Minutes

Minutes of the meeting of the Domestic and Sexual Violence Board held on 2 February 2010 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, London, SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Valerie Brasse, MPA
• Kirsten Hearn, MPA
• Elizabeth Harrison, Havens
• Jo Clarke, Havens
• Nicola Speechly, GOL
• Louise Smith, CPS
• Yeliz Osman, GLA
• Sophie Davies, Victim Support
• Denise Marshall, Eaves
• Davina James-Hanman GLDVP
• Natalie Ker Watson, Victim Support
• Yvonne Traynor, Rape Crisis
• Joanne McCartney, MPA link Member

MPA

• Lynne Abrams, MPA
• Despina Georgiou, MPA

MPS

• DCS Darren Williams VCD
• DCS Caroline Bates, MPS SCD2
• Det. Supt. Gerry Campbell
• A/DI Anthea Richards VCD CSU

Haringey

• Borough Commander Dave Grant
• Dt. Supt Paul Hoare
• DI Steve Dryden
• DI Ralph Coates
• DCI Kevin Fitzgerald, SCD2
• DI Dan Smith, SCD2

Barking & Dagenham

• Borough Commander Matt Bell
• DI Patrick Spark
• DCI Kevin Fitzgerald, SCD2
• DI Tim Wilkinson, SCD2
• Cllr. Alexander LBBD
• Glynis Rogers LBBD
• Allison Buchanon, LBBD

Guest

• IDI Peter Hokinson, Lewisham
• Kellie Williams, Lewisham Community Safety Team
• Nisan Kesete, Eaves
• Foluke Ajayi, Poplar HARCA
• Caitriona Scanlan, Camden
• DCI Simon Cunneen, Lewisham
• Shelley Hart, Victim Support
• Jan Buss, nia project
• Marjha Golding
• Heike Zentner
• Diane Kelly, Haringey Womens Aid
• Nazmun Choudhury, Haringey Womens Aid
• Karen Baker, Haringey Womens Aid
• Anat Toffell, Solace
• Ch/Supt Jeremy Burton
• Minu Patel, Haringey DV Coordinator
• Louise Choppy, Victim Support
• Dianne Augustine Street Pastors
• Mohammed Adamu, Drive
• Brenden Leib, Intern at GOL
• Sonia Wilson, Regional Community Safety Advisor

Apologies

• Anthony Wills, Standing together
• Marion Winterholler, Havens

1. Borough of Haringey

1.1 KH welcomed Haringey to the meeting, introductions were made and housekeeping arrangements explained.

1.2 Dave Grant (DG) explained that Haringey sits in the heart of North London. They have approximately 227,000 registered individuals. They ranked as 5th most deprived borough in London and have a substantial level of domestic violence incidences. They also have problems around childcare; a perfect example is that of the baby Peter incident. The borough is now planning to have a multi-agency safeguarding team in the future. DG explained that the borough does have emerging communities, including a number of groups that meet up to use their services, for example, the bi-lingual service that is currently being offered and the borough working with the Somali community also. DG explained that the borough is struggling with Sanction Detections however they will be on target at the end of this year.

1.3 Kevin Fitzgerald (KF) provided an overview of the process of setting up the brigaded team which covers both Haringey and Enfield. In addition to recruitment problems, there has been a 30% increase in reported incidences, and a number of offences involving younger people.

1.4 Denise Marshall (DM) raised a question regarding young people and gangs. She also asked what the borough is doing in working with younger people and trafficking in Haringey. DG explained that they did have gang violence, and had to respond creatively. They brought in parents to explain what they were doing and showed them exchanges on facebook. Meetings will occur on a regular basis to make improvements on engagement and to stop crime and anti-social behaviour. DG explained that they are aware of at least 500 gang members active in the area. However, the borough has seen a reduction in gang violence since beginning this programme.

1.5 VB stated that responding to an unforeseen 30% increase in serious sexual assault must be a considerable strain and asked how SCD2 is coping. KF explained that they are coping but with an incredible amount of effort. The unit has up to 130 live cases that they are currently dealing with, split between two boroughs. They have recognised the need to adjust their resources and make a bid for more people across the command. VB asked if there were any SCD2 cases on borough, CB stated there were not.

1.6 VB advised that the issue around child protection is very important and getting the first assessment right is essential. The lack of training of officers was therefore a concern. DG explained that 400 learning packs were disseminated to officers about child protection and domestic violence. He requires all reports from officers to be fully completed in relation to child protection concerns. He noted that Haringey is unique in that it has a (Child Abuse Investigation Team) CAIT for the borough.

1.7 Natalie Ker Watson (NKW) said that compliance with the victim code of practice was very good; however, there was not much on where the borough is linking in for support services to ensure people are offered full support. KF advised that they do keep in touch with victims once a week but the success can be dependent on victims wishing to stay on contact.

1.8 EH asked how the borough links in with Haringey council on support services and what funding is currently available for ISVAs. Dan Smith (DS) stated this was an area that he needed to explore further, and that engaging with local services was a priority in the coming months.

1.9 Davina James-Hanman (DJH) questioned access to interpreters and IDVAs. DG noted that like all boroughs they use a central system so any access problems would not be borough specific. He agreed that the funding for IDVAs was concern, but that all areas were in difficult financial circumstances and they would hope to maintain the same level of service provision. VB queried the lack of data on unsupported prosecutions. DG stated they had trouble accessing this from CPS but the number was likely to be very low.

1.10 DM questioned feedback form figures and asked why there is not any feedback being provided. KF explained that the feedback form for SCD2 is still in the negotiations stage. CB stated that due to legal issues about disclosure, feedback forms should be given at the conclusion stage of the investigation only but would like to get feedback sooner. Colin Fitzgerald (CF) queried whether there was a child sex exploitation sub-group or any kind of mapping exercise to ascertain the level? DG stated that this is not in place in the borough and the intelligence they hold on this does suggest that the volume would warrant such a sub-group.

1.11 Nicola Speechly (NS) queried the MARAC data, 30 cases per meeting. DJH noted that the numbers appeared to show that the IDVAs would each have 180 cases per year. DI Coates stated the 30 per month included new cases as well as those carried over from the previous month. DJH stated this is not what CAADA guidance would suggest. DI Coates stated he would seek clarification.

1.12 KH said that there was not much on recording LGBT. DM advised that the borough hasn’t focused on it as much as other areas. In some respects they are ahead of the game and in others they are not. It will be 2 years till they will be able to get to the required level on child-safeguarding. Getting people to come forward also seems to be an issue.

1.13 LA explained that the borough will be receiving a formal letter with comments and actions. KH thanked them for their presentation and attendance.

Actions were for Haringey to:

• (SCD2) To explore ways of integrating engagement and partnership working with existing structures, especially in relation to dealing with volume of sexual violence amongst young people.
•  Provide the data requested in the Commissioning Brief on the number of unsupported DV prosecutions. If these are low, to contact Barking & Dagenham to explore their practice as they had a relatively high number of unsupported prosecutions.
•  (BOCU) To explore options for LGBT reporting including third party reporting and better partnership working with LGBT service delivery organisations within the voluntary and community sector.
•  (SCD2) To ensure that feedback forms are being provided to victims upon closure of the case, and include the number of forms provided in the follow-up report.
•  Provide an exploration of the high volume of MARAC cases, taking onto consideration CAADA guidance on IDVA caseloads and referral/ re-referral processes.
•  Provide an overview of the process for accessing interpreters and information on how frequently there is difficulty in accessing them and the impact of this on victims and the criminal justice process, if any. The MPA DSVB Members would be happy to follow this up at Full Authority or in another formal arena should pan-London issues be identified.

2. Barking & Dagenham

2.1 Borough Commander Matt Bell (MB) explained Barking & Dagenham was a unique borough in a number of ways. For example, approximately half of reported violence is domestic violence, though you would expect to see a quarter. Sexual violence within abuse relationships is particularly underreported. The vision is to work in strategic profile & lead improvement across Violence against Women. The borough is also developing relationships with that of schools and colleges, and currently exploring the option of an ISVA for the borough.

2.2 KF explained that from the perspective of SCD2 the advantage of Barking and Dagenham was that the team was already in place before they went live. The borough had a brigaded investigation team with a neighbouring borough. KF explained that they have some very high profile & difficult inquiries and are doing well despite this.

2.3 Yvonne Traynor (YT) asked if the borough have a protocol on refusing victims to recovery services when cases have not been investigated. However, TW advised that the borough do not have a protocol. They have six SOITs who are highly motivated. He explained that they do have the confidence on referrals that have been made. TW explained that the ethos of SCD2 is about managing risk and looking after the victims.

2.4 EH advised that sexual violence was not included as a borough priority and asked whether they intend to invest in an ISVA. Glynis Rodgers (GR) noted that the partnership was exploring this issue currently. MB explained that they are looking at funding and whether that money should be spent on ISVAs, as the borough currently have 7 IDVAs. The focus is on domestic Violence because of extreme circumstances that they find in the borough. MB advised that there are links between sexual & domestic violence and it is recognising those links to tackle the issues head on.

2.5 VB noted that with regards to the borough dealing with poor performances on sexual violence, Barking and Dagenham was amongst one of the worst across the MPS, and that if they had been performing well in relation to sexual violence then it would have been more acceptable to make sexual violence less of a priority. MB agreed, and KF noted that this is something the borough feels that they need to work further on. DJH stated sexual violence does not have to be a priority to make changes, or develop services.

2.6 Natalie Ker Watson (NKW) noted that the compliance with VCOP reduced in relation to victims of sexual violence. Tim Wilkinson (TW) responded that this had been noted as an area for improvement and was for SCD2 Sergeants, as supervisors to take forward.

2.7 Members commended the volume of unsupported prosecutions. VB said that the volume of cautions at 54% of the overall Sanction Detection rate seems high and asked how many perpetrators have been warned more than once. MB said that in terms of cautions he would prefer people to be charged where possible. Things that they consider when charging are: the gravity of the offence, history of the perpetrator and number of repeat cautions. There was concern noted by DM at the caution for a brothel owner.

2.8 MARAC agencies and referrals were queried. GR advised that they undertook a strategic health assessment, noted data on how domestic violence affected children, as well as data on drug and alcohol abuse and hospital admissions. As a result of this a health and wellbeing strategy for the borough, and worked hard to get domestic abuse identified as a priority. There is now IDVA support available in maternity wards.

2.9 The borough underwent a trial whereby they had an Officer, a Paramedic and IDVA on a response car on Friday and Saturday nights, entitled the DIVERT programme. However the car was often abstracted to other duties and the pilot did not have the intended effect of immediate medical intervention, support, and police response that it had intended to. Newham had more success with a similar project, however. It was noted that the theory behind it was a good one and it may be that there is a different way if implementing it.

2.10 Sophie Davies (SD) said she was pleased to hear about the IDVA capacity of 7, but would also like to hear about the provision for lower risk victims and male victims. The borough also has multi agency teams who have been trained in DV, not relying solely on the advocates. Alison Buchanon (AB) explained that all cases are referred to Victim Support, who are able to provide support to male victims but are currently without a case worker in that capacity. It was noted that over a year ago the borough had a discussion with Victim Support on who would take which cases, where it was agreed that IDVAs will deal with high risk cases and Victim Support will deal with lower risk cases.

2.11 A question was raised on girls and gangs. Dianne Augustine (DA) advised that the borough started a pilot scheme in May having individuals mentoring students who found barriers in learning. They mentored some girls involved in gang and other violence for 12 weeks and found that there were issues related to domestic violence, though often unrecognised as such by the girls. The borough found that providing information and different activities their situations improved and the girls moved away from that lifestyle. Shelley Hart from Victim Support advised that they go into schools from ages 8-18 to discuss domestic violence, crime and becoming victims of crime and knife culture.

2.12 LA explained that the borough will be receiving a formal letter with comments and actions. KH thanked them for their presentation and attendance.

Actions were for Barking and Dagenham to:

• Conduct a scoping exercise of the proportion of sexual violence within the borough which takes place within a domestic violence relationship [1]. Any actions taken to tackle this should also be included.
• Feedback to the DSVB on the possibility of appointing an ISVA.
• Feedback to the DSVB on discussions with TPHQ and Lambeth to assess whether B&D can adopt Lambeth’s technique for accessing feedback from victims of domestic violence.
• Provide data on the number of repeat cautions for domestic violence on the borough.
• Robustly review compliance with VCOP in relation to sexual violence and report back any improvements on VCOP.
• Produce ‘Critical Success Factors’ in relation to any procedure, process or best practice on successful engagement and partnership work with NHS in the field of domestic violence.
  

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback