across the MPS and will focus on particular types of Sanction Detections, of which TICs will be included.

The MPS policy and standard operating procedures for ‘Detections & Case Disposal’ are currently being rationalized from a number of diverse policies and SOPs into one definitive document that details all types of detections and case disposal options. The section on TICs will draw upon potential improvements that have been identified.

Cannabis Warnings

The use and proportionality of cannabis warnings

This report details the current use and proportionality of Cannabis Warnings in accordance with the MPS Cannabis Enforcement policy. The Policy was implemented on the 29th January 2004 upon the reclassification of Cannabis from a Class B to a Class C controlled drug. The purpose of this policy was to establish clear guidance and accountability ensuring that the least amount of policing time possible is spent dealing with a drug of lesser classification. It is designed to ensure the integrity of offenders and police officers and allow the identification of an offence, seizure of an unlawful substance and case disposal in situ, without the need to arrest or recourse to a supervisor.

A comprehensive report has been completed by the MPS Drugs Directorate with regard to the compliance with the policy and which assessed the use and proportionality of Cannabis Warnings. The full report was presented to the recent Race and Diversity Action Group meeting, which is a sub-group of the London Criminal Justice Board. This report is available through the MPS FOIA Website. Under the new Equalities Scheme monitoring reports on priority policies will now be published annually and not quarterly.

The total amount of cannabis warnings issued for this performance year (April – October 2006) is currently 16,472 with a monthly average of approximately 2,350. The distribution of total numbers issued is consistent with the crime profiles of the relevant Boroughs.

It is important to note that there have been a number of changes in the way cannabis detections have been recorded since the implementation of the Policy. Until October 2005, all street warnings for cannabis possession were recorded on CRIS as ‘Other’ detections. In October 2005 CRIS introduced a new set of ‘clear up’ codes and street warnings for cannabis have since been recorded as formal warnings whilst figures in the ‘Other’ category now only reflect those detections authorised as a clear up, which are not street warnings.

The most recent data from the Drugs Directorate report covers the period of April 2005 – January 2006. During this period a total of 24,916 persons were accused of cannabis possession, an increase of 2,771 over 10 months when compared with the previous financial year.

• Figures available indicate 16,639 (67%) people were dealt with in the ‘Other’ or Formal Warning categories. In the 4-month period from October 05 to January 06, 7960 people received street warnings. If this figure is extrapolated back to the beginning of April 05, it is a reasonable assumption that the majority of those 16,639 people were dealt with by means of a street warning and were therefore not arrested. 4,149 people were cautioned (17%) and 3,784 were charged (15%). 109 were dealt with by summons, or an offence being taken into consideration with other offences (TIC). 235 were dealt with by non-judicial means, other than street warnings.
• When broken down by gender 23,591 (94.9%) offenders were male gender (0.1%)and 1,299 (5%) female. 26 persons accused were of unspecified
• In relation to age(s) the three youngest groups make up 71% of the total persons accused of a cannabis offence: 10-17 years 3,436 (14%), 18-21 years 9,231 (37%) and 22-25 years 4,891 (20%)
• The five boroughs recording the majority of cannabis offences to date (Mar 05 – Jan 06) are Westminster (2,411), followed by Brent (1,873), Lambeth (1,820), Southwark (1,461) and Hackney (1,234)
• Three ethnic groups make up 91% of the total persons accused of cannabis possession: White European 9,477 (38%), African/Caribbean 9,925 (40%) and Indian/Pakistani 3,260 (13%)
• The analysis indicates that in the two highest offending categories by ethnicity; cautions have been administered to 1,837 White Europeans and 1,411 African/Caribbean persons. However, 1,844 African/Caribbean persons have been charged compared to 1,331 White European persons.

Analysis of figures available for the period April 2004 – January 2006 indicate 47,061 persons have been dealt with during that time for possession of cannabis. There has been a steady increase over that period in the number of people accused of cannabis possession. However, the policy on enforcement appears to be successful. Approximately 65% of people accused of cannabis possession have been dealt with by means of street warnings. The number of street warnings issued is indicative of the number of people who would otherwise have been arrested had this policy not been in place. As the majority of people accused of cannabis possession are young adults, the policy will have had a positive effect in reducing friction between young people and police, thereby improving public/police relations. In addition, it has undoubtedly been beneficial in terms of the number of officer hours which have been freed up to deal with Class A and Class B controlled drugs and other priority policing concerns as a result of the issue of street warnings rather than arrest. This represents significant financial savings in terms of officers’ time and prosecution costs.

The initial figures would appear to indicate that in relation to the make up of the ethnic population within the MPS, there is an over representation of African/Caribbean people being dealt with for cannabis possession and of those people, a higher percentage appear to be dealt with by means of charge rather than caution, when compared with White Europeans, who represent the other highest offending ethnic group. However, similar figures feature in the Criminal Justice System, in prisons and in Stop and Account/Search data. The Impact Assessment of the policy accepts that although disproportionality as a result of stop and search may exist, the chance of arrest resulting from the discovery of cannabis should significantly reduce. This does not, however, take into account more complex issues that may lead to arrest and the implementation of formal disposal options, such as cautions and charges. For instance, previous offending history, discovery of cannabis after arrest for another offence, whether admissions are made in interview, ‘ no comment’ interviews (preventing consideration of a caution), etc are but a few factors that would have to be properly evaluated in order to provide a reliable explanation for the results of the initial analysis featured in this report. It should be noted, however, that the remit of this policy is how to deal with someone initially found in possession of cannabis, not which disposal option to proceed with after arrest, which as previously mentioned can be influenced by other factors. An even more complex issue relates to the social demographics of the various boroughs. Whilst it is accepted that the elementary analysis used to compile this report suggests disproportionality in terms of the number of persons accused and charged within the African/Caribbean community, it must be stressed further in-depth analysis is necessary before the apparent disproportionality is used to suggest anything untoward in implementation of the policy. The Drugs Directorate have initiated this analysis and will be reporting on its findings to the LCJB – RADAG sub group.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback