These recommendations relate to an independent investigation into contact between the Metropolitan Police Service and a woman and her daughter prior to their murders.
One tool used by the MPS to track the progress of open crimes is the Victim Codes of Practice (VCoP). The VCoP is essentially a record of when the victim of any reported crime was last contacted by an officer. At present, a successful contact includes a voicemail being left on a victim’s given phone number. However, there is no way of the police knowing whether or not the victim has heard a voicemail, or whether the alleged aggressor has accessed the voicemail. The IPCC recommends that a successful contact should, at the minimum, be recorded where an officer has managed to talk to the victim and verify their identity and welfare.
Yes
The MPS instructs officers as to their responsibilities through MPS policy statements and toolkits. Toolkits contain checklist guidance for frontline and their supervisors; they also contain other practical guidance in the form of question and answer documents, a useful resources section and further links to more information. The instructions in these toolkits have actions for officers to take, some of them are mandatory and some are for officer consideration should the situation demand it; these actions and their status are clearly set out within the checklist sections of the toolkit and where instruction sit within another part of toolkit, it clearly states when action must be taken, again, making the action mandatory.
The Victim and Witness Care Toolkit is currently being developed to provide mandatory actions and as such, a minimum standard when dealing with victims and witnesses of crime.
In the meantime TP Crime Policy will ensure that any current reference or action within any of its policy/toolkits with regard to VCOP is highlighted with the below text:
'Officers must ensure that, when contacting victims of crime, it is done via the preferred method (chosen by the victim). If that chosen method is via a telephone system, officers must ensure that they speak to the victim and not any other person (unless they are acting as a previously agreed representative). They must also ensure that the victim is able to speak freely without any risk of alerting a potential suspect (this is particularly relevant in domestic abuse cases). Officers must not leave a voicemail message or use an alternative method of communication (i.e. sending a text message to the preferred number). If it is not possible to speak with the victim on a particular occasion, then record your attempt showing the date and time on the CRIS DETS pages
During subject interviews it became obvious to the IPCC that there was a discrepancy between the level of detail police require when responding to an incident and the level of detail the control room feel necessary to include in the remarks of the CAD. The IPCC recommends that part of the training regarding relaying details to police officers attending incidents focuses the quality of this information, particularly where the information has come from a third party – for example stating explicitly how the incident location has ascertained in the remarks section of the CAD and gaining more detail from the informant about critical information if possible.
No
This recommendation is rejected – There is clear evidence in the report that had the national call handling protocol been applied fully and the operator used more diligent questioning of the third party, more information could have been recorded on the CAD. It is also recognised however that the first Police unit arrived on scene prior to the call completing. It is therefore difficult to establish if further information on CAD would have assisted officers at the scene. (Albeit the fact that they asked for additional information would indicate that it could have.)
The recommendation itself does not indicate how success will be measured and is therefore difficult to apply. However it is recognised that this is an opportunity for Met CC to review its process and share lessons learnt from this incident both within training and by communication with staff. This will be taken forward immediately by the Professional Standards Unit at Met CC.
During its investigation, the IPCC was unable to verify whether or not a specific Crime Report was discussed during andy of the Daily Intelligence Meetings Hackney Borough held. The IPCC recommends that at the bare minimum a list of the cases discussed during these meetings is recorded – ideally with actions and who they are assigned to.
Yes
The primary tool for Senior Management Team oversight of ongoing matters at local Borough level across the whole of the MPS area are the three times a day 'Pacesetter' meetings. These in turn are prepared for by the local subject area leads on each Borough holding their own pre-meets. The Local Intelligence Team will have a 'THOR' ('Threat, Harm, Opportunity, Risk') Daily Intelligence Meeting internally to decide what to take to the Pacesetters, and this will be documented on the 'THOR' document that the LIT will take to Pacesetters. This will include intelligence from the 'CRIMINT' (Criminal Intelligence) database, but will not ordinarily include risk from CRIS (the crime recording database), which should be brought to the Pacesetters by the relevant unit representative.
I understand that it is specifically the intelligence aspect that this recommendation addresses, and in relation to this I have directed :
- LIT supervisors to record in the Supervision page of the CRIMINT entry for the THOR document who chaired the meeting, who now owns the risk, and any further actions required of the LIT eg to develop the intelligence.
- All intelligence taken to Pacesetters to be flagged up as such with the status on CRIMINT.
I believe these measures together address the auditability and accountability concerns raised in this recommendation. If any actions come out of the subsequent Pacesetter meeting regarding any particular crimes, however, best practice dictates these should be recorded on the relevant CRIS so that they are auditable.
In summary, this is a positive recommendation regarding transparency in intelligence matters which we have immediately adopted. We leave issues relating to crimes, offender management, over night prisoners etc to be captured separately if need be in a Pacesetters document, managed by the Borough.
During its investigation the IPCC came to the conclusion that MPS Hackney borough Community Safety Unit was left understaffed following the implementation of the Local Policing Model. It is recommended that the MPS ensures that it has processes in place to consider resourcing of domestic violence units is adequate in light of demand levels and its responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
Yes
The MPS monitor staffing levels in all units across the organisation and demand is also monitored, this applies to CSUs. Recently the MPS uplifted numbers of officers in CSU's following a force wide review; this will be established as a regular process through the Domestic Abuse Diamond Group.
The Domestic Abuse training group is currently undertaking a scoping exercise of CSU's across London to identify any training gaps.