The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

THE AIM OF THE STANDARD AND A SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. In February 2003, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland ( ACPOS) established a short life working group whose work led to the introduction, in April 2004, of the Scottish Crime Recording Standard ( SCRS, or the Standard).

2. The Standard incorporates the following aim and principles:

Aim

To provide a more victim-orientated approach that serves the needs of our communities and ensures uniformity in crime recording standards throughout Scotland.

Principles

All reports of incidents, whether crime-related or not, will result in the creation of a report which is auditable.

Following initial registration, an incident will be recorded as a crime in all cases if:

• the circumstances amount to a crime or offence as defined by Scots Law, and
• there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

Once recorded, a crime will remain recorded unless there is credible evidence to disprove that a crime has occurred.

3.HMICS makes five recommendations in this report that are intended to support the above aim and principles. Forces may wish to work together through the ACPOS Crime Business Area to deliver these recommendations. We, however, will continue to review the arrangements of individual forces.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: That forces review current processes to assist the Scottish Crime Registrars Group ( SCRG) in implementing and managing change, with a view to cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy and streamlining the decision-making process.

Recommendation 2: That, in order to resolve unnecessary inconsistencies identified by force crime registrars ( FCRs), the Scottish Government should undertake an urgent review into the suitability of its counting rules for crime recording, in consultation with ACPOS, the SCRG and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS).

Recommendation 3: That forces and the SCRG review the current ad hoc arrangements for SCRS training with the aim of securing, within specified timescales, a standardised, national approach from the Scottish Police Services Authority ( SPSA).

Recommendation 4: That, without delay, forces work together to finalise a policy to standardise the identification of crimes that do not require further or full investigation.

Recommendation 5: That, in order to achieve greater transparency and consistency within the audit regime, forces agree to co-ordinate individual force crime audits through the SCRG so that each audit is scrutinised by a crime registrar from a neighbouring force. On an annual basis HMICS will dip-sample crime audits across all forces, including British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police.

Introduction

4. This report is intended to stimulate improvement and contribute to the continuing debate about how the police in Scotland record crime and related matters. The inspection was carried out by Chief Inspector Malcolm MacCormick (on secondment from Strathclyde Police) and Ms Lorraine Ramsay (on secondment from Fife Constabulary), directed by the Assistant Inspector of Constabulary, Malcolm R Dickson QPM. This inspection is also one of the first of a new, more concise thematic style that allows us to focus on a wider range of issues than was previously possible. It is anticipated that the main body of this report will be of interest to all readers, while the annexes containing evidence and good practice should be of use to those responding to our findings. Interested parties are welcome to contact us regarding any aspect of this report or to obtain further detail.

5. For many reasons, police recorded crime figures do not mirror the level of criminality in society. However, the level of crime recorded by police ought at the very least to reflect that which is reported to them. In Scotland a common standard for achieving this, known as the Scottish Crime Recording Standard ( SCRS), was introduced in April 2004.

6. The basic principle behind the SCRS is that all reports of incidents, whether crime-related or not, should result in an auditable report being created. The incident should be recorded as a crime in all cases where the victim, or any other person, perceives that a crime has occurred. There is no requirement for corroborative evidence before a crime record is created. Moreover, a crime should be recorded if, on the balance of probabilities, one has occurred, assuming that there is no credible evidence to the contrary and where the circumstances amount to a crime as defined by Scots Law. By adhering to these principles it was anticipated that the Standard would be more sensitive to victims' needs and bring uniformity to crime recording across Scotland.

7. In 2005 we conducted our first inspection of the SCRS, in order to assess its impact a year after it had been introduced. At that time we found significant improvement in how police forces and individual officers recorded crime, but also noted that further work was required. Progress against the recommendations of that report is considered in Annex A.

8. Since 2005, we have carried out individual crime audits in each of the eight Scottish police forces. Considered together, these audits showed that the level of recording of so called 'low-level' crimes, such as vandalism, and minor assault, had increased significantly since 2004, as expected. However, there was still considerable room for improvement when it came to consistent application of the Standard. Having accurate crime data is important at every level of policing and contributes to:

• providing individual services to victims,
• managing investigations,
• understanding the nature of volume crime (crime incidence as intelligence),
• deploying police staff efficiently,
• working with partners to seek to reduce crime, and
• performance management.

9. As mentioned above, part of the remit of this current thematic was to review the progress made by the police service in Scotland in addressing the recommendations contained within our 2005 report. Thereafter we considered the current status of the SCRS in Scottish forces. Our methodology included consulting focus groups of operational officers, police staff and supervisors. As a result of these two elements of our inspection, we have made five recommendations aimed at reinforcing the Standard.

KEY ISSUES

The Scottish Crime Registrars Group

10. In our 2005 thematic we highlighted the pivotal role of force crime registrars in applying the Scottish Crime Recording Standard. While the registrar post-holders were instrumental in determining how the Standard was applied within force, they also played a key role nationally as members of the Scottish Crime Registrars Group ( SCRG). The group consists of the eight force registrars, as well as representatives from British Transport Police, the Ministry of Defence Police and the Justice Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government. It is chaired, in the absence of the ACPOS Lead officer, by the group secretary, with the role of group secretary rotating annually between the registrars.

11. We were pleased to note that, despite having a relatively large membership and meeting every two months, continuity in attendance rates had improved markedly over the previous year. Nevertheless, concern remained that the registrar acting as secretary to the Group was expected to perform these duties with little or no support, in addition to working full-time to implement the Standard in his or her force. The additional pressure that this undoubtedly puts on the post-holder is a matter that forces should address. Ideally ACPOS could provide a chief officer lead who is able to attend more regularly and to drive the progress that this report seeks.

"The SCRG is ineffective, not pushing things forward. We need to reinvent the Group, make it more focused, driving SCRS." - a crime registrar

12. While the problem of meeting attendance had been resolved, force crime registrars were concerned with how the Group tackled changes in policy and strategy. In particular, many FCRs intimated that the current set-up could be overly bureaucratic, leading to duplication of effort and slowing down the decision-making process. It was suggested that a useful starting-point for tackling this situation would be to review how changes to policy and strategy are managed. For instance, there had been occasions when, having agreed a change to an existing process, the SCRG had notified the ACPOS lead who, through the ACPOS Crime Business Area, had in turn sought force opinions on the proposed amendment. The forces had then forwarded the matter on to their FCRs, requesting their comments on the very proposal they had been involved in producing. As a result, the SCRG was at times party to a convoluted bureaucratic system that added little or no value to the end product.

13. We recognise that some changes may affect other ACPOS business areas, and that consultation with forces is sometimes necessary. Nevertheless, we feel that, where there are clear-cut issues relating specifically to the Standard, the decision-making process should be more focused and more expedient. We note that the appointment of a National Crime Registrar in England and Wales has led to a more effective approach to managing change there.

Recommendation 1: HMICS recommends that forces review current processes to assist the Scottish Crime Registrars Group ( SCRG) in implementing and managing change, with a view to cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy and streamlining the decision-making process.

Ownership of the Counting Rules

"The Standard is not the problem: it is the counting rules. We require counting rules that actually make sense so that the statistics and information provided is meaningful." - a crime registrar

14. Crime recording is evidently highly dependent on existing recording practices and counting conventions. In England and Wales, the Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime were re-written to take account of the introduction in 2002 of the National Crime Recording Standard ( NCRS). The Counting Rules were produced by the Research Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office, in consultation with forces, representatives of ACPO, HMIC for England and Wales, and the Crown Prosecution Service. Revised annually, they, along with the introduction of a force crime registrars' network and a sustained auditing programme, have contributed to a greatly improved standard of crime recording.

15. The situation in Scotland is more challenging. Scottish police forces have traditionally recorded crimes and offences reported to them in accordance with counting rules issued by the Scottish Government. However, during our inspection force crime registrars voiced anxiety about counting rule inconsistencies that predated the implementation of SCRS but which had not been resolved. Indeed, all the registrars we consulted expressed some apprehension about the impact of these inconsistencies, particularly those that resulted from:

• the impact of different force IT systems on how crime is counted, and
• how the counting rules are applied across the various crime groups.

16.HMICS accepts that convergence of all force IT systems is planned although this may take some years to achieve. This report and its findings underline the value of that development. There is no sense at all in different IT systems being used across the eight forces when those differences unintentionally contribute to discrepancies in crime recording.

17. In England and Wales there is a clear commitment by the Home Office to drive the development of the NCRS, through regular review of the counting rules coupled with the oversight of a National Crime Registrar. In Scotland the Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government has recently identified that greater consistency and national oversight may also be necessary here and is considering how this might be achieved, recognising that it may not be easy to reconcile all stakeholders' views and needs.

18. On the other hand the advent of and improved adherence to the SCRS has certainly enabled the police service in Scotland to capture much more of the criminal behaviour which concerns people in every community. This is a real positive change and will ultimately result in better understanding within the service and its partners of the nature and extent of reported crime in Scotland. But it does mean that our picture of recorded crime now more than ever differs slightly from the charges presented to courts. This is because police recorded crime properly accepts the victim's perspective while what is presented to the court must take a wider perspective and also concentrate on what has the greatest chance of being proved. Procurators fiscal ( PF) must always have the freedom to prefer whatever charges they believe are most appropriate in the individual circumstances reported to them by police. Occasionally this can differ from the way that the crime(s) or offences(s) in question have been recorded by the police in accordance with counting rules, but that in itself need not be problematic. Open and regular dialogue across force and PF boundaries in a national forum would help to minimise any unnecessary confusion.

19. This inspection found that force crime registrars unanimously believe that a review of the counting rules by all the key stakeholders, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS), is long overdue. HMICS concurs with this view and commends all stakeholders to work towards agreeing solutions which best suit each of their purposes and at least seek to standardise common interpretations of crimes and offences across the country and between police forces and procurators fiscal, where this is possible.

Recommendation 2: HMICS recommends that, in order to resolve unnecessary inconsistencies identified by force crime registrars, the Scottish Government should undertake an urgent review into the suitability of its counting rules for crime recording, in consultation with ACPOS, the SCRG and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS).

Training

"If you don't train people properly, you don't get the service" - shift sergeant

20. In 2004, initial staff training for SCRS consisted in the main of an adapted generic national training package. In our 2005 thematic we observed that only limited evaluation of the training had been carried out. The results indicated that not all staff had been trained, and that for some their only exposure to the principles of SCRS had been by word of mouth. In particular the report raised concerns about the following:

• the absence of follow-up training,
• the lack of consistency in police staff training,
• the paucity of input to probationers, and
• the lack of training for force crime registrars and other specialist roles connected with the SCRS process.

21. On the basis of these shortcomings, our Meeting the Standard report recommended (recommendation 2) that ACPOS work with the Scottish Police College to develop a standardised approach to SCRS training. However, evidence from both our fieldwork and focus groups in this inspection would suggest that the national picture has changed little in the last two years. Indeed, for some aspects it could be argued that the situation has deteriorated, given the length of time since initial SCRS training and the lack of progress in addressing the points highlighted above. The following considers each of the points raised in our 2005 report in turn:

• Only in Grampian Police was there evidence of a force-wide refresher training programme. Nationally, most officers spoken with could not recall the content of their initial SCRS training input, and relied instead on advice from colleagues, supervisors and staff whose work regularly brought them into contact with the Standard. Moreover, it was established that, with the exception of Central Scotland Police, forces did not train supervisors in the principles of SCRS or in their role in ensuring compliance with the Standard. This is of particular concern in the case of newly promoted sergeants.
• Alarmingly, we found that some police staff who were dealing with victims of crime, including those with call management or front desk responsibilities, had never received SCRS training. Conversely some forces, such as Lothian and Borders Police, had made sure that Force Communications Centre ( FCC) staff had been on an SCRS training course.
• Perhaps most disappointing of all, we noted that the SCRS was not on the probationary training curriculum at the Scottish Police College (nor was the Standard taught at any other level there). Only one force, Fife Constabulary, trained probationary constables in the principles of SCRS. That said, some other forces intimated that they intended to review their in-house probationer course with a view to incorporating training on the Standard.
• Finally, we noted both the continued absence of specialist training for force crime registrars and their deputies, and the views of registrars on the unsuitability of the Home Office training course.

22. Force crime registrars were greatly concerned that these major shortcomings in the SCRS training regime had led to a lack of understanding of the Standard, at all levels. For many, this lack of knowledge was judged to have undermined the very foundations of the Standard and had unintended consequences on officer discretion and crime investigation (considered later in this report). We believe that a national review of SCRS training is urgently needed. While a training DVD had been commissioned some years ago, production problems meant that the project had taken over two years to near completion and, indeed, had still not been concluded at the time of our inspection.

Recommendation 3: HMICS recommends that forces and the SCRG review the current ad hoc arrangements for SCRS training with the aim of securing, within specified timescales, a standardised, national approach from the Scottish Police Services Authority.

Investigation of Crime

"We are tasked to death in crime file completion" - a constable on core shifts

23. The victim-orientated approach of the SCRS essentially removes any idea that the victim must provide conclusive evidence that a crime has been committed before it can be recorded. Furthermore, by introducing greater uniformity to the process, the Standard aims to enhance public confidence in the police service and its response to matters of crime. Achieving this has entailed a necessary and proper diminution in the discretion of individual officers when initially recording a crime. It should not, however, affect the same officer or others exercising discretion in any action taken thereafter. Unfortunately however, our inspection found that organisational and individual misunderstanding appeared to be doing just this.

24. For the last three years some members of the Scottish service have been reportedly uneasy about the potentially inhibiting influence of the SCRS on the latitude for discretion in recording crime. This has since been overshadowed by disquiet about the level of discretion actually, or perceived to be, allowed when deciding on the level of investigation to apply to even the most trivial of crimes. We believe that these issues are inextricably linked and have indeed become confused. For a more detailed commentary on discretion in recording, see Annex B.

25. For many in our focus groups, the main impact of SCRS was not necessarily that it made the process of initially recording a crime more efficient. Rather, mismanagement of the Standard appears to have perpetuated the belief that certain actions should always be taken before any crime file/report could be closed. This was what created greater inefficiency. For many officers, the volume of crime to be investigated and the depth of investigation apparently required, irrespective of the severity of the crime, adversely affected both the service they could provide and their morale. This was especially true of forces where centralised crime enquiry units had not yet been developed to deal with certain high volume crimes.

26. It is clear that the police service has a professional and an ethical duty to record crime accurately. As part of this responsibility, Scottish forces have been striving to provide a more victim-orientated approach. Nevertheless, just as in 2005, the Standard was being compromised by the misperception that all crime must be equally and fully investigated. For instance, some forces still investigated crime irrespective of the contrary wishes of the complainer. We take this opportunity to remind the Service and interested parties that, with the level of recorded crime being faced today, it is impossible for forces to apply the same level of investigation to all crime - indeed it would be dishonest to suggest that this is being achieved and inefficient to try to do so.

"It's the trivia that ties cops up, every single incident that hits crime file has got to be investigated to the nth degree" - a community policing constable

27. To avoid any doubt, we offer the following advice to the public and stakeholders, as much as to the police service itself: crimes should always be recorded, but need not always be fully investigated. For some crime types, for instance where the circumstances amount to a domestic or racist incident, or where there are threats of or actual harm to individuals, to public safety or to the community interest, an investigation must take place. In instances where there are no such considerations, there are other criteria that need to be taken into account: the wishes of the complainer; the likelihood of detecting the offender or recovering property; the prevalence of that particular crime in the neighbourhood, and so on.

28. Some forces had introduced systems which allowed investigatory work and resources to be targeted on priority areas only. All forces should now have crime management systems that can select specific actions from a menu of options so that, where further investigation is called for, the response is tailored to suit the crime.

29. Although the investigations sub-committee of ACPOS was considering a 'non-investigation' policy at the time of our inspection, we were disappointed that it had taken over two years to respond to what was one of the key recommendations of our Meeting the Standard report (recommendation 13). This delay has had an impact on the public and the Service, undermining public confidence and resulting in inefficient and ineffective use of police time. It is therefore recommended that this recommendation be addressed as a matter of priority and that an alternative label to the misleading term of 'non-investigation' be found. ( HMICS accepts that this usage was included in its own 2005 report, but now considers it an unhelpful term since some investigation is at least and inevitably conducted at the time an initial report of a crime is recorded, if only in the questioning which elicits that report.)

30. This single development has the potential to free up much unnecessary use of police time so that it can be diverted to matters of settled priority - whether related to crime or other community problems. Further delay cannot be justified.

Recommendation 4: HMICS recommends that, without delay, forces work together to finalise a policy to standardise the identification of crimes that do not require further or full investigation.

The Future of Audit in Scotland

31. Force crime registrars were unanimous in their belief that HMICS has a crucial role in ensuring SCRS compliance. Indeed, in several forces they reiterated the view that the Inspectorate is vital to the future development of the Standard. Registrars also pointed to the situation in England and Wales, where the Home Office has suspended regular audits much to the regret of a number of their counterparts south of the Border.

32. As we move to an inspection process based primarily on self-assessment, and given the consistently high standard of force crime audits, it has been suggested that the role of HMICS change to that of an oversight body ensuring compliance by dip-sampling force crime audits. As part of this change, force crime registrars accepted that they too have a role in the process, and were universally supportive of a proposal to conduct peer audits in neighbouring forces. We believe that such an audit programme would improve scrutiny and enhance transparency. We therefore intend to dip-sample crime audits on an annual basis across all forces, including (with their permission) British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police.

Recommendation 5: HMICS recommends that, in order to achieve greater transparency and consistency within the audit regime, forces agree to co-ordinate individual force crime audits through the SCRG, so that each audit is scrutinised by a crime registrar from a neighbouring force. On an annual basis HMICS will dip-sample crime audits across all forces, including British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police.

33. Finally, we are keen that all forces conduct regular and systematic audits of specialist departments, where they are not already doing so. We will also examine these as part of our annual crime audits.

Conclusion

34. We believe that forces' compliance with the SCRS has improved steadily over the last two years, albeit inconsistently across Scotland. This has been in no small way due to the successful implementation of most of the recommendations of our 2005 report. Probably of more importance though, has been the hard work, commitment and approach of the registrars in implementing the Standard.

35. The introduction of the SCRS occurred at a time of great change in the wider criminal justice arena in Scotland. It is our opinion that the Standard is a key element of the ongoing criminal justice reform programme and should justifiably remain so. However, the SCRS cannot be viewed in isolation. The police service in Scotland must ensure that staff are fully aware that SCRS is not just an 'add-on' but an integral and interconnected component of the wider Criminal Justice system, as well as being necessary for the proper execution of policing.

36. We see the Standard as a catalyst, driving our police forces towards:

• more ethical crime recording,
• a more accurate picture of crime,
• better understanding of the crime problems affecting Scotland,
• better management of volume crime, and
• better partnership working to reduce crime.

37. While undoubtedly much has been achieved, there is still room for improvement. Four recommendations from Meeting the Standard are still to be discharged, two of which are linked to recommendations contained within this report. Probably the biggest single improvement that we recommend in this report is that all forces urgently adopt policies and practices that allow their processes, structures and individual officers to apply proportionate and systematically considered discretion to investigating crime.

38. There is no doubt that the SCRS is still a work in progress, and will remain so as long as crime is recorded. Just as crime is continually evolving, so too must the Standard if it is to be able to meet future changes. This is the challenge facing SCRS practitioners and stakeholders alike, across the country.

« Previous | Contents | Next »