« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter 7 Emerging Issues
7.1 Unco-operative Complainers
Officers in the majority of forces made similar comment regarding the recording of crime from unco-operative complainers, who refused to assist the police in any way to investigate the crime regarding which they were victims. With the introduction of the SCRS, police are more frequently recording these incidents, often in the face of reluctance and on occasion open hostility. By far the most common situation arises in assault crimes (but also in relation to crimes of indecency) where the victim will frequently refuse even to provide a statement to the police. An indication of the level of this problem is illustrated in the following sample figures showing the percentage of unco-operative complainers in serious assaults.
Serious Assaults April 2004 - March 2005
| No. Serious Assault | No. Unco-operative | % Unco-operative |
|---|
Fife Constabulary | 184 | 16 | 9 |
|---|
Lothian & Borders Police | 695 | 53 | 7.6 |
|---|
Strathclyde Police "A" Division | 641 | 71 | 11 |
|---|
The police have a duty to investigate these incidents, particularly where more serious crimes are involved. This frequently involves a substantial amount of police time, with little prospect of detecting the crime or presenting the case at court due to the victim's refusal to give evidence.
As a result of developments in the SCRS, Scottish forces now have markers on their crime management systems that allow unco-operative complainers to be highlighted. The inclusion of a subcategory in published statistics highlighting the percentage of unco-operative complainers would provide a more accurate picture of police performance in investigating crime. This subcategory would be most effectively applied to serious crimes in Group 1 (Violence against the person) and Group 2 (Crimes of indecency).
Recommendation 11
HMIC recommends that ACPOS engages with the Scottish Executive to assess the suitability of publishing a subcategory of unco-operative complainers in statistical returns in relation to Group 1 and 2 crimes.
7.2 Definition of Serious Assault
Serious crimes of violence feature prominently in the public's concern about criminality. At present all Scottish police forces are working to a standard definition of serious assault, namely:
"Victim sustains an injury resulting in detention in hospital as an in-patient or any of the following injuries whether or not he was detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushing, severe cuts or lacerations or severe general shock requiring medical treatment."
Through interviews with crime managers and focus groups in all Scottish forces it became apparent that this definition left considerable room for individual interpretation and application, particularly in relation to "severe cuts or lacerations" where there were no other attendant circumstances. Individual interpretations of this ranged from 1 stitch to 10 stitches. This anomaly has the ability to make a substantial impact on the most closely observed crime statistic of serious and violent crime by either diverting crimes into the common assault bracket or artificially increasing serious assault figures by moving crimes in the opposite direction.
Recommendation 12
HMIC recommends ACPOS engages with the Scottish Executive and Crown Office in pursuing a clearer definition of serious assault to standardise the classification and recording of this crime within Scottish forces.
7.3 Non-Investigation Policy
Part of the aim at the outset of the SCRS was to:
"Provide a victim orientated approach that serves the need of our communities."
During focus groups and visits to forces, repeated evidence of a major unintended consequence of the introduction of the Standard which compromises this objective emerged. Numerous officers provided anecdotal evidence of the requirement of the Standard to record all incidents as crimes, where a crime was established in Scots law, having a major effect on the victims of crime who, whilst cooperating fully with the police, request that the police do nothing to investigate the matter. All forces appear to investigate all incidents, irrespective of the wishes of the complainer. On many occasions, the investigation of less serious crimes, often without the prospect of detection, has led to a disproportionate effect on the complainer, sometimes through ostracism or intimidation for involving the police within their community. The consequences in some occasions have had community ramifications and have severely impacted on personal relations between the complainer and police. There is, at present, no policy in any force in Scotland giving advice or support to officers or managers confronted with this situation. The principles of the SCRS indicate that a crime must be recorded and in the majority of occasions complainers fully support this official record of their incident but, to consider fully their needs, forces must contemplate breaking the link between the need to record and the need to investigate.
The Ministry of Defence Police has reflected on a complainer's wish for the police not to investigate and in its crime management document it includes a policy on this: "Where a victim does not wish a crime investigated, the officer, in deciding whether or not to pursue the investigation, must have regard to the safety of the victim, public safety and public interest."
HMIC identifies this policy as good practice, allowing the wishes of the victim to be balanced with the public safety and public interest. Its use, however, must be tightly controlled and not allowed to become an excuse for inappropriate non-investigation. Where a crime is not investigated on the wishes of the victim, the reasons for so doing must be fully recorded and auditable. The victim must also be made aware that, should the incident reoccur or be linked to other offences, the matter could be reopened for further investigation. To prevent the abuse of such a policy the decision not to investigate must be made by a supervisory officer with an overall view of crime in the area or division. Whilst it is not possible to be prescriptive as to the person to fill this role it is suggested that it be of at least crime manager or Detective Inspector level. In the case of community sensitive incidents, consultation may need to take place at a more senior level.
Recommendation 13
HMIC recommends that ACPOS considers the introduction of a policy that makes provision for the non investigation of crime based on the wishes of the complainer balanced with public safety and public interest issues.
7.4 Airport Crime
Since the introduction of the SCRS some anomalies have emerged in relation to the recording of crime at Scottish airports. The most common scenario results when a passenger returns home from holiday abroad and discovers luggage missing. Where subsequent investigation by the airline fails to recover the luggage a complaint of theft is then taken. The locus of the theft is usually indeterminable. To address this crime correctly forces must ensure sufficient investigation is carried out at the airport of arrival to assess the potential for the crime to be committed there. Where the crime is more likely to have occurred at the airport of departure, details of the crime should be forwarded to the appropriate force or country for further investigation and no crimed on the receiving force's crime system. HMIC welcomes recent efforts by the Scottish Crime Registrars Group to standardise procedures throughout the UK in this regard.
However, flights from outwith the UK are also involved and at present, the recording system allows for ownership of the crime to be fudged in relation to thefts as described. This is a substantial crime area and would seem at present to provide the potential for an ineffective police response. The problem extends into the freight area and can involve high value loads. Lack of effective police intervention could allow crime to flourish and become increasingly organised due to the potential gains for those involved.
Recommendation 14
HMIC recommends that ACPOS pursues with ACPO the introduction of a standard policy for recording and investigating airport crime with a view to extending such a policy across European states and beyond.
7.5 Bureaucracy
The introduction of the SCRS has added another layer of bureaucracy to the policing function. The requirement for quality assurance of all crime related incidents at disposal stage, a second level of quality control at debrief stage and a further level at crime management stage, coupled with a local audit and a central audit places a potentially cumbersome burden on individual officers, supervisors and area commands respectively. The added bureaucracy can be justified if it achieves a standardised crime recording system across Scotland which provides improved quality in crime management. The auditing process, however, whilst essential at this early stage to identify problem areas and incorrect application of the Standard, can be progressively scaled down once it is properly established. The intention should be, in common with forces in England and Wales, to apply a light touch dip sample audit in future years, once forces demonstrate their internal processes are sufficiently robust to enable trust in the system. This should ensure no subsequent slippage.
The overall goal, as in common with many other areas of policing is to develop a culture of quality that ensures the attitude of "get it right first time". If this goal is achieved the additional bureaucracy introduced by the SCRS in the long term should be minimal.
7.6 Discretion
The most often repeated complaint of supervisors and senior management to HMIC was the effect the SCRS has had on the police officer's discretion. Many officers felt that their ability to use their discretion had been almost completely removed as a consequence of the SCRS. Many gave examples of situations where they felt compelled to record crimes, often against the wishes of people who did not wish to tie up valuable police resources with minor incidents. Officers felt that the consequence of the introduction of the SCRS was additional time spent recording and investigating less serious matters. This was said to have the effect of allowing them less time to concentrate on priorities such as local problems or targeted patrol.
Many officers were unsure of how to apply the Standard in complex situations and reflected that it was easier to raise a crime report, and, in so doing, prevent criticism from supervisors, than to take the decision not to. Younger officers often routinely attended minor acts of disturbance and felt compelled to apprehend offenders rather than issue warnings due to the fear of being criticised by supervisors over their course of action at the time or the potential for actions to be examined during a subsequent audit of command and control incidents. This position is supported by statistics which have shown a dramatic increase in common assaults and crimes of disorder across Scotland. Consultation with Crown Office has also revealed an increase in cases which would not normally have been reported prior to the introduction of the Standard.
It is important to consider fully the principles of the Standard and the attendant advice given during training that states:
"officers can still exercise discretion particularly at minor acts of disorder where the offenders desist."
Discretion is an important tool available to a police officer. It enables the officer to police within the accepted norms of the community served. Police officers are trained to apply discretion subject to the circumstances in which they find themselves to ensure a successful outcome. This may involve returning to deal with an incident in a more formal way at a later time or simply dealing with the incident by way of a warning and not reporting it for consideration of prosecution. For police officers to act in a mechanistic way without applying thought and balance to their actions would do the Scottish police a major disservice and have the potential to alienate them from the communities they serve. HMIC reflected in its annual report in 1973 that "even the most junior constable patrolling alone is a decision maker". Whilst policing has moved on immeasurably in many respects in the subsequent years, such a fundamental philosophy of policing is still valid and should be at the core of the activities of police officers today.
An interview with a member of a police board during force inspection visits reflected on this particular issue. He commented that he felt officers were prevented from using discretion, as much as the public would like, stating:
"It is important to allow officers to exercise discretion, they must not be frightened to make decisions at the time. Discretion is still an important part of policing."
However, discretion is essentially subjective and every officer applies it differently, sometimes due to individual beliefs and attitudes. It is, therefore, important that training for SCRS deals directly with this issue. The introduction of a Scotland wide training video would provide a medium for examining particular common scenarios, where officers are, at present, experiencing difficulty in making decisions. A training programme applying this common message would help equip officers better to apply discretion in their duties.
However, even with the application of discretion, the inevitable consequence of the SCRS is the increased reporting of minor offences to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscals Service ( COPFS). Such an increase places additional demands on the criminal justice system. It also reinforces officer concerns about the SCRS preventing them from completing key tasks due to the requirement to submit paperwork.
HMIC identified Fife Constabulary's Adult Warning Scheme and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's Minor and Trivial Offences Protocol as good practice. These protocols agreed in conjunction with the area Procurators Fiscal allow for specified crimes and offenders to be dealt with by way of warning rather than a police report. The incident is still recorded as a detected crime for statistical purposes but prevents the unnecessary criminalising of persons involved in minor acts. The incidents are held on the offender's record at Scottish Criminal Records Office as a temporary retention for a period of six months should the person reoffend but are thereafter removed from their record.
Both schemes, whilst allowing a correct application of the SCRS at the initial stage, minimise the subsequent bureaucracy involved in reporting the incident. Additionally, they also reduce the administrative burden on other parts of the criminal justice system, where otherwise, a case would be processed, with the likelihood of no proceedings being taken, involving wasted effort.
These schemes have arisen out of the McInnes report and the joint ACPOS/ COPFS protocol on reporting and practice, which makes provision for Procurators Fiscal to make local agreements with police forces regarding the diversion of certain categories of offences and offenders from the criminal justice system. This process allows the individuals to be dealt with by way of warnings administered by the police or to become involved in restorative justice projects. HMIC fully supports the use of local arrangements which assist in prioritising effort towards effective outcomes.
Consultation with the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration ( SCRA) revealed that there has been only a small increase in cases marked as no further action by the Reporter to the Children's Panel since the introduction of the SCRS. The SCRA is satisfied that the existing police warning schemes and diversionary options available to deal with juvenile offenders in instances of minor offences have minimised the need to mark cases as no action. This would appear to reinforce the effectiveness of warning schemes and lend support to their introduction across Scotland for adults.
« Previous | Contents | Next »