Agenda item

The Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner which presented his Annual Report for 2017/18. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 5’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussions the following points were made:

(i)        The Panel asked for further details as to the actions the PCC had carried out as part of his better funding settlement campaign and suggested he include these further details in his Annual Report.

(ii)       The Panel sought clarification on the statement in the Annual Report in ‘The Year in a Nutshell’ section, regarding calling for a new law to quash the criminal convictions of sexual abuse victims. The PCC explained that this referred to young people forwarding images to each other via electronic means, and the question of whether they should be prosecuted for these offences at such a young age. The Panel suggested that the Annual Report could provide greater explanation of the issue.

(iii)      The Panel noted from the Annual Report that the PCC placed a strong emphasis on partnerships and collaboration to improve efficiency however the Panel raised concerns regarding crime detection rates. The PCC provided reassurance that he shared these concerns. The challenges the Force faced around crime detection were explained such as the strict crime recording rules set by the Home Office, the volume, demand and complexity of the crimes, and the decreasing tendency of offenders to admit multiple offences when apprehended. The Panel accepted that Out of Court Disposals could be the most appropriate way to deal with some offences and offenders, however was concerned that this approach gave a misleading impression of detection rates given that Out of Court Disposals were not included in detection figures.

(iv)      In the Annual Report the PCC attributed the rise for some crime types such as violent crime and sexual offences to increased confidence on the part of the public to report offences.  However, it was also believed by Leicestershire Police that rape and domestic violence (and fraud) were areas where there were real crime increases. Given the lack of clarity around the causes of increased crime figures the Panel asked for an explanation of what work was ongoing to fully understand the data and learn how much of increased crime recording was due to increased reporting.

(v)       The Panel raised concerns regarding the regular changes to the crime recording standards which had taken place over the years which made it difficult to analyse trends over the years and compare crime types. The Panel was reassured that the PCC and Leicestershire Police shared the Panel’s concerns. It was explained that whilst the amount of crime recorded by the Police was increasing the crime survey carried out by the Home Office indicated that crime levels were stable.

(vi)      In response to a question from one of the Panel’s Independent Members it was explained that the full impact of the Troubled Families Programme (known as Think Family in Leicester City, Supporting Leicestershire Families in Leicestershire and Changing Lives in Rutland) could be hard to quantify as it could never be known how the lives of the families would have progressed had they not received the intervention from the Programme. However, the local authorities in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland may be able to give a better idea of the success of the programme.

(vii)    Clarification was given that the majority of the calls made to the United Against Violence and Abuse (UAVA) helpline were from local authorities, the police and health professionals rather than the victims themselves. However, there were some self- referrals to UAVA and many of these were from repeat victims who had referred themselves to UAVA on more than one occasion. Individuals who were involved in violence or abuse on more than one occasion were referred into the MARAC process. Panel Members were of the view that there should be better liaison and information sharing between UAVA and District councils regarding victims of violence and abuse, on the basis that if district councils had more information regarding the identities of the victims then they could provide greater support to the victims such as with housing. It was noted that local authorities were on the Board of UAVA.

(viii)   The membership of the Youth Commission now included people who had been involved with criminal activity in the past. Members asked for further information on how the Youth Commission members were representative of, and engaged with, the different communities of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. It was noted that the Panel would receive a report on the Youth Commission at its meeting on 30 October 2018. Members asked for the report to include an update on the success of a Youth Commission community event which was taking place in September 2018 designed to involve other young people in the area in the Commission’s work.

(ix)      In response to a comment from a member that the Annual Report contained little reference to the impact illegal drugs could have on communities the PCC reassured that tackling drugs was a priority for him and Leicestershire Police and that he advocated a zero tolerance approach. The Chairman informed members that at the December 2018 Panel meeting there would be a report from the PCC on how successful the PCC had been with tackling drugs related crime. A member suggested that the report could cover how District councils could assist the Police with tackling the issue of drugs by for example providing CCTV evidence.

RESOLVED:

(a)       That the PCC’s Annual Report 2017/2018 be noted;

(b)       That officers be requested to draft a response to the Annual Report on behalf of the Panel based on the comments now made.