Agenda and minutes

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWFpwBLs6MnUzG0WjejrQtQ

It was resolved that Cllr. J. T. Orson JP be appointed Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel for the period up to June 2020.

Cllr. J. T. Orson JP in the Chair.

It was resolved that Cllr. M. Rickman be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel for the period up to June 2020.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 March 2019 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

There were no questions submitted.

There were no urgent items for consideration.

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

Mr. K. Culverwell declared a personal interest in respect of all substantive items as he had two close relatives that worked for Leicestershire Police.

Ms. M. Lalani declared a personal interest in respect of all substantive items as she had a close relative that was a member of the Police Cadets.

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) relating to an inspection of Leicestershire Police entitled Police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy 2018/19. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 7’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

      i.        HMICFRS operated a risk based approach to conducting inspections and would prioritise areas which were less strong in previous inspections. This was the first inspection where Leicestershire Police had been rated ‘good’ in all areas inspected, however, the Force recognised there were still areas for improvement. The next inspection of Leicestershire Police by HMICFRS was expected to take place in spring 2020.

    ii.        The Force had challenged HMICFRS with regard to some of the findings in the inspection report particularly in relation to how Leicestershire Police identified and developed talent in the workforce. The Force acknowledged that they may not have demonstrated well enough to HMICFRS the work that Leicestershire Police carried out in this area but the Panel was given reassurance that skills and leadership audits had taken place. It was agreed that after the meeting information would be circulated to Panel members regarding the current workforce in Leicestershire Police, the skills which staff had and where the skills gaps were.

   iii.        The PCC shared the concerns of Panel members regarding the proportion of crimes where the victim did not support police action, and he provided reassurance that he was monitoring the issue and it was a priority in the Police and Crime Plan. The figures for the Leicestershire Police force area were very similar to the national figures with the exception of robbery where locally less victims came forward than nationally. It was explained that it was possible to obtain a conviction when the victim was not willing to participate in the prosecution process, and Leicestershire Police did attempt this when appropriate, however securing a conviction without the support of the victim was much more difficult. The PCC informed the Panel that he was satisfied that Leicestershire Police dealt with Domestic Abuse in the most appropriate way and that every effort was made to support victims and persuade them to support the prosecution process. The PCC acknowledged that the number of repeat victims was an issue and they needed to be managed more assertively.

   iv.        The Government had altered the process for bail in order to reduce the time suspects were on bail. A new process had been introduced where the suspects were ‘Released under Investigation’ however this led to people under investigation being released with no time limit or deadline for conclusion which was unsatisfactory.

    v.        In response to concerns raised by a member, the PCC acknowledged that it was worrying that the number of crimes which resulted in a prosecution had not increased in line with the increase in overall crime and he suggested that a lack of resource may have contributed to this. There were also occasions when Leicestershire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service had differing views on whether a prosecution should be brought. The Code for Crown Prosecutors had been amended which required the Police to undertake more work in the initial stages before the Crown Prosecution Service would agree to a charge. Whilst there were good relations between Leicestershire Police and East Midlands Crown Prosecution Service, using the CPS Direct telephone service was more challenging. By way of reassurance it was explained that work was being undertaken nationally, led by senior Home Office officials and the Deputy Chief Constable at West Midlands Police, to consider  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner regarding the Night-time economy. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

      i.        Currently a large proportion of resources were allocated towards policing the Night-time Economy which took resources away from Neighbourhood Policing. Occasionally Neighbourhood Officers had to be redeployed to deal with issues in town centres. To deal with this problem Leicestershire Police were moving towards a more targeted and risk based approach to tackling problems created by the Night-time Economy. There was more of a focus on using intelligence to ascertain where resources needed to be allocated.  It was the view of the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable that there also needed to be greater emphasis on multi-agency working and using licencing powers carefully. Licencing committees did refuse some applications and imposed conditions on licences but licencing authorities could do more. A member suggested that the issuing of personal licences was an effective way to tackle irresponsible licence holders.

    ii.        Harborough Community Safety Partnership had introduced a scheme which involved checking licences in public houses and the scheme had a positive effect including preventing one premises from selling alcohol.

   iii.        The Force did ask local businesses to help pay for policing the Night-time Economy but they were not always forthcoming. There was a good relationship between Leicestershire Police and Leicester City football club however the football club was only required to help pay for policing around the ground area and not for football related issues which arose away from the ground such as at the train station.

RESOLVED:

(a)       That the contents of the report be noted;

(b)       That elected Panel members be requested to consider the role their local authority can play in addressing the issues raised by the Night-time Economy.

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner regarding the Independent Custody Visiting scheme. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 9’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

i.             The Police and Crime Commissioner had personally undertaken Custody Visits and intended to undertake further visits himself when electronic reporting was introduced (by way of using a tablet) to see how effectively that system was working.

ii.             There were significantly more complaints received relating to Euston Street Custody Suite than either Beaumont Leys or Keyham Lane. The precise reasons for this could not be confirmed but it was likely that it was due to Euston Street being larger and dealing with a greater number of detainees.

iii.             Some complaints were dealt with quickly by the Force such as cleaning issues whereas others took longer to be resolved.

iv.             Independent Custody Visitors received training on dealing with people with aspergers/autism and also dementia.

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the report be noted.

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner which provided an update on complaints against Leicestershire Police including Super-complaints. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 10’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

      i.        Representatives from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner attended quarterly meetings with the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the Head of the Professional Standards Department at Leicestershire Police to discuss issues which arose.

    ii.        In an update to the data provided in the report 98% of complaint cases were now recorded within 10 working days which put Leicestershire Police in joint first place compared to other forces nationally for that performance indicator.

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the report be noted.

Future meetings of the Panel are scheduled to take place on the following dates:

Monday 22 July 2019 at 2:00pm at City Hall, Leicester;

Tuesday 24 September 2019 at 2:00pm at County Hall, Glenfield;

Wednesday 11 December 2019 at 1:00pm at County Hall, Glenfield.

RESOLVED:

That future meetings would take place on the following dates:

Monday 22 July 2019 at 2:00pm at City Hall, Leicester;

Tuesday 24 September 2019 at 2:00pm at County Hall, Glenfield;

Wednesday 11 December 2019 at 1:00pm at County Hall, Glenfield.