Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Domestic and Sexual Violence Board held on 4 December 2009 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Valerie Brasse, MPA
• Kirsten Hearn, MPA
• Anthony Wills, Standing Together
• Colin Fitzgerald, Respect
• Susan Crisp, GLA
• Elizabeth Harrison, Havens
• Jo Clarke, Havens
• Nicola Speechly, GOL

MPA

• Caroline Pidgeon, MPA Member
• Jenny Jones, MPA Member
• Siobhan Coldwell, MPA
• Lynne Abrams, MPA
• Despina Georgiou, MPA

MPS

• Cmdr Mark Simmons, MPS TPHQ
• D. Supt Darren Williams, MPS TPHQ
• DCS Caroline Bates, MPS SCD2
• DCI Mark Yexley, MPS SCD2
• D. Supt Jim Sirett, MPS SCD2
• DS Sharon Stratton, MPS TPHQ

Guest

• Insp. Mary Alston, LCJB

Apologies

• Marion Winterholler, Havens
• Yeliz Osman, GLA
• Cindy Butts, MPA
• Denise Marshall, Eaves
• Louise Smith, CPS

Borough Presentations on domestic and sexual violence

Lambeth

• Borough Commander Nick Ephgrave
• Detective Superintendant Jim Sirett
• DCI Mick Gallagher
• DI Tracey Sherman
• DV Coordinator Jade Holvey
• Inspector Neil Paton
• Anne Corbett, Lambeth Council Community Safety Manager

Southwark

• Borough Commander Wayne Chance
• DCI Julie Bidewell
• DI Sheila Annesley
• Detective Superintendant Jim Sirett
• Jonathon Toy, Southwark Council Community Safety Manager

Guests

• Susan Doran, MPA
• Erica Rolle, Hillingdon Dv Coordinator
• Desirée-Ann Brown, Children and Young People's Service, St Thomas
• Carole Macauley, Mozaic
• Yvonne Traynor, Rape Crisis
• Yvonne Abel, North Lambeth Recovery & Support Team
• Anju Cherry-Philips, Social Worker, Lambeth
• Derya Yildiri, Lambeth
• Anna Twomlow, South London Area Manager Victim Support
• Hazel Saunders, Lambeth Victim Support
• Sandra Anlin, Lambeth Domestic Violence Project Officer
• Idoya D'Cruze, Lambeth
• Nicola Sharp, Refuge
• Marai Larasi, Imkaan
• Fiona Stone, Government Office for London

1. Lambeth

1.1 Lambeth Borough Commander Nick Ephgrave (NE) thanked the chair for the invitation to attend the DSVB and explained that this is a very important subject for Lambeth. NE explained that how they deal with domestic violence (DV) and rape has changed since the introduction of SCD2 in September 2009. Jim Sirett (JS) added that Lambeth was unusually lucky in that the newly formed Sapphire (SCD2) Team was formed of the previous Sapphire team so relationships were already in place between MPS officers internally and with partner agencies such as CPS. Lambeth is also one of the few SCD2 teams which is responsible for a single borough. With regards to MARAC they have a good and robust relationship in their area which is chaired by Insp. Neil Paton (NP). The Local Authority strategic assessment which is on its third year has DV as one of its priorities. The borough provides specialist DV services; the Gaia centre in Brixton, projects for victims from South Asia, access to a Haven, and a Sanctuary scheme.NE advised that their strength is the partnership approach but do have areas for improvement; for example ‘honour’ based violence, and rising offending rates.

1.2 VB thanked NE and JS for their introduction and stated that what leapt out of the report was the quality and success of the local partnership. However, VB advised that looking at the stats there is a high proportion of cautions for DV. VB also advised that BOCU sexual offences Sanction Detection (SD) rate is quite low. NE explained that there are several factors involved with regards to higher cautions and advised that they operate a robust arrest policy but there are always difficulties with victims wanting to proceed with matters; it is better to have some outcome than none. With regards to BOCU sexual offences SD rate, NE explained that they are recently re-structuring how they look at this and that they have created a specialist team to deal with it.

1.3 AW asked whether cautions had been handed out more than once to a single offender. AW also queried the referral rate to the MARAC being between 20 and 30 cases per month, and queried the possibility of a fortnightly MARAC with this kind of volume. AW advised that he was also impressed with the partnerships on the borough. NE said that there should be no repeat cautions but on extreme circumstances where they would caution someone who has already been cautioned. With regards to MARAC they have seen numbers increase and have over 30 cases to review next month which they will require observations on how they will monitor that. Fortnightly meetings will take up a lot of time but they may look at extending the meetings they currently have.

1.4 Kirsten Hearn (KH) queried the recording of offences against disabled people. NE advised that they can’t give examples of individual cases but there appears to be an underreporting issue around disabled people. They have hired a disability officer who deals with this and who monitors and understands the disproportionality on underreporting. JS explained that for SCD2 this is part of their assessment process but these figures were produced before they started. They are currently undertaking a mapping exercise across 6 equality strands.

1.5 Elizabeth Harrison (EH) noted that incidents reported to Havens is considerably low. JS said that they have a box used to fill out which referrals if any an individual would like to accept. He realised the numbers are low but explained that some individuals don’t want to go to Havens. MY advised that there is a compliance issue around flagging referrals – they take place but are not recorded. CB advised that as from September there will be more reflective data on what is happening with Haven referrals from SCD2.

1.6 Karen Bailey (KB) stated that it was very worrying that individuals may not be given the option for a referral to Havens. JS said that Havens will not refer anyone who may be under the influence of alcohol, because they have to give consent to a medical examination. Question was also raised on whether there is a process on victim feedback. NE explained that a call back process is in place to understand how their services are being received. LA asked if victim comeback involves victims of DV. NE replied yes to this, but it was noted this was not replicated across the MPS and this may be an opportunity to explore better access to feedback from victims of domestic violence.

1.7 Nicola Sharp queried how they would improve their response in relation to ‘honour’ based violence (HBV). Lambeth stated they currently have a trainer who has recently been appointed in order to train officers on this subject, and it will be part of the Violence Against Women mapping pilot which will shortly take place on borough. It was accepted that the borough should have in place an HBV Action Plan and this is an area for improvement.

1.8 VB voiced her concerns over the resilience on going forward with issues in the future. NE explained that he is new in post but they have very strong leads in Lambeth and a robust structure and planning process; this is not based on personalities but on posts and there are still improvements to be made. They would like to see something on serious sexual offences in the future. However, the main current issue is with funding.

1.9 VB thanked Lambeth for the presentation and for attending, and stated they would receive a formal letter with the actions in due course.

2. Actions for Lambeth

2.1 Review possibility of fortnightly MARAC or extension of time in current MARAC and update with feedback from CAADA review

2.2 Develop ‘critical success factors’ for partnership working to be shared by TPHQ/SCD2 and DSVB AR as best practice guidelines

2.3 Lambeth and TPHQ – to explore the use of ‘quality call back’ in relation to DV and assess whether this could be expanded across the MPS

2.4 Explore the impact of the disability Liaison Officer

2.5 Update on whether the staff member cautioned for DV continues in employment with the BOCU or elsewhere in MPS

2.6 Update on the BOCU sexual offences unit and how this is functioning

2.7 Provide evidence that an HBV action plan has been developed as required by TPHQ and feedback on how this is being implemented

2.8 Update on whether an application for an SDVC has been successful

2.9 Update in the progress that the MPS has made in lobbying for integrating action against sexual violence into its partnership work, strategic targets and funding applications

2.10 Consider whether the successful preventative work currently undertaken in local schools could be expanded to include forms of sexual violence such as sexual bullying

2.11 Provide information on unsupported DV prosecutions and how Lambeth reduces attrition in these cases

2.12 Lynne Abrams – Lambeth stated there was an issue in relation to CPS that DSVB may be able to help with but this was not discussed – LA to identify issue and bring back to next DSVB for discussion.

3. Southwark

3.1 VB welcomed Southwark and thanked them for attending the session. Southwark Borough Commander Wayne Chance thanked the chair for inviting them to the meeting. WC explained that these crime issues were an absolute priority as Southwark borough has the highest volume of domestic violence and incidents in the MPS, so it is essential that they provide a victim focus and a robust response. Their main strength is on the high level of partnerships that they hold across domestic and sexual violence; the local forum looks at both crime types. A partnership operations group which looks at all the repeats to stop the MARAC becoming inundated. 80 different agencies meet up with the borough, discussing 6-8 cases every fortnight. The borough has 13 domestic violence advocates, and a sexual offences advocate. The borough also has a strong track record on HBV and is undertaking a project on Female Genital Mutilation. From the SCD2 perspective JS explained that like Lambeth, Southwark has a single unit for the whole borough, though in this case they have an entirely new team of individuals. The Sapphire Team has also worked with schools and safer neighbourhoods, as a notable concern is the number of under-16 year olds as both victims and perpetrators of sexual violence. WC noted that in terms of areas for improvement, they need to develop a relationship with harder to reach victims. The financial situation the borough face is also a challenge for them.

3.2 The number of Independent Domestic Violence Advocates (IDVAs) was queried, as well as whether they were all funded from Southwark alone or whether they accept referrals from Southwark but are funded elsewhere.

3.3 AW noted it is the only borough that has the level of referrals CAADA recommend and that it seems that they could do with getting more MARAC referrals. WC explained that MARAC is for those at serious risk of homicide and that they do not try to bulk up the numbers. Nicola Sharp stated that their IDVAs had had some difficulty in referring to MARAC. It was agreed this would be taken as an action outside of the meeting to resolve.

3.4 VB was concerned that no one had been trained specifically on child protection. It was accepted that this in an area for development. 25% of CSU officers are currently DV trained, and the courses needs to be booked a year in advance. Every officer who joins the CSU will have an induction which covers the main issues in relation to domestic abuse. VB asked how the assessments with regards to this are being carried out. DW said that child protection is being factored into CSU training and that they are continuously working with the crime academy to ensure that appropriate training is provided. MS explained that turnover of staff means it is difficult to keep up with training centrally, though it was agreed that a standard could be identified and boroughs should be meeting this. LA noted that even if courses need to be booked a year in advance, staff turnover dictates that there will be new staff coming in and they can make use of previously booked training courses.

3.5 KH asked how victim can feedback about their experiences. KH also asked about how language barriers are dealt with. JS advised that SCD2 aspire to have a questionnaire on feedback and victim care. CB advised that there is a system in place with regards to feedback which is delivered after cases. However, they are keen to get feedback on police and Havens earlier on when incidents occur. KH advised that she would like feedback on individuals with learning difficulties or disabilities that may discourage them from providing feedback. WC explained that the borough is having a focus group with victims.

3.6 Yvonne Traynor queried whether there is a handover system in place following the movement of staff to SCD2, and how victims are informed. WC advised that a system is in place and victims will be informed of changes.

3.7 Jo Clarke (JC) queried what support is in place for younger victims of sexual violence and what the borough is doing around SV. Sheila Annesley (SA) noted that schools have a big part to play and the Sexual Offences and Domestic Abuse (SODA) forum is the way to pull together a programme of work to tackle this. DW advised that victims of sexual violence don’t always recognise what is happening to them. WC advised that he is already aware of partnerships with schools and they have a good working relationship with the educational system.

3.8 VB asked what improvements have been made to the borough. WC explained that SCD2 continue to maintain a good relationship. Training has also been developed on ‘honour’-based violence so that officers gain a wider understanding. WC described that the borough is a far better place with CPS at the moment.

3.9 VB asked what learning has come out of the two homicide reviews. WC explained that recommendations that officers are compliant with the procedures. It is established in the induction pack before officers join. Response times significantly differ and it is important in identifying why these calls are important. DW gave a recent example in which there was a prompt, clear and well organised response made by everybody on the case of the domestic violence incident involving a child murder.

3.10 VB thanked Southwark for the presentation and for attending, and stated they would receive a formal letter with the actions in due course. VB advised that the next DSVB will be on the 2nd Feb 2010 where Barking & Dagenham and Haringey will be presenting.

4. Actions for Southwark:

4.1 Consider lowering threshold for MARAC applications

4.2 Lynne Abrams –contact Nicola Sharp, Refuge to explore further possibility of ‘gate keeping’ referrals to MARAC

4.3 Feedback on the FGM project mentioned in report

4.4 TPHQ – provide clarity on expectations on CSU staff training

4.5 Southwark to provide a plan to ensure that staff training meets the levels identified by TPHQ (as above)

4.6 Share best practice in relation to sexual violence and gang/SYV activity

4.7 Feedback on youth work as explored by SODA

4.8 Feedback on why with such a high arrest rate, the SD rate is not commensurately high

4.9 Feedback on best practice around dealing with HBV / FM

4.10 Confirm or otherwise that the 13 IDVAs referred to in the report are all funded from Southwark

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback