Barking and Dagenham update

Report: 1a
Report for the Domestic and Sexual Violence Board
Date: 29 September 2010
By

Actions From MPA Domestic and Sexual Violence Board 2 February 2010

Introduction

On 2 February 2010 Barking and Dagenham BOCU were invited to present their report to the MPA DV and SV board. As a result of this, various actions were generated for the BOCU which are addressed below.

Action 1 - Conduct a scoping exercise of the proportion of sexual violence within the borough which takes place within a domestic violence relationship. Any actions taken to tackle this should also be included.

Currently 29% of sexual violence investigated by SCD2(6) is flagged as Domestic Violence. Analysis of this is being undertaken centrally at SCD2 to ensure that this data is accurate.

Action to tackle this links back to the DV Strategy for the Borough. Support and advocacy for the victims to empower and reduce risk. SCD2(6) are members of the MARAC and ensure that high risk victims are referred there through the IDVAS. The supervision model of such crimes ensure that opportunities for unsupported prosecutions are incorporated in any investigative plan.

Action 2 - Feedback to the DSVB on the possibility of appointing an ISVA

The tender process has just been finalised and a new contract is being awarded to the new provider (Refuge) of IDVA’s for Barking & Dagenham Borough. The provision of an ISVA has been included as part of that contract and all posts should be filled by October/November of this year.

Action 3 - 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

TP Violent Crime Directorate are currently looking at the Lambeth model for obtaining victim feedback to assess its suitability for use across the MPS. The VCD needs to ensure that any model implemented has the safety of the victim and any children at its centre and needs to incorporate a full risk assessment and management system.

Barking and Dagenham have expressed an interest in the results of Lambeth’s work via TPHQ and would be keen to implement a safe system of obtaining feedback from DV victims, with a view to improve performance and service delivery.

Barking and Dagenham CSU await the results of the Lambeth pilot and the VCD assessment and evaluation before implementing any local feedback process.

Action 4 - Provide data on the number of repeat cautions for domestic violence on the borough.

See Appendix 1

Action 5 - Robustly review compliance with VCOP in relation to sexual violence and report back any improvements on VCOP.

Current performance on VCOP compliance in SCD2(6) investigations of serious sexual violence is 80%.

Action 6 - 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.

Critical Success Factors on Successful Engagement and Partnership Work with the NHS in relation to DV:

• Offer to be a pilot - The Barking and Dagenham offered itself, and was chosen as the London NHS regional demonstration site for health based domestic violence initiatives. This brought in resources and support to deliver the pilot. Once it was successful the resources were mainstreamed within the PCT budget.
• Have a lead officer – The PCT identified and funded a DV Strategic Implementation Lead officer within the PCT/NHS to lead and strategically drive the DV agenda within health settings. This ensured the health impacts of DV were highlighted with partners and health professionals e.g. GP’s, health visitors, modern matrons, school nurses etc and these staff groups were made aware of the health impact of DV and specialist borough service provision available. Previously DV may have been seen by health professionals as just a police issue.

This strategic lead is the local MARAC vice chair and is one of two advisors to the borough DV Strategic Board contributing to delivery of the borough DV Strategy 2008-2011 action plan and reporting to the Community Safety Partnership.

As MARAC vice chair, the NHS DV Strategic lead developed NHS MARAC referral procedures with briefings for NHS staff to assist them to understand MARAC and its processes and to ensure safety and well being of residents disclosing DV to health professionals.

The strategic lead also works very closely with the local authority DV & Hate Crime Manager to delivery the DV Strategy and action plan and joint reports are made tot eh DV Strategic Group and Community Safety Partnership.

These two officers work jointly on DV and VAWG initiatives and share priority areas of work including commissioning of a new IDVA service, contract monitoring of services (including DVIP, Womens Trust, GP’s etc).

• Get DV into the JSNA – Data from all partners, including the MPS, was given to officers completing the Health Joint Strategic Needs Assessment. Estimates of the cost of DV crime, including health costs were included. This ensured the very high volume of DV in Barking and Dagenham and its health impact, was at the forefront when decisions about health priorities for the Borough were made.
• Get DV into the Health and Well-Being Strategy – As a result of the JSNA DV became one of the 10 priorities in the Health and Well-Being Strategy for the Borough. This brought additional resource e.g. further funding to expand current IDVA Service provision for a Maternity based IDVA Service in Queens Hospital and King Georges Hospital.
  DV training is also included for health staff as a Community Safety Partnership priority.
• Joint direction between NHS, Police and local authority for localised publicity and events (White Ribbon Day etc).

Barking & Dagenham would like to thank the following people for their help and support with this process:

Diane Augustin - Street Pastors
Allison Buchanan - DV & Hate Crime Manager
Shelley Hart - Victim Support Manager

Appendix 1

Report outlining issue of second cautions for DV flagged offences between October 2008 - October 2009

A total of six offenders were identified by TP HQ research as having been issued a second caution. The cases were as follows:

Suspect A

ABH June 09

Suspect admitted recklessness by waving arms around and catching victim during a domestic argument. No previous convictions, a simple caution was authorised.

The second report is a duplicate of the first. This appears to have been caused by a classification change of the initial report to one of rape, a second report was then created before the class was changed back.

Suspect B

Common Assault x 2 November 09

Suspect is alleged to have hit victim around head before making off after verbal argument. Victim was unwilling to make a statement. Suspect was not initially arrested. Victim stated he would contact police should he receive contact from suspect. On 23/11/09 another call was made where victim and suspect made fresh allegations against each other. Victim was arrested and cautioned for his part - common assault. Suspect was arrested later by appointment, she admitted her part in the matters, one caution administered for assault. Victim did not wish to substantiate any allegation, no statement given therefore a simple caution was administered for both allegations.

Suspect C

Harassment x2 April 09

On going harassment between ex-partners. Suspect was not initially arrested, victim obtained a non-molestation order. Suspect later arrested having been invited to victims home after an injunction had been served. Suspect admitted offences.

Later caution refers to the breach of the non-molestation order.
Suspect received one caution as the breach was instigated by the victim inviting him around to her address.

Suspect D

Common Assault August 09

Suspect arrested after assaulting mother and sister whilst high on drugs. Statements refused. Victim admitted his actions showed remorse, believed acute mental health problems caused by drug mis-use. Simple caution authorised.

Criminal Damage October 09

Suspect alleged to have been fighting with his father, police were called victim did not wish for police action, refused to make a statement. Positive action taken suspect arrested interviewed - fully admitted his actions. Caution administered.

Suspect E

Criminal Damage June 09

Suspect attended ex-partners address at her request. Whilst there an argument ensued, this resulted in a table being broken, a statement was taken from victims brother but he gave a false name. There was a dispute over damage caused, the suspect admitted breaking a socket but stated a glass table was smashed when he fell through it fighting with victims brother.
Caution administered.

Harassment June 09

Suspect sent insulting messages via facebook to victim, she refused to assist in attending court. Suspect arrested admitted offence thus a simple caution authorised.

Suspect F

Criminal Damage February 09

Victim (mother) allowed son (Suspect) to use her computer, when she told him to stop he punched the screen. Suspect arrested, admitted reckless damage. Caution authorised.

ABH June 09

Suspect invited to victims address (despite non-molestation order in place) during a play fight victim was fallen upon, she became annoyed- suspect tried to apologise but whilst trying to pull a door open it caught victims head. Suspect was arrested he admitted being reckless and received a caution.

From these short summaries it can be deduced that Suspect A received only one caution although there are two reports.

Suspect B received two cautions for the two minor assaults as her partner refused to make a statement agreeing to attend court. The assaults were committed within days of each other and dealt with at the same time.

Suspect C received a caution for harassment as the original offence, the breach of non-molestation order was encompassed in this.

Suspect D received two cautions, one for assault one for criminal damage. Different victims, although all are within the same family group. No victims/witnesses were willing to attend court or assist police.

Suspect E received one caution for criminal damage, his account differed from a witness who proved un-reliable having lied about his credentials. A second caution was authorised for harassment where Suspect E admitted his actions but the victim was unwilling to provide an account or attend court.

Suspect F was given a caution for damaging his mothers computer and another for reckless assault on his ex-partner, different offences, different victims. 

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback