On 18th of January 2012 Cambridge MP Julian Huppert, who also acts as the Liberal Democrat transport spokesman, was interviewed on Newsnight by Jeremy Paxman on the subject of the proposed new airport in the Thames estuary.

Paxman: “As long as you are part of the collation, will this happen?”

Huppert: “No I don’t think it’s going to happen. But frankly its not just a collation story I think this is very much a Boris election gimmick. I’ve been talking to lots of Conservative MPs today who think this is just as daft as most of the rest of us.”

Paxman: “It’s not about Boris, it’s about the need for more airport capacity”.

Huppert: “If it was about the need for more airport capacity you would see the Department for Transport being involved in this having actually done some work to study it”.

Paxman: “But you’re against it full stop aren’t you? You’re against the idea of any further airport capacity”.

Huppert: “I’m against expansion in the South East of Britain as I don’t think it makes a lot of sense from an environmental perspective”.

…

Paxman: “While you’re in Government, however long it lasts, there will be no expansion in capacity?”

Huppert: “We’ve been quite clear. We’ll have to see. There will now be a consultation and we’ll have to see what happens. But the coalition agreement is quite clear about where we are going to be going, we’re not gong to be moving away from that. And I think that John has been quote accurately outlining the problems with all the possible solutions and I think that they outweigh all the possible benefits there would be. We do have to reach our climate change targets, that means not investing in damaging projects like these. ”

Paxman: “The problem with you is that we can’t believe a word you say. This was in your manifesto; ‘no third runway’ and other similar commitments; as was a commitment not to increase student fees.”

Huppert: “Well we’ve been very clear on this one, we sill stick to it. ”

Paxman: “So this is one you will abide by is it?”

Huppert: “Well I have to say as someone who did vote against student fees I have stuck to that.”

Paxman: “Well bully for you. Has Nick Clegg given you an assurance that on this occasion he means what he says?”

Huppert: “We have been very clear. The Department for Transport does not seem to be backing this. I think if you look at what they’ve been saying today… ”

Paxman: “What do you care if what Department for Transport thinks? Isn’t it a matter of principle for you?”

Huppert: “I’m delighted to say that in this case it seems the Department for Transport isn’t supporting it, we’re not supporting it, the local MPs who are Conservatives are not supporting it. I think John said earlier on that there are very few people supporting it at all. We’re not supporting it and we’re going to stick to that. ”

…

Huppert: “…This Boris island idea is part of the Foster and Partners package of ideas. Many of the other things they are suggesting are very sensible. Extra rail to link up our ports properly, so that goods come in, that could be very good for the economy, that can be done a lot faster and would be a lot cheaper than this for more benefit. ”

Paxman: “The problem is the same though isn’t it, that you guys are living from election to election and these things take years and years to put in place.”

Huppert: “Indeed. And that’s something which we have to resolve. And the interaction with the media and politicians also shortens the time period with 24 hour cycles.”

Paxman: “So the fact that you guys haven’t got the guts to make decision is somehow the media’s fault is it?”

Huppert: “No, but we do need to be better at taking decisions, and in fact we are increasing for example on rail investment. The autumn statement included £1.4 billion of rail investment, we’re investing more in rail than ever since the Victorian period and this is showing that politicians are starting to take those decisions. We will continue to do so. I hope we will be able to have even more investment in that sort of infrastructure.”

Paxman: “Has Nick Clegg given you an assurance on this?”

Huppert: “On what? On the fact that we announced….? ”

Paxman: “That there will be no expansion of airports in the South East?”

Huppert: “That is our clear manifesto commitment. There is nothing to suggest anything else. There will be some further work, there is an air strategy coming out, I do not believe that will be an outcome with an airport in the South East. Actually Boris’ antics today with his flight of fancy have made it harder for his case.

YouTube Video - Link directly to the start of discussion.

My View

Clearly Huppert is suffering from his association with the Liberal Democrats.

He rightly defended his personal record on voting against tuition fees, but equally I think it was a reasonable for Paxman to raise the matter as Huppert through his support for the Liberal Democrats and the coalition government did enable the increase in tuition fees to go ahead. I do not think Huppert spoke and argued as strongly as he could of done against the tuition fee increase as an MP. I’m not convinced he was not gagged by his party on tuition fees, though he has denied it and said he was joking when he said during a public lecture that he had promised his party whips he wouldn’t speak on the subject. .

I tweeted following the Paxman interview wondering if being put in difficult positions while being asked to answer on behalf of his government and his party leader might put Huppert off party politics.

As for the policy of opposing airport expansion in South East; I think we need to support the British economy. It’s only though having a strong economy that we can afford the things we want in this country like social security, the NHS, and high quality policing and schools. Having world class air-transport links to the rest of the world is clearly essential if we’re to remain a major centre for business, particularly knowledge based industries, and academia.

I think a class of air travellers who we really need to tackle are those who fly regularly for leisure purposes. I find it astonishing at the number of people who claim lead environmentally friendly lives, and who spurn plastic carrier bags for example, but who take many flights for holidays and social purposes.

As for the estuary airport; the birds and the shipwreck full of explosives are clearly major issues, but if they can be surmounted then it appears to be a good a location worth considering for a new airport for London. The aim, for an international hub airport, is a good one, I think that’s a facility we should strive to keep in the UK, and the proposals are being put forward by a firm who have produced similar airports elsewhere in the world. The proposals should be taken seriously, but other options, such as being bold and expanding Heathrow to the North (despite objections) ought be considered too. There are pros and cons of each, but in my view we need to do one or the other; we need to either expand Heathrow or build a new airport for London to secure the country’s future.

Where I do agree with Julian Huppert is that there are less dramatic, less fanciful, ways of investing in infrastructure in the UK. Better rail connections to ports could take a lot of heavy transport of our roads. In making this suggestion I suspect Julian Huppert was thinking of his own constituency and the great benefits which Cambridge would see if the quantity of heavy transport on the A14 was reduced. Our telecommunications infrastructure is also far behind the best in the world; despite the geographical advantages we have of having a relatively dense population most of which would be relatively cost effective to serve with fibre optic to the premises.

Cambridge Market

At Cambridge City Council’s West / Central Area Committee on the 5th of January 2012 a member of the public, Edward Kerns, who claimed to be representing Christ’s Pieces Residents Association made a number of contributions related to Cambridge’s Market.

Firstly he passed on complaints from market stall-holders about the Made It Market held in the Guildhall on the 24th of November. His complaint, which he said was one raised by some market traders, was that the council was allowing competition, and that some market stalls were selling very similar items to those on sale inside the Guildhall during the event. The member of the public said that market stall holders expected, as part of their contract with the council, to have a monopoly in their particular area of trade, and were not happy at the council allowing competitors to operate. It was noted that on the day of the event the weather wasn’t very good, further encouraging trade inside and away from the outdoor market.

I was astonished by the response given by Cllr Cantrill. Cllr Cantrill confirmed the council ran a no-competition policy and stated there were “no competing traders in the market”. Observant Cllr Rosenstiel noted that there was often more than one fruit and veg stall on the Market; Cllr Cantrill didn’t respond to this but instead laughed.

I was surprised to learn that the council aim to control market stalls in this way. I would prefer there to be a free market and free, unregulated, competition.

Cllr Cantrill said that the council had probably hired out the hall to someone to run the inside market and wasn’t in-control of the individual stalls. He said that one part of the council probably wasn’t aware of what another part was doing and the member of the public agreed pointing out that was pretty much the problem he was raising.

The same member of the public asked for “an update on the Market Square enhancements”.

No councillors volunteered to respond and the chair offered to seek a written response from the executive councillor responsible. Cllr Hipkin said it was astonishing given the presence of ward councillors and the leader of the council that no-one present was able to reply to the question. In response the meeting decided to invite Executive Councillor Neil McGovern, the councillor responsible for markets, to their next meeting. I reported this live and Cllr McGovern responded: “@RTaylorUK news to me, but happy to attend!”.

Lastly on the subject of the market Mr Kerns complained that the Christmas lights switch on event had had a negative effect on the market as it had drawn crowds which disrupted the normal activity of the market from 10am on the day until the end of the event in the evening.

My bike locked up in Cambridge.

At Cambridge City Council’s West/Central Area committee on Thursday the 5th of January 2012 Cambridgeshire Police reported that they had a number of unclaimed bikes at Parkside police station which they had recovered from cycle thieves.

During the policing agenda item at the West/Central area committee members of the public are allowed to make contributions. I used this opportunity to draw attention to a response from the police to a Freedom of Information request by ex Cllr Chris Howell which revealed the police are not recording the frame numbers of bikes they recover. I said that in light of this it was unsurprising that the police were holding unclaimed bikes.

The police suggest people record serial numbers of valuable items, and frame numbers of bikes, on the Immobilise website. I suggested to councillors that Cambridge residents might not want a third party to be holding a list of their valuable possessions and may only wish to share the details of their property when and if it is stolen.

I suggested councillors ought ask the police to record the frame numbers of the bikes they are holding so that they can be matched up to crimes where frame numbers have been given to the police by those who have had their bikes stolen. I also suggested the police should get a bit more high-tech and instead of inviting those who’ve had their bikes stolen to visit the store and look around, they ought photograph bikes and put the images online. While someone who’s lost a bike might take the time visit the store once, or even twice, they could well keep an eye on a website every week or so over a number of months without taking up as much time as a visit to the store in-person.

Sgt Drury, representing the police, responded to say that too few people gave the police the frame numbers of their bikes when they reported them as stolen to make it worth the police recording the frame numbers of those they recovered.

Councillors were not impressed with this response and ask the police to look into recording the details of bikes they recovered and to report back to them.

Cllr Rosenstiel (who has served as a councillor over many decades) said the problem of the police not recording details of bikes they recovered was one which has been on-going for many years. Cllr Rosenstiel made the sensible suggestion that the police should work with bike shops, schools, and others to try and ensure people had a record of the frame numbers of their bikes.

A number of councillors, and others present, noted that they didn’t always bother reporting stolen bikes to the police. The committee’s chair, Cllr Smith, said that it sometimes didn’t seem to her be worth the time and effort, to report a stolen bike and she told those present she had not reported all the bikes she has had stolen.

I, and I’m sure, councillors understand that to get the police to understand the severity of the problem of bike theft in Cambridge it needs to be reported. However the police don’t make it easy to report crime, and their standard response to those reporting crime appears to be to blame the victim.

I fully empathise with those who don’t report bike thefts because they don’t want a lecture from the police telling them they ought to have used two different expensive and hefty locks and it’s their own fault really for having their bike stolen if they didn’t.

It can also be difficult to actually get the police to record a crime, particularly if you are not pushy, and knowledgeable, and actually use phrases such as “please formally record this” and “please give me a crime number” (I’m not sure those are the magic words).

On the 16th of January 2012 the Cambridge News reported that bike theft statistics for Cambridge were down. However if people are being deterred from, or don’t see the point of, reporting bike thefts to the police I don’t think to much weight ought be put on that statistic. It may be that if the police were more effective at dealing with cycle theft the number of reported crimes might increase as people would think it worth doing if there was a good chance of getting their bike back and seeing the thief in court.

Unelected appointee Ruth Joyce, who is the police authority member with special responsibility for Cambridge was present at the meeting but did not speak or identify herself to those present. It would have been useful for councillors to hear from her as the Chief Constable has used cycle theft in Cambridge as a counter example to what he says is his primary focus of reducing hurt and harm.

The case of Richard O’Dwyer has yet again brought the state of the UK-USA extradition arrangements into the public eye.

Mr O’Dwyer is facing extradition in relation to charges for criminal copyright infringement relating to his TVShack website.

District Judge Quentin Purdy, who regularly makes decisions in extradition cases, ruled on the 13th of January 2012 that Mr O’Dwyer ought be extradited to the USA. This was despite Mr O’Dwyer’s lawyers stating: “the website did not store copyright material itself and merely directed users to other sites”. (BBC Article)

That the website in question just provided links does not appear to be in dispute. The Press Release from the United States Attorney Southern District of New York. US Justice Department describes the site as a “linking site”.

The extradition appears to me to be unjustified. Mr O’Dwyer has not, according to what’s been published, committed the alledged offences in the USA, and what he’s done appears perfectly legal in the UK.

If Google was a UK based company we could, if the same arguments were applied and the same conclusions reached, be seeing the UK courts agreeing to a request from the USA to extradite the company’s bosses.

I’m concerned that given the state of the UK’s extradition laws, and the way they’re being applied, people will be deterred from getting involved in business which might bring them to the attention of the USA authorities.

In the case of O’Dwyer there appears to be no justification for the case to be heard in the USA. District Judge Purdy appears to have taken the view that the USA can seek to enforce its laws around the world irrespective of if the alleged crime was committed in, or even had any connection to, the USA. The UK should be standing up to the USA asserting its law is global law.

Home Affairs Committee Inquiry on Extradition Laws

The Home Affairs Select Committee is currently carrying out an inquiry into extradition.

The committee held an evidence session on the 10th of January 2012.They heard from Mr Bermingham, one of the NatWest Three who was extradited from the UK to the USA. Mr Bermingham explained his concerns about the justice system in the USA, which, from the evidence given, sounds as if its much worse than ours at encouraging innocent people to plead guilty.

Mr Bermingham also called for UK judges to be given more freedom, asking for them to be able to consider which country it is most appropriate to hold any trial in. The judge considering the extradition request would be free to refuse extradition (and enable a trial to occur in the UK) if some of the relevant activity took place in the UK. Clearly this would apply to the Richard O’Dwyer case, as well as other high profile cases such as that of Gary McKinnon.

I hope that if any change in the law does occur it is retrospective, to the extent that all those in the UK facing extradition, and for example, in the process of appealing decisions by UK judges to extradite them, are able to benefit from them.

Review of Extradition Laws

On the 8th of September 2010 the Home Secretary, the Rt Hon Theresa May MP, announced that the Government would review the United Kingdom’s extradition arrangements.

I submitted my views during the public consultation, including the statement:

I think where a crime is mainly committed in the UK the person should be tried here.

The review report : Independent review of the United Kingdom’s extradition arrangements was published on the 18th of October 2011.

Overall that review concludes there are no problems with the UK-USA extradition treaty. On the question for the “forum bar” it states:

The extradition judges at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court could not think of any case already decided under the 2003 Act in which it would have been in the interests of justice for it to have been tried in the United Kingdom rather than in the requesting territory

Other questions such as extradition for questioning don’t appear to have been addressed and there the report does not detail why the arguments put forward by those lobbying for change have been rejected. Overall I am unimpressed by the review’s report. Transcripts (or summaries) of the oral evidence sessions would have been a useful thing to include in the report, perhaps making the report more useful to others, such as MPs, who might want to draw their own conclusions from the evidence collated by the review.

I hope the Home Affairs Committee will take a different view from those appointed to conduct the “Independent” review on behalf of the Home Office and prompt a reform of our extradition laws. The Home Affairs Committee are focusing on the particularly problematic areas of USA extradition and the operation of European Arrest Warrants whereas the independent review tried to look at all aspects of extradition.

See Also

• Reforming UK Extradition Arrangements - My February 2011 Article

TASER armed officer in the UK

Further details of Cambridgeshire Police’s plans to expand TASER deployment have been published. The Chief Constable intends to train one hundred and twenty non-firearms officers to use the weapons. That’s just over one in ten of the force’s 1011 constables.

A paper from Cambridgeshire Police’s Chief Constable to Cambridgeshire Police Authority’s Finance and Resources Committee on the 18th of January 2012 was published at just after 16.00 on the 11th of January accompanied by a press release / news article posted on the authority website:

• TASER – Future Intentions (PDF) - Meeting Paper
• Authority members to discuss extended use of tasers - Press Release

The discussion at the police authority has been rendered rather pointless as Cambridgeshire’s Chief Constable stated he would overrule the police authority if they oppose his proposals when they were briefly discussed at the December 2011 full authority meeting.

My Comments on the Report

A key omission from report by the Chief Constable is the lack of any discussion of the potential impact on police-public relations and on the public’s perceptions of the police force. I think this is an important consideration; it is the reason the Metropolitan Police Authority have refused TASER deployment to all frontline police in London, their rejection was based on: “the potential to cause fear and damage public confidence”. Policing in the UK is something done using relatively few officers, we have a thin blue line, and to maintain that state of affairs the police need to have good relations with the public.

Another surprising omission from the report is evidence from what has happened in similar forces where non-firearms officers have been issued with TASER weapons. The report does not, for example, detail how non-firearms officers have been using the weapons in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire; it does not say how much, if at all, TASER used increased in those forces when non-firearms officers were given the weapons and what proportion of TASER use in those areas is now by non-firearms officers.

The Chief Constable (or his officers) have not discussed their intentions in public at the many local police consultative meetings which are regularly held around the force area. The proposal was not for example mentioned at the last West/Central Area Committee where councillors and the public discussed policing central Cambridge. When the force last considered expanding TASER use they said they would do so following consultation. While a consultation with the decision already made isn’t ideal at least some communication and conversation with the public could have been carried out.

There are hints that as a result of the decision the number of TASER uses in Cambridgeshire would be expected to rise. The report says that under the current system where Authorised Firearms Officers only have TASER weapons there were: “many more incidents where TASER may have been authorised if not limited by the availability of AFOs”.

The report is unclear on if TASERs will be routinely carried by officers on patrol or when responding to calls. The report does state that: “The requirement to authorise TASER will remain the same as that for existing firearms officers”, but lacks the information on if the weapons will be routinely carried. If the weapons were routinely carried officers would as I understand it be free to “self-authorise”. Unlike other forces Cambridgeshire Police does not proactively publish its firearms policies.

The company which makes the TASERs used by the UK police advises against shooting people in the chest with them. The Chief Constable’s report doesn’t say if this advice is to be passed to the officers in Cambridgeshire who are to be trained to use the weapons.

The Chief Constable’s report states the non fire-arms officers who are to be given TASER weapons are to be given: “An initial 3 day course followed by half day public order input”. The force has previously argued that the TASER training is entirely separate from firearms training. My view is that there are clear overlaps in terms of making a decision on what level of force is appropriate to use in a particular situation. The Chief Constable states that the non-firearms officers will be less confident handling TASERs than those who have been firearms trained so he appears to an extent at least to agree with this. The “public order input” aspect concerns me. In December 2010 the Home Affairs Select Committee heard clear assurances from the police and home office officials that TASER should not, and will not, be used for crowd control in public order situations.

The main driving force for the proposed change appears to be the closer collaboration between Cambridgeshire Police and the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire forces. A combined Armed Response Unit is to be in place from April 2012, Cambridgeshire doesn’t want to be calling on, and paying for, this unit to attend incidents which only require TASER.

Speaking at the December full authority meeting the Chief Constable worryingly stated that where TASERs were carried the public would probably not notice, raising the question of if they are to be carried in an intentionally concealed manner. This aspect too has not been addressed in the report, though authority members were offered the opportunity to have an officer attend the committee meeting to demonstrate how the weapons will be carried.

At the December full authority meeting the Chief Constable suggested that the reason non-firearms officers had TASER in Hertfordshire was that officers had demanded them after one of their number was stabbed. My view is that while we should listen to the views of officers they ought not be the only consideration when setting police policy.

Cambridgeshire Police is working ever more closely with Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire forces, and bringing the policies in line is another related element of the argument for the deployment of the weapons in Cambridgeshire.

Impact on Armed Policing Unit

If the Armed Policing Unit are not dealing with lower level incidents will they suffer from less experience in resolving situations and determining the appropriate level of force?

If the Armed Policing Unit isn’t available to deal with incidents requiring a TASER, is it available quickly enough for incidents where it is required. Is this issue actually pointing to a problem with insufficient firearms police coverage following the merger of the service?

Monitoring

The Police Authority committee is invited to: “Discuss the appropriate level of monitoring of the extension of the availability of TASER”. I think the police should be as open and transparent as possible about how and when TASER is used:

• Reports on TASER usage should be typed up so they are legible.
• Statistics on TASER use by non-firearms officers, including details of how many times an individual was TASERed, and for how long, ought be routinely published and reviewed by the Police Authority
• Outcomes of complaints about TASER use ought be openly published (suitably anonymised if required).
• Details of incidents where TASERs ought be published (suitably anonymised) in a timely manner after they occur.

This of course won’t happen as the police are very secretive, police complaints are dealt with in secret, and it wouldn’t really make sense to bring these things in just for non-firearms officers’ use of TASER, they ought be introduced more widely.

See Also

Recent TASER articles

• Large Rise in UK Police TASER Use - December 2011
• My article reporting Chief Constable Simon Parr to expand the force’s TASER use - December 2011.
• Cambs Chief Constable Would Overrule Police Authority on TASER Deployment - December 2011

Older Articles

• Opposing More UK Police being Armed with TASERs - Letter to my MP, David Howarth, September 2007.
• All UK Front Line Response Police to Carry TASERs - My article following the November 2008 announcement by the Home Secretary.
• Cambridgeshire Police Authority - December 2008 - First discussion of TASERs by Cambridgeshire Police Authority following the Home Secretary’s Announcement.
• The Role of Police Authorities in Decisions to Extend TASER Deployment
• Encouraging Liberal Democrats to Act Locally on their National TASER Policies - February 2009
• Cambridgeshire Police Authority Dodge my TASER Questions - May 2009
• TASERs for Non-Firearms Police - includes tables showing the number of TASERs for non-firearms officers distributed to forces.
• Cambridgeshire Police Worst In Country for Accidental TASER Discharges
• Non-Firearms Officers Account for a Third of TASER Usage
• Me discussing the TASER rollout to non-firearms officers with James Whale on LBC radio.
• Home Affairs Select Committee Session on TASERs - December 2010.
• Prodding the Home Office to Resume Publishing Statistics on TASER use by the Police January 2011

Cllr Cantrill’s Windmill and Gate on Midsummer Common

The ongoing saga of disputes over parking and vehicular access to Midsummer Common in Cambridge took a bizarre turn at the West Central Area Committee on the 5th of January 2012.

Cllr Rodrick Cantrill announced the council’s intention to prosecute two buildings on the common: the Fort St. George pub, and the Midsummer House restaurant. Cllr Cantrill explicitly said he had taken a decision “to prosecute against properties not individuals”.

I have no idea what is going on here but Cllr Cantrill may be seeking to break new legal ground. As I understand it, to-date, only legal entities: real people and companies, have ever been prosecuted for anything in the UK.

The statement was prompted by a public question from Mr Lawton, who asked what the council was doing to enforce the rules against driving and parking on the common. Mr Lawton was asked if he had any follow-up point to make and responded to say he didn’t understand what Cllr Cantrill was proposing, this prompted laughter from all present including the other councillors on the committee.

Liberal Democrat Cllr Cantrill, who is Cambridge City Council’s executive councillor responsible for green spaces, had started his response to the question by highlighting the new gate which he has had been installed. Cantrill was heckled by residents who pointed out the contraption had not been working at all at first, and was now being left open between from 7 to 10am every morning as its solar and wind power sources weren’t sufficient to enable it to open and close for each morning delivery to the businesses on the common.

Cllr Cantrill enraged representatives of both the Friends of Midsummer Common and the Brunswick and North Kite Residents Association by saying they had opposed a gate of any kind. This is something he repeatedly alleges and they repeatedly deny.

Cantrill said he had chosen his windmill and solar powered contraption over the residents’ preferred option of a rising curb on the grounds of aesthetics. I thought this was very odd as the windmill is very visually intrusive and a rising curb would probably have been all but invisible to almost everyone except those driving head on towards it when in was a raised position. Cllr Cantrill said he had considered wider interests than the Friends of Midsummer Common and the residents associations had when coming to his decision. Ironically Cantrill claimed a rising curb would have made the area look like a car park. The representatives of those organisations present objected to the implication being made by Cllr Cantrill that they were philistines or did not care about the appearance of the common.

Cantrill had brought one of his officers, Alistair Wilson the council’s “Head of Green Spaces” to the meeting. Mr Wilson told the committee the council was to pursue “injunctions against properties”, which perhaps sounds slightly more in the realms of reality than prosecuting inanimate objects, but was still clunky phrased if injunctions preventing parking or access for certain purposes are in-fact being proposed.

Cllr Cantrill told the committee his new gate was part of a “stepped approach” the council was adopting. Mr Wilson said the council was planning to come up with a formal policy statement on how it was to take enforcement action against those illegally driving and parking on the common.

Cantrill told the committee that the council had done a land registry search and had concluded from the results that the Fort St. George pub had no right of access across the common. Mr Higgs of the Friends of Midsummer Common reported that Mr Baxter, the chairman of the Friends of Midsummer Common, understood that properties on or adjoining common land automatically had rights of access across it. (This appears to be based on the judgement in Bakewell Management Limited v. Brandwood and others; which has been interpreted in a DEFRA guidance note on the subject).

Wheel Clamping

A councillor asked if wheel clamping was permitted on the common; and if it was for this purpose considered public or private land. (Wheel clamping is to be banned on private land if c54 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill becomes law.)

Councillors noted their legal department was taking a very long time to get back to them on this question. Cllr Cantrill agreed. Mr Lawton said that everything in relation to parking on Midsummer Common appeared to be taking glacial amounts of time and wondered if the issue would be resolved before he, and everyone else, was dead.

Ombundsman Complaint

No update was given on the progress of Mr Baxter’s complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman over the councils failure to act on parking and driving on the common.

Policing

I thought it notable that despite the police being present they were not asked to comment, or act, on the illegal driving and parking on the common.

Planning

The Friends of Midsummer Common also complained the council’s planning public access system was broken and as a result they were not being kept informed of planning applications on and near the common despite registering their area of interest. They reported this was a deterioration in the service which they had previously received from the council.

See Also

• My article following the Friends of Midsummer Common 2011 AGM - includes discussion of vehicles on the common and a report on the contribution from the manager of the Fort St. George Public House.

I observed Cambridgeshire Police Authority’s full meeting on the 20th of December 2011.

Riots

The Deputy Chief Constable noted the two reports which have been published this week on the causes of the riots:

• The rules of engagement: A review of the August 2011 disorders - HMIC.
• Report-Policing Large Scale Disorder: lessons from the disturbances of August 2011 - Home Affairs Select Committee.

The key question he is going to be reading them looking for the answer to, is if similar disorder will happen again or if it was a one off coincidence of factors.

Cambridgeshire Police’s costs relating to the riots amounts to £781,000 (This is in the Financial Report). This will not be reimbursed by central government, as central government extra funding only comes in if a force spends more than 1% of its budget on a particular event. I was surprised when the Chief Constable said that much of this money was spent not in London, but locally, particularly in Cambridge. He said:

Things could have got out of hand, particularly in Cambridge City, if officers had not been on hand.

TASER

I have written a separate article on the debate about widening TASER deployment to include non-firearms officers.

Answering Phones

A new explanation for the problems with answering the phones was given to the authority.

They were told the force had decided to get rid of its switchboard. This had resulted in the calls going to the public service centre.

Cllr Lee said that not answering 5,000 calls a month wasn’t good enough.

The Chief Constable responded that £2,000,000 had been taken out of the service. He said that given the scale of the cuts something was inevitably going to be dropped, and touch-wood, so far, it was just this. The Chief Constable said this was the only significant dropped ball and that the force had run out of boxes of staff in the cupboard to move across. He said the force was many dozens of people lighter than it had been in the past.

For more on the background to this see my previous articles: Cambridgeshire Police Getting Even Worse at Answering Phone and Cambridgeshire Police Not Answering Phone.

Speed Camera Funding Uncertainty

There may be no money to run speed cameras in the force area next year.

Restorative Justice

A magistrate member of the authority noted the magistrates and judges had written to the force asking them to exclude domestic violence from the force’s restorative justice protocols.

The Deputy Chief Constable said the force would not be using restorative justice in relation to domestic violence.

Detection Rate

The force’s detection rate is at 32%, the highest ever.

The Deputy Chief Constable said that about 50% of crimes were essentially not detectable, and a law of diminishing returns was effective approaching that.

Despite the record figures the Chief Constable said: “I’m not sure I can spell the word complacent when it comes to these figures”.

Helicopter

The authority were told the force were now looking at different plans (I think during the expected transition to a national air support service for the police). The authority was told the force are now looking at “co-operation within the eastern region”, rather than working with the Chiltern Air Support Unit. The 18th of January 2012 Finance and Resources Committee is to receive a report with details of the new proposals.

Cllr Lee asked why the helicopter was at nil-value in the books. He said he thought it ought at least be listed at scrap value. He said it was important that value for taxpayer’s money was obtained and something got for it if it was sold into the national contract provider.

The force’s treasurer explained that it had been accounted for over five years and it was five years old so the book value was now nil even though she accepted it had a value and something would be paid for it if/when it was moved into the National Police Air Service.

The force’s treasurer said the helicopter could not be sold unmodified as the force has a special licence to allow it to fly a hybrid ‘coptor.

Police Authorities Joint Working Group

It was noted the Joint Working Group had met on the 26th of October.

(I would like to know if this meeting is secret, or private, and if the papers are online anywhere)

Additional Notes

• The Police are running at 3% under budget, the authority said it was good to be ahead of the curve, prepared for forthcoming further budget reductions.
• If the Police Authority want to increase their council tax precept above 4% then there has to be a referendum. The referendum costs have to be paid locally. This is the main reason the authority are hesitant about accepting the offered central government “council tax freeze grant” (which covers the money which would be lost if council tax doesn’t go up). The authority are concerned that in future years a commissioner will be faced with either needing a referendum or further making deeper cuts. The authority was told central government would not set the 2013/14 trigger point for a referendum until next December.
• The authority was told that there was an “overhang” of [expensive long serving] police officers who had two years left to reach their 30 years service so the could then “retire”. The Chief Constable said he was working with Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire to “mange staff between the three forces” so that the surplus of senior officers could be redistributed and used.
• The authority were told that when police staff were leaving there were generally two things behind it. One was IT staff leaving for more continuity elsewhere and another was those staff who had been subjected to too much change and had decided “enough is enough”.
• Police staff have higher sickness rates than police constables. No one is sure why (PC’s are generally younger and fitter and do a more active and healthy job?)
• It was reported that police officer numbers were slightly higher than had been expected.
• 740 of the force’s 1011 constables are to be “local officers” after Operation Redesign.
• The Deputy Chief Constable said the force was the second worst funded per head in the country, so was doing well to have performance in the 2nd and 3rd quartiles compared with forces nationwide.
• The Chief Constable constantly referred to his aim not to reduce the amount the force was spending on Constables (notably he didn’t say PCSOs). He repeated his mantra of taking from anywhere he could before taking anything out of operational policing.
• Peterborough city council is spending £100,000 per year focusing on the 12 families who are the biggest drains on the state. Asked if the police would contribute to funding such work if an impact on crime could be shown, the Chief Constable said it would be hard to show value for money, and every £30K spent elsewhere was a full time police officer.
• The authority resolved to abbreviate Police and Crime Commissioner as P&CC not PCC. I think this was, seriously, the only clear decision they took.
• The authority were told members of the public, and the media, read their attendance records and expenses on the authority website. (I think attendance records need to be improved to cover local meetings, and for the chair, Cambridgeshire County Council meetings; someone should also keep tabs on how often the Chief Constable attends the Police Authority).
• In terms of saving money through outsourcing / partnership working, authority members noted there was another force which had bought in “vanilla” ie. largely unmodified commercial software at low costs. Authority members complained the report on outsourcing wasn’t really consistent with the oral update. They sought assurances that the force was still considering all options, including outsourcing itsself as well as looking at sharing services with other forces.

Police Officer Carrying a TASER

A full meeting of Cambridgeshire Police Authority held on the 20th of December 2011 began debating proposals from Chief Constable Simon Parr to expand the force’s TASER use.

I attended the meeting and used the public speaking slot. My statement:

I hope when the force’s proposed changes to TASER policy are reached during today’s meting clarity will be obtained on what is proposed.

I hope members are able to ensure it is made clear, in public, if there a proposal to extend deployment of TASER beyond the Tactical Firearms Unit, or not.

The papers refer to training more officers to use TASER; it isn’t made clear if this is expected to lead to more officers being routinely deployed with TASER.

If the proposal is to ensure all firearms trained officers are also TASER trained I would be surprised that wasn’t already the case and strongly support it. I think a TASER ought always be available as a less lethal option than a gun.

I urge the authority to follow the lead of the Metropolitan Police Authority and consider the potential impact on police-public relations of a wider roll out of TASER.

I think that routine arming of front-line officers with TASERs is clearly a strategic decision, one for the authority, and not an operational matter for the chief constable. I think it’s important that the decision on if it is a decision for the authority or not is made in public by the authority, and not as it was last time, between the chair and the chief constable in secret.

The relevant agenda item was not a full report on the proposals which were merely mentioned briefly in the update from the Scrutiny Committee.

The authority were told that the full proposals would be presented, in writing, to the authority’s Finance and Resources Committee on the 18th of January 2012.

Police Authority member Cllr Wilkins, (Liberal Democrat, West Chesterton) led the questioning. He noted the force’s plans mentioned training, and asked what the consequences of new policy would be in terms of police officers on the streets with TASER weapons.

Chief Constable Parr ignored the question and answered a different one. He replied that he was not anticipating any change in the types of circumstances in which TASER was used.

Cllr Wilkins asked if the Chief Constable was proposing to extend deployment of TASER beyond the Tactical Firearms Unit, or not.

The Chief Constable said: “Yes”, and added that he did “not expect to see TASER being used more often as a result”.

The Chief Constable was asked to confirm his proposals were for officers in non-firearms roles to carry TASER weapons. The Chief Constable said: “Yes, but not in huge numbers”.

The authority asked the Chief Constable to ensure that the numbers were included in the report on his proposals to the Finance and Resources Committee.

Cllr Wilkins said he did not welcome the proposal to arm non-firearms officers with TASERs. He said that many of those he represents have concerns.

The Chief Constable explained his thinking. He said that currently firearms teams get sent to incidents where they know they’re not going to be called upon to use conventional firearms and they’re called just because a TASER is needed. The Chief Constable said it was more practical, and safer, in those cases to “just send TASER”.

The Chief Constable told the authority he would rather be TASERed than hit with a Baton, on the grounds that the effect of the TASER would wear off more quickly.

Cllr Wilkins asked if the extra officers would always be carrying TASERs or if they would carry them out only on specific occasions. The Chief Constable said that the force was considering how authorisation to deploy TASER should work, he said there had not been a decision yet on if it would be down to the individual officer to decide if to carry a TASER or if they would only be carried when specific authorisation to do so had been given. The Chief Constable said he was not rushing into this.

Cllr Wilkins again expressed his reservations, saying he was very nervous about the Chief Constable’s proposals.

Cllr Wilkins expressed concern about members of the public seeing police officers walking down Regent Street in Cambridge on a Friday night armed with TASERS.

The Chief Constable said the TASERs were very discrete and members of the public would not be aware of them, he offered to bring one, to show how it would be carried, to the Finance and Resources Committee. (It wasn’t clear how concealed the Chief Constable is proposing the weapons to be, but elsewhere in the country where they are carried they are highly visible).

Cllr Wilkins indicated that he wasn’t very impressed with the Chief Constable’s argument that people wouldn’t be aware the officers were armed with TASERs.

Cllr Matthew Lee (Conservative, Peterborough City Council) asked the Chief Constable if he would seek the authority’s approval for his new TASER policy.

Chief Constable Parr replied:

I don’t think I need your approval.

The Chief Constable said he was prepared to discuss the policy, and he wanted a debate where both sides were in full possession of the facts, however he said:

Would I go against if every member of the authority said no? Yes I would.

He added that he would though like to “understand the authority’s concerns”.

Cllr Lucas spoke to urge debate to wait until the full details of the force’s proposals were available in writing, in the papers for the 18th January 2012 Finance and Resources meeting.

Cllr Nazim Khan spoke to relate how he had been present with police in Peterborough when they had been called to an incident involving a knife. He said he didn’t want to take a position on TASERs but thought the police ought be protected.

The Chief Constable explained that Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire (the two forces Cambridgeshire works closely with) already armed non-firearms officers with TASER. He said that the reason TASER was issued to non-firearms officers in Hertfordshire was that it had become an “operational necessity” after the stabbing of an officer in a freak incident at 0630 on a Monday morning.

The Deputy Chief Constable John Feavyour asked authority members to write to him directly with items they would like covered in the report to the Finance and Resources Committee on the 19th of January 2012.

Two of the authority’s unelected members, Ruth Joyce and Nic Williams left prior to the TASER discussion, Cllr Shona Johnstone left during the item.

In my view key things to consider are:

• Public perception of the police; and the potential effect of creating further separation between the police and public.
• Evidence from other parts of the UK where non-firearms officers have been armed with TASERs.
• Recent large rises in UK Police TASER use.
• What additional relevant training and experience (eg. in relation to conflict resolution and use of force) members of the Tactical Firearms Unit have, which other officers carrying TASER would not.
• Returning the decision to a meeting of the full authority, rather than letting it be debated and determined in a relatively obscure sub-committee.

I think it’s very worrying that we’ve got a Chief Constable who sees the police authority as a body merely to debate with rather than the body which is responsible for taking strategic decisions in relation to policing Cambridgeshire.

I suspect by making clear he would overrule the police authority if they seek to block his TASER roll-out to non-firearms officers the Chief Constable will have ensured they do not do so.

See Also

• Opposing More UK Police being Armed with TASERs - Letter to my MP, David Howarth, September 2007.
• All UK Front Line Response Police to Carry TASERs - My article following the November 2008 announcement by the Home Secretary.
• Cambridgeshire Police Authority - December 2008 - First discussion of TASERs by Cambridgeshire Police Authority following the Home Secretary’s Announcement.
• The Role of Police Authorities in Decisions to Extend TASER Deployment
• Encouraging Liberal Democrats to Act Locally on their National TASER Policies - February 2009
• Cambridgeshire Police Authority Dodge my TASER Questions - May 2009
• TASERs for Non-Firearms Police - includes tables showing the number of TASERs for non-firearms officers distributed to forces.
• Cambridgeshire Police Worst In Country for Accidental TASER Discharges
• Non-Firearms Officers Account for a Third of TASER Usage
• Me discussing the TASER rollout to non-firearms officers with James Whale on LBC radio.
• Home Affairs Select Committee Session on TASERs - December 2010.
• Prodding the Home Office to Resume Publishing Statistics on TASER use by the Police January 2011
• Large Rise in UK Police TASER Use - December 2011
• My article reporting Chief Constable Simon Parr to expand the force’s TASER use - December 2011.

I observed the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership meeting on the 14th of December 2011.

Priorities

On of the key roles of the Community Safety Partnership is set the city wide crime and policing priorities for the City of Cambridge. The group came under criticism last year for carrying out this key role in secret, via “email meetings” rather than at its formal public meetings.

Things have not got off to a great start this year as it new proposed priorities have emerged from a secret, private, “away day” attended by a select group of board members, not including Cambridge City Council’s Executive Councillor for Policing who is one of just two elected representatives on the board.

The current city wide priorities are:

• Reducing alcohol-related violent crime in the city centre
• Reducing repeat incidents of anti-social behaviour
• Reducing repeat victims of domestic violence
• Reducing re-offending

The proposal which emerged from the officers’ junket was to tweak these to:

• Reducing alcohol-related violent crime
• Reducing anti-social behaviour
• Reducing repeat victims of domestic violence
• Reducing re-offending.

Source: p74 of the meeting papers.

One change is to no longer restrict the alcohol related violent crime priority to the city centre. I think this is a good thing not least because it’s not always clear what counts as the city centre in Cambridge, for example should the “Cambridge Leisure” site be included? The meeting also saw evidence of where assaults requiring ambulance attendance occurred in the city have been occurring outside the city centre eg. on Victoria Road and Histon Road.

The other change is make the anti-social behaviour priority more vague. Previously the focus was primarily on repeat victims, particularly vulnerable people, but the police are now better organised to spot and deal with such cases. No definition of anti-social behaviour is offered by the partnership which I think will render it hard to work on as a priority. It appears the partnership is to focus on what gets raised by the public and councillors at area committee meetings, while this in itself is good, what it will do is add to the current problem of people describing all manner of criminal behaviour including burglary, violent robbery, criminal damage and more as “anti-social behaviour” in an effort to prompt an appropriate police response.

If the intent of the priority is to place more resources on matters raised at area committees, and to improve the way area committees are able to influence local police and crime related priorities I would strongly support it. I think requiring comments to be accompanied by the magic phrase “anti-social behaviour” in order to prompt action is not in my view appropriate. I think it is much more useful to simply be clear about the types of crimes which are taking place and what is expected from the police to deal with them.

The partnership did not consider adding any new and different priorities; for example any relating to cycling and making the roads safer - which is a really common theme emerging from area committees.

The December meeting of the CSP was the first time the priorities had been raised. They will be considered, along with action plans and eventually targets at Cambridge City Council scrutiny committees in the new year, and eventually taken to the full council for approval.

Police and Crime Commissioners

An oral presentation on Police and Crime Commissioners was given by a member of the Police Authority Secretariat.

I liked the overall theme of the presentation which was that a lot would be up to the elected individual.

The CSP was told that Cambridgeshire County Council was in the process of setting up the Police and Crime Panel.

Cllr Bick complained he and the city council had not been involved in determining the make up of the panel and how it should run. He said he didn’t want the city council to be simply handed down the final decision on the make-up by the county council. Cllr Bick asked for the county council to work with the city council and reminded them the city council was not a wholly owned subsidiary of the county council.

I have written a separate article on the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel.

Restorative Justice

Inspector Human the Cambridgeshire Police force lead officer on restorative justice disposals gave a presentation to the committee.

He described how someone who had not previously come into contact with the police had been drinking in the city centre and had defecated in the Market Square outside the Guildhall. He was arrested and taken to the police station to sober up and the next morning taken back down to the Market Square and as a restorative justice disposal allowed to clean up the mess.

This was an interesting choice of example as it was not (for good reason) “instant reparation”. It was a post-custody disposal. If there are many cases like these the statistics on how much restorative justice disposals are saving in terms of custody use and savings in officer time will not be accurate as they assume the cases are dealt with in an hour.

Another interesting element is that core to the force’s restorative justice disposal policy is a requirement to seek approval from the victim of the crime for the use of a restorative justice disposals. Inspector Human didn’t say who had approved the restorative justice disposal on behalf of residents of Cambridge. Perhaps it was Cllr Bick, as he has responsibility for policing related matters?

The CSP were told that restorative justice disposals had been used 149 times in Cambridge since the first one, in April 2011. This equates to 1.8% of crimes where a “disposal” took place.

I was surprised, given the force’s aspirations to reduce the use of custody by a quarter that this was so low. I asked if we could expect it to continue at this rate or if it was expected to rise. Inspector Human said he did not expect a significant step up.

Inspector Human said that other forms of restorative justice were also being considered by the force. He said training officers on these was being put-off until current re-shaping of the force and moving people between jobs had occurred, so that the training went to the right people. In 2012 we will be seeing Cambridgeshire Police start using a new form of restorative justice: “Neighbourhood Resolution”, no details of what this is was given.

The Ministry of Justice has a webpage on Neighbourhood Resolution Panels which says:

The Panels bring local victims, offenders and criminal justice professionals together to agree what action should be taken to deal with certain types of low level crime and disorder.

It will be interesting to see how these are implemented in Cambridge. I would be interested in knowing if local councillors are to act as representatives of the community on them and if their proceedings will take place in public.

My preference would be to fix the courts. Magistrates courts should be local, speedy, and public. The courts are too remote and slow, I’d rather see the change there than to create another tier of the justice system.

These panels are not the type of post-court restorative justice which has been shown to work in the past. They are yet another new experiment. They appear to be targeted at the most minor of crimes, and could be on-top of a more formal out of court disposal.

The MoJ specification for Neighbourhood Resolution Panels states:

The Community Safety Partnership, the CPS, victims’ interest groups and local equalities groups should be involved in overseeing the work of the Panel, and this could be extended to cover all out-of-court responses to crime.

While I can’t see why so many different groups need to oversee what’s going on, I think it would be good to see more transparency over how out of court disposals are being used, especially as their use is increasing. A chart on p13 of the recently published Ministry of Justice review of the use of out-of-court disposals shows 41% of offences in Cambridgeshire are “brought to justice” by an out of court disposal. The report states that nationwide out of court disposals have gone from being used in 23% of offences in 2003 to 40% in 2008.

After the presentation Cllr Bick raised concerns about public awareness of the police’s restorative justice policies. He said that there needed to be awareness so that victims had some idea this kind of thing was going on so that if they were asked by the police to if they wanted to see a restorative course of action. He said he was aware of people who were not aware of what the police were doing. I had covered such points in public questions I submitted to the meeting and when I wrote to Cllr Bick on this subject in September.

Public Questions

Neighbourhood Profiles

I had been referred to the CSP by Mr Fuller of Cambridgeshire police who told me they were the right body to lobby for improvements to the neighbourhood profile documents provided to councillors setting police priorities at area committees. The CSPs chair said they were not the body responsible.

Openness and Transparency
I urged the CSP to focus on improving the openness and transparency of various criminal justice bodies, including the courts. I have made my full question available.

The response from the partnership was that they don’t have very much influence.

They pointed out they themselves were more open than the other CSPs in Cambridgeshire which meet entirely in secret.

In respect to the magistrates courts, the magistrate’s representative said it was impossible to open up the court lists and make them available online.

Overall it was a very dismissive and unimpressive response, with one exception, the probation service promised to publish their board papers. They have now published meeting notes for their recent meetings which is progress.

Police.UK

The CSP denied resolving to write to Police.UK with a series of suggestions for improving their site.

Updates

The key notable statistic from the updates given to the CSP was the rate of mobile phone thefts from licensed premises in central Cambridge.
[There may be additional points I can extract later from my live tweets of the meeting later].

Committee Room Before Kick-Off

Cambridgeshire County Council’s Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee met on Wednesday the 14th of December 2011.

The chairman, Cllr Tierney, had invited me to join the committee as a co-optee as I have commented extensively on police and crime related matters, which formed the bulk of the agenda.

I arrived at Shire Hall at just before 14.00 and spoke to Cllr Tierney before he entered a private pre-meeting session with the councillors on the committee.

I discussed when it would be appropriate to raise some of the items I wished to raise. I asked if any “councillor calls for action relating to crime and disorder and community safety issues” had been received and if councillors had been canvassed to see if they had any matters they wanted discussed. One of the committee’s roles is to consider such requests and make recommendations in light of them. Cllr Tierney assured me that all councillors were aware of the committee’s role and that they could submit items to it but said he didn’t go looking for trouble.

I also noted there was no “matters arising” item on the agenda. Cllr Tierney said there usually wasn’t one. Among other things I wanted to note how the Interim Community Safety Countywide Board date had been different to that reported to the last meeting and note the material placed online for that committee was still deficient.

Cllr Tierney and the councillors disappeared off to a room in the bowels of Shire Hall for their private pre-meeting. I waited in the committee room which was one of those at the front of the building overlooking the castle. There was a portrait of the Queen on the wall. There were two rows of public seating and a rectangle of seats for the committee.

Committee members entered moments before the start time and took their places. Coffee was available and offered.

Cllr Tierney took the chair, welcomed everyone, and then proposed co-opting me to the committee. He explained this was on the grounds of my interest and expertise in some of the matters on the agenda. A vote was held, Cllrs P Brown, Hoy, Reynolds, Pellew, Reeve, Sadiq, West and Whitebread voted in favour of co-opting me. Cllrs Brooks-Gordon and Smith abstained, and there were none against. I was invited to join the committee at the table.

Cllr Tierney asked if I had any questions about procedure. I said no.

Next up were declarations of interest. I had nothing to declare and I don’t recall anything particularly notable being declared; Cllr Reynolds is a member of the Police Authority; later one of the councillors remembered a member of their family was a special constable and declared that too.

Councillors, and those appearing in-front of the committee had paper name plates, which along with the chair addressing everyone by name made sure everyone knew who each other was. (Much better than the police authority where they use first names, have no name plates, and most of the member photos on the website are a decade out of date).

There was no public speaking slot on the agenda. The council had released its public speaking rules for overview and scrutiny committees the day before, and they require three days notice of a public statement or question.

The minutes were discussed. I raised the question of if the date of the strategic board had changed, or if it was inaccurate. Various councillors sought to raise matters arising. It emerged there was an actions list from the last meeting but it had not been included in the meeting papers and wasn’t available at the meeting. Cllr Tierney appeared to have great faith that all the actions would indeed have been actioned and promised the actions sheet would be “made available” and there was no further discussion of matters arising.

Clearly next time it would be good to have this as part of the papers. One thing I wanted to check up on was a restorative justice presentation from the police which one of the action points stated was to be distributed. I wanted to ask if it had been distributed and suggest it, and similarly circulated documents, be made public.

Next up was an update on the Police and Crime Commissioner. A county council officer oddly described the role as “non political” and as having a “scrutiny function”, both of these were challenged by committee members. Almost all of the presentation and discussion was on the subject of the make-up of the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel which I have written about separately.

I have also written separate articles on the items on:

• Operation Redesign
• Domestic Abuse

Had there been more time, a particular area of Operation Redesign I would have liked to explore is the involvement of elected councillors in the selection of local senior police officers at city/district level. As far as I know this has not occurred yet and I think it would have been good to find out when and how it is going to happen.

There was also an item updating the committee on progress against recommendations it had made around a year ago on the subject of “Integrated Offender Management”. I have written an article on the aspect on which I contributed, on arranging benefits for those due to leave prison so they are not left without money and in some cases given little choice but to return if not to crime, to criminal friends for help. One of the other interesting notes was that the intervention with potential re-offenders depends on the priorities of the local Community Safety Partnerships.

Better communication between prisons, the police and probation staff via an IT system called “PINS” was reported as improving awareness locally of when local people are due to be released from prison.

The meeting considered the Cabinet Agenda Plan but didn’t think anything upcoming came into its remit.

There was then an update from Cllr Renyolds, as the committee’s “Rapporteur” (councillor taking a particular interest in a topic) on Libraries.

The meeting’s future agenda plan was discussed. I suggested making sure all the current responsibilities of the Police Authority and its committees are taken up somewhere when the authority is abolished. (I’ve expanded on this in my article on the Police and Crime Panel)

My Thoughts

While I don’t know what went on in the pre-meeting I think it would be useful if the committee members focused and co-ordinated their questioning of the various people coming before them better.

I have, in writing up the section on Operation Redesign, grouped the comments into three key areas: Answering the phones, Neighbourhood Policing and Restorative Justice. I think it would have been better if the chair had already agreed these key areas in advance and selected the best person to kick off the questioning on each one, allowing others to then come in afterwards to pick up any remaining matters. As it was the questioning jumped between the different areas, and every committee member acted as an individual rather than the committee as a whole acting in a co-ordinated fashion.

I think the pre-meeting where councillors discuss the lines of questioning ought also be held in public. It might be appropriate to hold the public speaking slot during that element of the meeting too.

I also felt those appearing before the committee, particularly those giving the oral presentations not backed up by written reports, spent too long saying what they wanted to say and not enough time answering questions on matters of interest to committee members. I would rather see shorter opening remarks and moving rapidly onto questions.

The series of shorter questions and shorter answers appeared to me to be most effective at elucidating information from those appearing before the committee.

Once the time taken by the answers to questions and the opening statements (presentations) was taken out of the meeting’s three hours there wasn’t that much time left each among the eleven of us to ask questions.

Cllr Clarke

Council Leader Cllr Nick Clarke observed some of the meeting from the public seating area. He appeared dressed in casual clothes, a multicoloured vertically striped shirt; my first thought was it could have been his pyjamas and that he might have moved into Shire Hall. Cllr Clarke is usually seen wearing a smart jacket.

It’s great to see him taking an interest in how even areas of the council he’s not directly involved in function. (Or maybe he did have a special interest in the police commissioner and police related items?)

I did think it a bit odd that I was at the committee table with the ability to contribute while the leader of the council was in the public seating.

Press and Public

While the public seating was at times well populated, it was councillors, and officers rather than any members of the press or public who were taking up the seats.

The Chief Constable’s December 2010 Report to Cambridgeshire Police Authority Introducing Operation Redesign.

Two representatives of Cambridgeshire Police attended Cambridgeshire County Council’s Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday the 14th of December 2011 to make a presentation and take questions on Operation Redesign.

Operation Redesign is Chief Constable Simon Parr’s approach to dealing with cuts to the police budget. The principle is that rather than cutting parts of the force’s activities he is redesigning it. One of my previous articles on Operation Redesign lists its seven principle work areas and gives some background.

Mr Parr did not attend the scrutiny committee himself, but sent Inspector Human and Mrs Sarah Dennett, a member of police staff, both of whom are members of the project team responsible for implementing “Operation Redesign”.

I made some notes during the presentation made by Mrs Dennett which I think give reasonable a flavour of what was said:

• Internal Change Programme
• Focus on Neighbourhood Policing
• New Budgets
• Six New Areas (Lining up with local government)
• Nearest and Quickest (On which officers respond to a call)
• Reducing Custody Demand
• Starting Investigations As Soon as a Call Comes In
• Focus on Hurt and Harm
• Lots of Real Meaningful Staff Consultation

Answering The Phone

I noted that one area where police chiefs were accepting the Operation Redesign cuts had been too deep was in the force control room, and police service centre; this had led to thousands of non-emergency calls every month going unanswered.

I asked if the representatives of the police present were able to give the committee any indication of how bad things were and how long people were being left hanging on the phone waiting for it to be picked up.

With some refreshing, but disconcerting honesty, from the police; the committee was told that the police hadn’t got the data and didn’t know how bad things were.

Chairman Cllr Tierney interjected and asked for the data to be obtained and provided to the committee.

I followed up asking why the police were not solving this problem straight away, given the negative impression of the force that it was giving so many residents of the force area who were finding themselves unable to get through to the police. I asked it wasn’t being given higher priority and why staff were not being moved from other parts of the organisation to man the phones.

The police representatives said that they did not want to make a “knee jerk reaction” (the problem has been going on since the summer). They told the committee there were no plans to address the problem in the short term, and were unable to give any estimate of when the promised technological solutions to enable the call volume to be handled with the reduced number of staff would come online.

I asked that if, given control room staff were stressed to the point of not being able to answer the phones, if any other important, but less obvious, things were not being attended to in the control room. I asked, as an example, if the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) alerts console was being monitored and responded to appropriately.

Inspector Human responded to say that the force control room staff were not stressed. (He was playing with words, clearly if the phones are not being answered the system, a key part of which is the staff, is under stress). He said ANPR alerts were being monitored as appropriate and that much of that work was done outside the control room by a dedicated ANPR team.

Neighbourhood Policing

Cllr Hoy asked if Neighbourhood Policing Teams had gone.

The police representatives said: “No”.

They went to to explain that under the changes all officers in a district will be classed as Neighbourhood Officers. I think this is a really good thing; I don’t think the separation of response police has worked well, I agree all police officers should be local officers somewhere, as well as having wider duties when called upon. I think the police have become divided into two disconnected parts which have not been working well together. When I first learnt of the degree of separation between neighbourhood and response officers I was surprised and am happy to see a more co-hesive force being created again.

It was noted by the police representatives that PCSOs were still, and would continue, in existence.

Cllr Hoy noted that the area covered by her local inspector had increased. She said that while there used to be an Inspector for Wisbech there was soon to be an Inspector for Fenland.

Cllr Hoy said she thought having a local named sergeant was and received an assurance that this would continue.

Cllr West asked why neighbourhood watch had not been used as the basis for the force’s redesign. Unprompted, he said that neighbourhood watch was “not vigilantes”.

UKIP Cllr Reeve spoke in favour of the neighbourhood policing teams.

Restorative Justice Disposals

Labour Councillor Tariq Sadiq expressed concern about how restorative justice disposal performance was being described in terms of reduction in use of custody and police officer time saved.

He said that a more important evaluation from his point of view was re-offending rates.

At this point Cllr Brooks-Gordon (Lib Dem) sought to speak to “answer that point”. Chair, Cllr Tierney however invited the police representatives, to whom the question had been directed, to respond and provide the answer. (Cllr Brooks-Gordon often appears to try and play the role of an expert when she is present in meetings as an elected representative).

Inspector Human explained there were no formal targets placed on restorative justice and assured Cllr Sadiq that savings in officer time and custody costs were just consequential bonuses of the restorative justice approach being taken. Inspector Human said what was driving restorative justice was the desire by the police to “do the right thing”.

Inspector Human said that while there had been no formal analysis of reoffending rates following restorative justice disposals yet, he could report that he had a very simple spreadsheet which listed each offender who had been dealt with by restorative justice and if they had reoffended or not. He reported the current reoffending rate was running at 8%. He compared this with a reoffending rate of 15% for those who had been given a reprimand or final warning by the force in the run-up to the introduction of restorative justice, which he said was the best comparator as it involved the same types of offences as were now being dealt with by restorative justice disposals.

Inspector Human told the committee that the force estimated 8,000 hours of police time had been saved by using restorative justice disposals. He explained that this was based on each case taking one, rather than nine, hours to deal with and around a thousand cases of restorative justice having taken place since its introduction earlier in the year. He usefully explained the force’s workings behind the figure so we could assess its credibility.

Cllr Brooks-Gordon started to lecture the committee, and the police officers, on restorative justice. Cllr Brooks-Gordon is an academic who thinks she has some kind of expertise in the field. (In August Cllr Brooks-Gordon had shouted me down at Cambridge’s West/Central area committee while I tried to argue for the police to be more open and honest about how they were using restorative justice disposals. She had declared then that all restorative justice was post-court.)

Inspector Human stopped Cllr Brooks-Gordon to explain that she was talking about something which was something which was quite different from what was being done in Cambridgeshire.

Inspector Human patiently explained again that what is being used in Cambridgeshire is “restorative justice disposals”, instant on-street processes, which on average take an hour, and are described as “instant reparation”, and not as Cllr Brooks-Gordon was referring to post-court restorative conferences (meetings between victims and offenders) Cllr Brooks-Gordon responded:

Gosh. That’s not like anything I’ve read about restorative justice in an academic paper. It doesn’t sound like the restorative justice I’ve read about being effective elsewhere.

The point that what Cambridgeshire Police are doing with restorative justice disposals is very different from the type of restorative justice which has been studied via UK government funded research was one I made in my 7th September 2011 article on the subject and in my letter to Cambridge’s executive councillor for policing Cllr Bick as well as in the statement I made in the public speaking slot of the September Police Authority Scrutiny Committee meeting.

Hopefully now Cllr Brooks-Gordon has heard this from Inspector Human, the force lead on the subject, she will retract her previous comments to the West-Central area committee, and apologise for her preventing me from describing the process in use by Cambridgeshire police as it didn’t fit with her previous experience.

However a day later she appeared to have forgotten the exchange, as she tweeted on the subject of restorative justice disposals to say:

You don’t have to convince me-impact on recidivism in well controlled trials does that.

She appears to have rapidly dropped back into using evidence based on very different types of restorative practices to support Cambridgeshire police’s instant reparation policy.

Officer Numbers

Cllr Renyolds, a member of the Police Authority, asked the police representatives to tell the committee how many police officers there were in the force, and to confirm to the committee the number was being maintained.

The police said the officer number was 1011 and would be maintained.

Cllr Renyolds then asked the police to encourage people to report crime by email to the ecops email addresses.

The police politely just didn’t respond to this (it’s a bad idea as it makes it less likely a crime will be properly recorded).

Back Office Sharing

Cllr Pellew asked about costs saved by sharing back office services.

Rural Crime

A question on rural crime prompted one of the more interesting revelations.

The force representatives stated that a new team of police had been created; which was known as “The Chief’s Reserve”, or more formally the “Tactical Team”.

This force it was reported could be deployed where it was needed to “provide the interventions required”.

Is the Chief creating his own personal force within a force? Is this something akin to the Metropolitan Police’s notorious “Territorial Support Group” which has been created in Cambridgeshire? Will this reserve be even more of a blunt instrument than “response police” were?

There was no time for any of these questions as this was the last element of the discussion on Operation Redesign. Chair, Cllr Tierney, invited the police to come back to the committee for a further update on Operation Redesign in six months time. The force representatives agreed to return.

One of the key problems believed to contribute to re-offending is that prisoners are released with just £46, and as they are not able to arrange benefits while within prison, some have little option but to return, if not to crime, to their criminal friends.

This is something Cambridge’s MP Julian Huppert has raised in Parliament and I wrote about in my article following the March 2011 Cambridge Community Safety Partnership meeting.

A report to Cambridgeshire County Council’s Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday the 14th of December 2011 informed the committee that some, slight, progress had been made.

The update, dated October 2011, stated:

A JSA claim can be initiated whilst in custody. An appointment can be given for the day of release and the person needs to present themselves at such time (before 14.00) with proof of ID. The benefits system is then updated and the benefits giro generated. If the claim is made on day of release an appointment is usually available the next day (except weekends). Therefore, the advantage of claiming whilst in custody is not that great and can be hampered by the fact that ID is not usually available on the day of release.

All newly released PPOs, are given the opportunity to use a workers phone to call and start the process of claim. Proof of ID will also be obtained on their behalf if required.

It used to be (a year ago) the case that claims could not be started in prison, and there were delays of typically three weeks for Job Seekers’ Allowance to actually be paid, and even longer for other benefits, so clearly what has been reported is progress; however there are clearly are still significant problems. The full process of applying for benefits cannot be carried out from within prison and the department for work and pensions is still insisting on a face to face meeting with applicants for benefits after their release.

The police and council officers present at the scrutiny committee meeting were focusing on how their staff were trying hard to help prisoners due for release cope with “the system”. But there appeared to be nothing being said about lobbying to change the system.

I raised this point. I asked what lobbying was being done and how it was going, and noted prisons have video conferencing facilities (for court appearances) and asked if those could be used if a face to face meeting to arrange benefits was really needed.

Cllr Brooks-Gordon interjected to say that the officer who had prepared the report had already written to the appropriate people, suggesting nothing more could be, or needed to, be done. Her interjection resulted in no response from the police or county council officers being given.

A response to the review (Word Doc) dated 29th March 2011, from the Reducing Reoffending Unit of the Home Office on behalf of central government, including the prison service and Department for Work and Pensions states:

DWP recognise the issue that delays in the processing of benefits may present for some of those who have recently left prison. DWP recently commissioned independent research on this issue published in December 2010 as part of the Departments research series (available at http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2009-2010/rrep715.pdf).

The current Social Security legislation requires that certain conditions are met when a claim is made to Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). These for example include available and actively seeking employment. Jobcentre Plus advisers in prisons work in partnership with other agencies to offer help to prisoners in finding work, training and identifying suitable benefits on leaving prison The ‘Freshstart’ process speeds up the receipt of benefit and aims to ensure that the offender engages with the Jobcentre at the earliest opportunity for help. The adviser pre-arranges a New Jobseeker Interview to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) at the prisoner’s home Jobcentre Plus office on release. It is also worth mentioning that the speed of processing JSA claims will depend on the personal circumstances of the customer and pressures on the processing teams, who are currently dealing with increased volumes of claims.

DWP continue to work closely with MoJ and NOMS on policies to address this issue.

I think I made clear I’d like to see more lobbying, I think the local Community Safety Partnerships, the Police, the Police Authority, and the Scrutiny Committee need to continue to make clear that the “system” is seriously broken in this respect and we need to better support those leaving prison.

If we’ve got “Jobcentre Plus advisers in prisons” as the response from the Home Office states, then it’s even more bonkers to require an ex-prisoiner seeking benefits to visit a Jobcentre for a face to face interview on release. It should be possible to arrange benefits from within prison.

Ideally of course it would be made even easier to arrange a job than to arrange benefits, and the government response does note work in that area is being done too.

One additional positive thing the committee were told by the police was that the problems caused by unexpected release on a Friday had been addressed and now such cases were rare; though still occurred on occasion and there was no option to keep someone in prison until a Monday morning if their sentence was calculated to end on the Friday or over the weekend, even if that was what the person wanted.

Cambridgeshire County Council’s Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday the 14th of December 2011 recommended that Cambridgeshire County Council’s cabinet ought expand the resources devoted to addressing domestic abuse within the council’s Community Engagement Directorate.

The committee heard, for the first time, that Domestic Violence support is currently limited to those taking their cases through the criminal justice process and pursuing a prosecution. This is likely to remain the case given the level of additional funding anticipated.

Cllr Samantha Hoy, who is leading a member led review into Domestic Violence for the County Council, complained that that she had not been made aware of this; she explained that she wanted to be made fully aware of everything that was going on so she could include it in her review. Cllr Hoy said that while she understood her review needed to be concluded at some point, she wanted to wait for the current changes to be concluded so their impact could be assessed.

One of the statistics presented to the committee was that only one in four domestic violence related reports to the police resulted in a crime being recorded (This may be 1 in 5 the wording was unclear). The committee was told that in the overwhelming majority of cases where calls to the police for help in relation to domestic violence are made there will be no follow-up at all after the initial attendance by the police.

The committee was told that the council’s current five staff who work with victims of domestic violence had previously been grant funded. The source of this wasn’t mentioned but the committee was told it was no-longer available. Therefore an increase in the resources the council itsself puts towards helping victims of domestic violence would be required to maintain the current service levels.

Chairman of the scrutiny committee Steve Tierney asked the officer in-charge how many staff he thought were actually needed. The answer given was twenty-five, based on the demand for service and staffing in comparable areas.

One councillor cautioned against too rapid an increase in staff numbers as this might cause management problems.

Another councillor asked for details of how much management was involved in the service, and if there were huge swathes of administrators sitting above the five staff who actually do the work. The committee was told the team had one administrator who took reports from the police and allocated them to staff, and were assured there was a minimal management structure in place.

It was noted that the County Council also spend some money commissioning services from the voluntary sector. I presume this means that, through the involvement of volunteers, the council gets more person-time and impact for its money than it would if it used the money on its own staff. I hope this is the case and the “voluntary sector” in this context hasn’t just become another contractor to outsource to. Commissioning services from, and entering contracts with the “voluntary sector” rather than simply working with them, while common, is something which I find to hard to reconcile with what I think the term “voluntary sector” means.

The interim report argues that spending money on domestic violence makes sense, because of the huge sums of money which could potentially be saved if domestic violence is tackled early.

In fact the interim report underestimates the potential cost savings as it considers mainly the direct costs of domestic violence eg. the costs of the police call outs to domestic violence incidents. It doesn’t yet quantify the full potential of “investing to save” in this area. The police have reported that many serious crimes eg. murders, child abuse, and serious violent crimes have, involve domestic violence in the background/history of their case, so a relatively small amount of money spent on domestic violence may save both lives, and the costs of major police investigations. The final report of the member led review will hopefully include references to research in this area and perhaps verify it.

While the County Council is to pay for the domestic violence work, the savings will be made across the public sector. There are expected cost savings for the public sector in terms of the NHS, housing, and social security. While the public sector is the public sector and to an extent which bit makes the savings doesn’t matter we need to ensure that there is a joined up approach and that there are the right incentives and motivations for areas of the public sector to make investments which benefit others, and that budget allocations reflect what is being done.

Cllr Hoy’s final domestic violence report will hopefully provide the basis for an evidence based argument to an incoming police commissioner for spending an appropriate amount of the police and crime budget in this area to increase the provision available. The County Council might not be the recipients of the money though, the commissioner will have to chose where the best value for money can be obtained.

One missing bit of information appears to me to be on the subject of if focusing on those taking their case through the criminal justice system is the best way to target resources. Is it these domestic violence cases which are most likely to lead to the serious crimes and costly outcomes; or are these simply the cases where people most obviously need help? Maybe these are the cases where a lack of help is most obvious to the public?

There is also the question of under-reporting; and to what extent increasing reporting in particular types of cases may have the potential to reduce consequences and costs. Are the unreported cases those in which intervention would be justified or are they largely those which have little impact on wider society?

Background

• Papers for the domestic abuse agenda item.

TASER armed officer on duty outside a pasty shop in Padstow, Cornwall.

TASER use by Cambridgeshire police is currently restricted to their Tactical Firearms Unit.

I support this as I am concerned that having officers routinely armed with TASER will damage the relationship between the police and the public and will lead to an escalation of the level of force used by the police.

It has now emerged that the force’s has aspirations to train more officers to use TASER weapons. These plans were revealed during the Police Authority scrutiny committee on Tuesday the 13th of December 2011, shortly after I was thrown out for pointing out a key omission in the public documents pack.

A report to the scrutiny committee meeting had noted that Cambridgeshire’s force policies in respect of TASER were different than those in neighbouring forces. The report noted that:

“Bedfordshire have trained 34 officers within Roads Policing and have plans to widen this”.

An urgent report from the committee to a meeting of the Full Authority to be held on the 20th of December 2011 reveal that the Cambridgeshire police chiefs present at the scrutiny committee meeting reported an intent to change their policies. The urgent report states:

The Constabulary reported their future intentions in respect to Taser. It was noted that the selection and training of officers, storage of Taser and scenarios when Taser would be deployed were to remain the same. The intention was to open up access to training to a greater number of officers.

Source: p12 Report of Committees and Panels (PDF)

This isn’t a particularly informative statement. It prompts an awful lot more questions than it answers.

It is not clear if non-firearms officers are to be trained to, and permitted to, use TASER or not. If they were that would presumably be a change in the selection criteria. I suspect the police are being very slippery with their wording.

My concern is not primarily with who within the force is trained to use TASER, I’m happy for as many officers as possible to be familiar with its use, and capable of using the weapons in extreme circumstances. What I am concerned about, and do not want to see, is routine deployment with officers responding to calls or on patrol.

If there were firearms trained officers in the force who have not yet been trained to use TASER I would be very concerned. I always want to see armed police officers have TASER available as a less-leathal option to turn to instead of their firearms. I would fully support training all firearms trained officers (if their usual role is in a tactical firearms unit or not) to use TASER.

I think the increased arming of officers with TASERs is a strategic matter which the police authority should determine. It ought not be considered an operational matter for the Chief Constable. If there’s a need for a debate on if the decision is an operational one or not then that debate ought take place in public, and not as it has done in the past in a behind closed doors between the chief constable and chair of the police authority.

I think the police authority ought base their decision on evidence from real life use of TASER in areas where it is more widely deployed. However in the past the police authority have preferred to based their decisions on rather abstract scientific research on computer simulations, the effect of electric shocks on animal tissue, and the effect on calm, healthy volunteers. I think the authority should also consider the impact on the public perception of the police, as the Metropolitan Police Authority did, when making their decision not to allow the routine deployment of TASER to front line officers.

I would like, and am pushing for, regular publication of TASER statistics by the Home Office, so that we can see how greater deployment of TASER has affected police TASER use elsewhere in in the UK.

Earlier this month Channel Four reported a large rise in police TASER use they had to survey police forces themselves to find this out as the Home Office data is not being published in a timely manner.

See Also

• Opposing More UK Police being Armed with TASERs - Letter to my MP, David Howarth, September 2007.
• All UK Front Line Response Police to Carry TASERs - My article following the November 2008 announcement by the Home Secretary.
• Cambridgeshire Police Authority - December 2008 - First discussion of TASERs by Cambridgeshire Police Authority following the Home Secretary’s Announcement.
• The Role of Police Authorities in Decisions to Extend TASER Deployment
• Encouraging Liberal Democrats to Act Locally on their National TASER Policies - February 2009
• Cambridgeshire Police Authority Dodge my TASER Questions - May 2009
• TASERs for Non-Firearms Police - includes tables showing the number of TASERs for non-firearms officers distributed to forces.
• Cambridgeshire Police Worst In Country for Accidental TASER Discharges
• Non-Firearms Officers Account for a Third of TASER Usage
• Me discussing the TASER rollout to non-firearms officers with James Whale on LBC radio.
• Home Affairs Select Committee Session on TASERs - December 2010.
• Prodding the Home Office to Resume Publishing Statistics on TASER use by the Police January 2011
• Large Rise in UK Police TASER Use

Cllr Mac McGuire (Conservative) has presented his proposal for the make up of the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel.

The make-up of Cambridgeshire’s Police and Crime Panel was discussed on Wednesday the 14th of December 2011 by both the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership and Cambridgeshire County Council’s Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Police and Crime Panel’s role will be to scrutinise the work of the elected police and crime commissioner. The key bit of law describing its make-up and operation is Schedule 6 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

The powers of the panel (listed in Chapter 4 of the act) include:

• A veto over the appointment of a Chief Constable proposed by the commissioner. (Schedule 8 Paragraph 4 Police Reform etc. Act 2011)
• A veto over the precept (the police and crime element of council tax) proposed by the commissioner. (Schedule 5 Paragraph 4 Police Reform etc. Act 2011)
• Reviewing the elected commissioner’s draft police and crime plan in public.
• Reviewing the elected commissioner’s annual report, questioning the commissioner on it in public, and making recommendations.
• Suspending the elected police and crime commissioner if they are charged with a serious offence.

The McGuire Proposal

Cllr Mac McGuire Deputy Leader of the Cambridgeshire Council and Cabinet Member for Community Engagement attended the overview and scrutiny committee and presented a proposal for the make-up of the panel which he said had been agreed between Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council.

The committee asked him to provide them with, and publish, the written document he had with him outlining the agreed make-up and rationale but he refused saying it was not yet finalised.

The McGuire proposal is:

By party that is:

• Conservative: 8
• Liberal Democrats: 2
• Labour: 1
• Independent: 1
• Lay/Other: 1

The McGuire proposal is for a 13 member police and crime panel.

This will require the approval of the Secretary of State as the default number is ten members appointed by local authorities (subject to conditions imposed on them) plus two co-optees.

The Secretary of State is able to approve a panel membership of up to 20; so there are other options open.

McGuire made clear that he sees the police and crime panel as a scrutiny body, and not a group exercising executive functions. This is one of the key decisions to be made about the panel - if it ought have cabinet and executive members on it, or “backbench” scrutineers. The indications from Cllr McGuire suggested he has made this decision and it will not be cabinet members, like him, being appointed to the panel.

This is an update from the Interim Community Safety Countywide Board on the 24th of November 2011 where McGuire said the decision had not been made as to if cabinet members would be appointed to it. At the board meeting a process was described of filling the spare seats on the board by additional councillors in order to achieve more politically proportional representation on the panel. Now there is to be only one such member, the Labour co-optee, McGuire suggested the force area’s Labour party groups together ought make the appointment. Their appointee will have to be a Labour party member, though maybe not a councillor (this needs clarifying).

McGuire had described how the county council, along with Peterborough City Council had come up with these proposals alone and intended to impose them on the district councils. As a member of the scrutiny committee I was able to ask if the district councils had been given the chance to influence the proposal. Cllr McGuire said there was no need to involve the district councils as the responsibility to come up with the arrangements lay with the county council and Peterborough City Council. McGuire’s officer said that there had been discussions with the district councils, at officer level, and that in Cambridge, the Chief Executive of the City Council, and the Director of Customer and Community Services had been fully involved.

I think McGuire was wrong to say there was no need to involve the districts. Paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 6 of the Police Reform etc. Act 2011 states:

In the case of a multi-authority police area, all the relevant local authorities must agree to the making or modification of the panel arrangements.

Relevant authorities are defined at the end of the schedule as follows:

• “relevant local authority”, in relation to a police area, means a local authority which the police area covers.
• “local authority” means— in relation to England, a county council or a district council. (Cambridge City Council is a district council).

Cllr Bick, Cambridge City Council’s Executive Councillor for Policing, had complained about this point at the Community Safety Partnership meeting. He said that the City Council was not a wholly owned subsidiary of the County Council and they should stop treating it like one. He said he expected the City Council to be involved in determining the make up of the panel and was not expecting to be handed-down a final solution.

Cllr Bick said there had been various rumours about the make-up of the panel, but no solid proposals. (Even now we only have an orally presented proposal).

It appears that while the City Council has been consulted at officer level, Cllr Bick, has not been involved. Part of the problem appears to be the County Council’s approach, but another appears to be officers at Cambridge City Council not keeping elected members informed. When Cllr Bick raised his point the Director of Customer and Community Services was present, but did not speak up to admit to having been “fully involved” by the County Council. It appears Cllr Bick might have to stress his point that the City isn’t a wholly owned subsidiary of the County to his own officers and remind them who they work for.

The primary concern raised by councillors on the scrutiny committee was how the arrangements would change to reflect election results. A number of councillors complained about the requirement in the law to take account of the political make up of the force area, Cllr West, in particular, expressed a preference for the law to allow the allocation of seats to the various geographical areas without conditions.

Cllr Brooks-Gordon asked if there were any plans to ensure proportional representation on any basis other than political allegiance, for example on the basis of sexuality. Brooks-Gordon indicated she wanted to see a panel representative of the population in wider respects than simply political allegiance and geography. McGuire had no response to this. If any such criteria are adopted we could see, for example, Cambridge City Council being required to appoint a female, non-cabinet member, Liberal Democrat councillor to the panel. I strongly oppose any such quotas or positive discrimination and think the best people for the role ought be appointed on merit.

Liberal Democrat Cllr Whitebread asked if it would be possible to co-opt people onto the panel for a particular meeting. (Perhaps she was considering some kind of temporal proportional representation?). Cllr McGuire said no, as the Secretary of State’s permission was needed for the extra co-optees. (This isn’t quite true as the Secretary of State has to approve the number of co-optees, who they are is up to the panel itsself - subject to the requirements for political balance).

UKIP’s Cllr Reeve complained about the law, saying it would be better to have had a directly elected panel. Responding to a statement from McGuire and his officer saying Elected Commissioners were to be “non-political” Cllr Reeve asked what checks and balances were in place to ensure that.

Cllr Samantha Hoy asked what would happen if the panel ended up with a different political view / make up to the commissioner.

Cllr Tierney picked up something the county officer had said. The officer had said the police commissioner would scrutinise the police and in-turn be scrutinised by the police and crime panel. Cllr Tierney said the commissioner’s role would not only be scrutiny but setting the force’s strategic objectives. The officer accepted this.

The Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee decided to return to the subject of the make up of the police and crime panel at their next meeting on Thursday, 09 February 2012. Appointments to a shadow police and crime panel will follow that very soon after, and the first meeting of the shadow board will take place in March or April 2012.

During the agenda planning item for the scrutiny committee I suggested the committee ought consider which of the many current roles fulfilled by the Police Authority and its committees will be carried out by the scrutiny committee, the police and crime panel, and by the commissioner themselves, and make sure that someone takes each one of them up. I was concerned that the committee had only discussed the make-up of the committee, not what it was going to do. While clearly an incoming commissioner will probably want to make their own arrangements so they get help doing things like monitoring the performance of the police, running custody monitoring schemes etc. it appears reasonable for councillors to set something up as a starting point which the commissioner can adapt rather than leaving it all to be built up from scratch following their election.

While it is clearly important the police and crime panel has independence from the commissioner and it has a scrutiny and veto holding role, it also, under S28(2) of the Police Reform etc. act has a role “supporting the effective exercise of the functions of the police and crime commissioner”. I think that’s really important and I’d like to see the panel, and committees of it, taking up some of the roles of the police authority and its committees. Some councillors appeared to be in favour of more rigorous “independence” and separation.

My view is that a panel who are supporting and working with the commissioner on a routine basis will be best placed, and best informed, to effectively scrutinise and wield the vetos.

Cambridge City Council’s East Area Committee is to meet from 19.00 on December the 15th 2011.

Among the agenda items is the policing report. Councillors will hold the police to account for their performance over the past period and set the priorities for the upcoming few months.

Members of the public can use a public speaking slot at the meeting. Typically the public are able to ask questions or make statements during the policing item. If given the opportunity I will seek raise the following point:

Around the 12th of October 2011 East Cambridge Ecops subscribers were sent a message with the subject: “Have you missed us?”. It described how the local police team had been working covertly for three days to tackle drug dealing.

Were PCSOs deployed covertly, in plain clothes during that period?

If PCSOs were being deployed in plain clothes I’d like to ask about what happens when they encounter members of the public. Do they identify themselves? Do they explain they have no powers when out of uniform?

I note that North Cambridge residents have been assured by their neighbourhood sergeant Jason Wragg that he would never use PCSOs in plain clothes as that is out of line with what they are intended for. Why is the position different in the East Area?

| am hoping the answer will be a simple: “No PCSOs in Cambridgeshire are never used in plain clothes”.

Cambridgeshire Police Authority Scrutiny Committee 13th of December

I observed some of the Cambridgeshire Police Authority Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday the 13th of December 2011.

I have written a number of separate articles on key aspects:

• Restorative Justice Disposals - Confusion and inconsistency continues.
• Phone Answering Performance - The police are getting even worse at answering non-emergency calls.
• Expelled for Querying Absent Papers - I was thrown out of the meeting for asking why papers were omitted from the public document pack.

I attended the meeting, held in a meeting room off the reception of police headquarters. I was asked to provide photo-ID by the receptionist on arrival; a note of my car registration number was also made. I feel these are intrusive steps. I’d rather the authority met in public buildings around the force area and did not require ID from members of the public attending.

I had submitted a number of public questions. I was given three minutes, in which to attempt to precis them.

The first, in full, reads:

Minutes

I note the police authority does not publish draft minutes (for committees, or the authority itself) in advance of a meeting at which the minutes are to be considered for approval. This introduces a delay in publication which makes it difficult to for members of the public follow what is going on, and is out of line with the practices at for example the County Council or Cambridge City Council. It makes it impossible for me, as someone who used the public speaking slot at the previous meeting, to see how my contribution has been minuted before the minutes are presented to the committee for formal approval.

The response was quite positive. I was told by the chair that this was the first time the matter had been raised and the authority’s position would be reviewed.

I was also able to raise points on phone answering and restorative justice; as noted in the specific articles.

Additional questions I did not reach in the three minutes were:

Monitoring of Authorisations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000

I would like to suggest the committee ought monitor the types of situation when RIPA authorisations are sought and authorised; so that there is oversight of when intrusive and directed police surveillance moves into new areas.

One specific question in this area I have is: “Is a RIPA authorisation obtained when a car number is entered into the ANPR system, enabling the tracking and monitoring of a vehicle (potentially in retrospect based on recorded information)?”.

I note the Metropolitan Police Authority appear to have failed to keep up with, and adequately scrutinise, their forces’ acquisition and use of technology for mass surveillance of, and interference with, mobile phones.

and:

Public Question/Statement Slot Operation

I was disappointed with two aspects of the way my public questions were handled at the last meeting. I was offered a follow-up discussion with a police officer, and not an officer of the authority. Surely the reference to a follow up meeting with an officer in the authority’s standing orders can’t reasonably be interpreted to mean a police officer?

I received a brief response to this from the chair, who suggested he didn’t see any difference between a police officer and an authority officer.

This perhaps shows one of the very many serious problems with the authority, they are far too cosy with the force when they ought be overseeing and scrutinising them, and setting their strategic direction. If I don’t have confidence in the force, or have a strategic question or suggestion, I ought be able to approach the authority, they’re no use if they just constantly bat people back to the force.

Finally:

Stop and Search Recording

What steps have been taken to follow up the suggestion made by the committee at the previous meeting that the ethnicity groups recorded on the force’s stop and search forms ought be reviewed, and further breakdown of the categories to provide statistics on the proportion of, for example white Eastern Europeans, being stopped and searched?

I received no response on this; and no committee member said anything about the stop and search statistics when the report containing them came before the committee.

Notable Points from the Meeting

(Largely extracted from my live tweets)

• A member suggested the abbreviation PCC was confusing for him and would be for the public. It was suggested P&CC be used instead to refer to the Police and Crime Commissioner.
• The effectiveness of the authority’s consultation with the public was discussed as only 37 people had responded to a consultation on the police precipt (the police element of council tax). A member asked if the authority was doing any more than scratching the surface; the marketing professionals responded with lots of jargon, saying they were using more channels than before. Asked if they were on Facebook, they said no.
• The police authority clerk told members the local policing summary is sent to every household. This is not true, it only goes to those who get council tax bills. (So students, and many housesharers are not included).
• The papers indicated the member responsible for Cambridge, Ruth Joyce (unelected), had been dropped from committee. It isn’t clear though if she was accidentally listed as a member (rather than someone attending) on the previous minutes.
• Authority members repeatedly congratulated the force for their positive performance figures.
• Increasingly detained mentally ill ppl are being taken to places they can get help rather than police stations. This is something the police were asked to look at as a result of a recent HMIC inspection of their custody facilities. The inspection was much better than the previous one, which had picked up lots of problems.
• The Deputy Chief Constable said he was happy that, should there be another death in custody, he wouldn’t be found guilty of corporate manslaughter as all the force’s policies and practices were in good shape.
• The force is focusing, with Peterborough City Council, on ~120 prolific offenders to try and reduce their reoffending.
• Integrated Offender Management was described as getting offenders help from where-ever they needed it be it the NHS, social services, education or elsewhere. A concern was expressed that for these offenders the focus might be too much on “help” and they’d be “getting away with crime” (I have recently raised this issue via letters to the local press).
• As always at recent police related meetings the “conundrum” of “Antisocial Behaviour” was discussed. The police and authority members agreed with the description of ASB as a “conundrum”. Surveys had shown that only 2% or so of people had when raised it as a problem when surveyed, but it makes up about a third of calls to the police. (These are not incompatible bits of information, they provide an interesting insight). The questions are what is defined as ASB - there’s no one definition, and what do members of the public using the term mean by it. The Deputy Chief suggested the force just responded to calls for help and if something was classed as ASB or not wasn’t important. Authority members expressed puzzlement as to how “ASB” had become their “people’s priority” if few people when surveyed cared about it.

The New Cambridgeshire Police Restorative Justice Page

I observed the Cambridgeshire Police Authority Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday the 13th of December.

I used the public speaking slot at the start of the meeting to ask about the force’s restorative justice policies.

Following my use of the public speaking slot at the previous scrutiny committee meeting the force agreed to publish their restorative justice policies. They have now put a substantial amount more information online at:

• http://www.cambs.police.uk/victims/rj/

I said this was an excellent step, and noted it was a new development since the meeting’s papers had been produced and since I had written my submitted question.

There is still a huge gulf between what has been published online and what is being repeatedly told to police authority members and councillors responsible for overseeing the police.

The force website now indicates that only certain offences can be dealt with via restorative justice however Deputy Chief Constable Feavyour has told the police authority any offence could be dealt with via restorative justice.

Even the hard exemptions, including domestic violence, which the force lead on the subject area, Inspector Human, insists are in-place are apparently not accepted by chief officers.

Other inconsistency comes with multiple offences and repeat offenders.

North Cambridge residents have been told someone who committed six thefts from vehicles has been dealt with by restorative justice. Inspector Sissons told Star Radio Cambridge: “The idea is this is the first entry into the criminal system, though there are occasions when we can give two or three.”

This is out of line with both what Inspector Human and Chief Officers say, which is an individual only gets one chance at restorative justice.

It appeared that some of the force’s detailed policies on restorative justice, in particular when cases need to be approved by a sergeant or inspector, were detailed in committee papers but these policy documents were not included in the public documents pack for the committee. I was thrown out of the meeting when I sought to query the omission.

Another element of my public question read:

Have the committee, or the authority, yet received full written details of the force’s policies on restorative justice disposals?

I note written details of the force’s restorative justice disposal policies were not supplied to the last meeting of the scrutiny committee. I observed the committee agree at its last meeting to effectively pretend they had been supplied and to publish them along with the meeting papers. Is this still the intent?

I’ve had no clear answer on these points. When orally presenting my question I expressed my view that pretending papers had been submitted to a committee was inappropriate.

I don’t know if these documents are yet held by the authority; they don’t appear to have been supplied to either the full authority or the scrutiny committee.

I noted that restorative justice was described as “pre-court” rather than “out of court” on the Cambridgeshire police webpage on penalties.

I noted the inconsistencies between some of what was included in the PDF list of offences and those on the webpage, for example one states “Criminal damage (under £100)” is an example of a crime suitable for restorative justice disposal; but the full list PDF describes caps of £3-500.

One member of the authority, Cllr John Batchelor, queried if restorative justice disposals really only took an hour on average. The police assured him this was true. He said he didn’t believe it.

Member, Jayne Wright, recommended the recent Panorama documentary on restorative justice (leading me to wonder if she realised that was largely about post-court restorative justice whereas the committee were discussing restorative justice disposals as an alternative to court).

Another member said they approved of giving police officers discretion and not setting hard and fast rules on when restorative justice can be used.

As I was thrown out of the scrutiny committee for querying the omission of papers from the public document pack I don’t know what, if anything, the committee resolved.

As there were no other members of the press or public present, and the next meeting isn’t due until March 2012, we won’t find out for three months. (Unusually the Police Authority keep their draft minutes secret until they are put to the next meeting for approval).

On Tuesday the 13th of December I observed Cambridgeshire Police Authority’s Scrutiny Committee.

The committee were told that Cambridgeshire Police are getting even worse at answering their phones.

Deputy Chief Constable Feavyour brought Superintendent Fullwood, who is charge of the force control room, to appear before the committee.

The committee were told the number of non-emergency calls going unanswered is rising and the latest data presented showed thousands of non-emergency calls being “abandoned” by members of the public each month.

The Superintendent said he had only just been brought into his post, and explained there was a plan involving: “SpeakDial” (greater automation) to improve matters.

I had used the public question slot to note:

There is no data on how long those calls which don’t meet the target call answering time take to answer. This is to me a key omission. I want to know for example, how many 999 calls take over a minute to answer, how many non-emergency calls take over five minutes to answer etc.

The meeting’s chair took this point up and requested more information on how badly the targets were being missed when the target time for picking up the phones (ten seconds for 999) was not achieved. The police were asked to provide data on the worst cases, for both 999 and non-emergency calls; with the caveat that the committee only wanted the data if it was relatively easy to obtain.

I think this was an important step as it will help the public and authority members assess the problem.

Cllr John Reynolds expressed concern that the next scrutiny committee meeting isn’t scheduled until the 19th of March 2012; which is quite a long time to wait without decent statistics and with the problems unresolved. The Police Authority’s clerk said, cryptically, “something could be arranged” (perhaps a special meeting on this important matter?).

The Superintendent and Deputy Chief Constable said the problem was that control room staff had been cut too far. The Deputy Chief Constable said that given the scale of cuts it was inevitable that sometimes they will go too far and corrective action will need to be taken. The committee were told that fourteen staff had been cut from those answering the phones.

Peterborough City Councillor Matthew Lee (Conservative) spoke passionately on the issue. He said that those who’ve not been able to get through to the police will have their impressions of the service severely damaged, and they’ll remember for years that they weren’t able to get through when they tried to. He urged taking immediate action and moving staff from elsewhere in the organisation into the control room. However his proposal was not supported by any of his fellow committee members (many of whom were unelected appointees).

Cllr Lee said that if we had an elected commissioner, and they heard of the extent of the problems the police were having answering their phones, they would demand that it was addressed straight away.

The police were not clear on exactly what they were proposing to tackle the problem or in what timescale. They talked both about reversing the extent of the cuts and about new technology.

Members of the committee appeared more interested in educating the public to wait on the line longer for the police to answer (though they had no data on how long they’d actually be asking people to wait).

Cllr Lucas, the meeting’s chair, said that he had been told himself, and he had heard from other elected representatives and parish councillors, that people were not reporting minor crime, such as broken windows in their homes, because they had lost confidence that the police would answer their phones.

Members of the committee were told there had been a reduction in the total number of non-emergency calls. Committee members and the police agreed this was probably due to people not even bothering to try calling having had a poor experience.

The potential implication on statistics, and reduced reporting of crime, was raised.

Other members said that people complaining they couldn’t get through to the police when they called up was being raised at all the local meetings they attended. However Nic Williams, the member responsible for South Cambridgeshire (an unelected appointee) said this had not been raised in her area. It was suggested this was due to the press coverage of the problems being in the Cambridgeshire Times and Cambridge Evening News, however Nic Williams said the Cambridge Evening News was the major newspaper in her area too.

Proposals to reassure the public at local meetings that the police were still available even if people couldn’t get through on the phone were raised. Nic Williams objected on the grounds that in her area this would amount to reassuring people who weren’t aware there was a problem.

Another part of the public question I submitted read:

Does the committee believe that the 999 system has been unaffected by the problems affecting the police’s ability to answer its phones which started this summer?

Cllr Lucas said he stood by his answer on behalf of the Authority to the Cambridgeshire County Council full council meeting at which he said the 999 system was unaffected.

I also stated:

It would be useful if the performance pack quoted what the “grade of service” standards applicable actually are. Currently, as far as I can tell, an assumption has to be made that national standards are being followed.

The response to this was that the grades of service had, once, been reported to the full authority. (I don’t know if that’s was intended seriously be considered acceptable, as clearly there’s no point saying X% of calls meet a target in a report if you have to hunt through documents for another committee to find out what that target actually is).

On a related point unelected member Jayne Wright noted that she was the only person promoting the use of the new non-emergency number 101 at local meetings. (I thought it was interesting to hear she spoke as a police authority member at local meetings, our local member for Cambridge never does so). The police said that as it was being “soft-launched” they were not actively promoting it yet.

Key Questions

If this matter is raised at the Police and Crime Scrutiny Committee at the County Council on the 14th of December I think the key questions are:

• How and when will the police be retuning call answering performance to 2009 levels?
• When is the new technology expected to be installed. What features will it have for the public? (eg. will it return abandoned calls, or enable such call backs?)
• How bad is the current situation, we know thousands of calls are being dropped, but how long are people hanging on waiting for an answer?
• Are the pressures specific to certain times of the day? Certain days when staff levels are lower than required?

See Also

• The written “performance pack” of data presented to the committee (PDF)
• Cambridgeshire Police Not Answering Phone - my article from the 13th of September 2011

This afternoon I was thrown out of the Cambridgeshire Police Authority Scrutiny Committee meeting.

During the agenda item on restorative justice disposals Deputy Chief Constable Feavyour drew members’ attention to a document he described as the force’s restorative justice policy which he stated was in the meeting papers. Also members of the authority were referring to, and had in their meeting papers, documents describing the force’s restorative justice processes, one member I could see for example had a flow chart describing the process.

I checked, and double checked, the papers which had been provided to me and concluded these papers were omitted from the public documents pack. I had made sure the documents hadn’t been included out of sequence. All the public pack contained was a two page summary report, and I knew this was all that had been made available online prior to the meeting as I had thoroughly read all the papers which had been made available.

I indicated I wanted to say something, making clear I wasn’t seeking to enter into the debate.

The chair, Cllr Lucas, refused, but I didn’t think he understood that wasn’t seeking to enter the debate, so I decided to heckle anyway and simply made the point that the public documents pack only contained the two page covering report and not the additional documents being referred to. I hadn’t got as far as asking if this was the intent, before the meeting was suspended and I was being thrown out.

This left the meeting continuing with no members of the press or public present.

I should explain that I wasn’t disrupting a major set-piece full council meeting, or even a full meeting of the authority. This was a small committee meeting, with about six or so police authority members present (at least one had left by this point).

The kind of response I would have expected would have been for the chair to have asked for copies of the papers to be passed to me, and to order their publication online too.

I view his throwing me out, without the warnings that people to be thrown out of Cambridge City Council or Cambridgeshire County Council meetings typically get, as ludicrously disproportionate and against operating in a transparent and open manner.

I was disappointed that no authority members argued with the chair’s ruling; and none proposed a vote on my exclusion. This however is typical of police authority meetings where the chair alone often rules on, for example, discussing certain agenda items in secret session.

One particularly concerning factor was that Deputy Chief Constable Feavyour joined the chair in asking me to leave. I think this is was inappropriate as the police authority is there to oversee and scrutinise the police. I don’t think the police should play a role in determining who is able to observe and report on the meetings of the authority. The Deputy Chief Constable only added his voice a few moments later, as I was waiting to see if anyone was going to overturn the chair’s bizarre ruling.

It is not unprecedented for members of the press or public to comment on matters of fact during even full police authority meetings; though of course it would be inappropriate to allow them to enter debate.

I think that pointing out the public document pack was apparently deficient was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If this had been at a council meeting there would typically have been council staff available to approach, but at this meeting all the staff were sitting around the meeting table so there was no other reasonable practical way to draw attention to the omission.

If the full meeting papers were not in the public documents pack, or on the website, then the police authority will have breached their own standing orders. (Correction 23:13 13/12/11 - their standing orders aren’t that good - but they do promise to publish the papers!)

At the scrutiny committee’s previous meeting the force’s policies on restorative justice had not been provided and authority members complained. The previous meeting decided to pretend they had been supplied and to publish them retrospectively along with the papers (though this didn’t happen). I had used the public speaking slot at the start of the meeting to express my view that this underhand subterfuge was inappropriate (I recall I used more moderate language).

I think it is really important that the force’s policies on restorative justice disposals are made public; I have been lobbying on this point for some time. I thought it was critically important that the police, and authority members, shouldn’t continue under the impression that they had been released via the scrutiny committee papers when they had not. I also thought that as someone trying to observe, follow along with, and report on, proceedings I ought to have had access to the papers.

The police authority tweeted about my expulsion stating:

Scrutiny Cmt: Member of Public removed for persistent heckling. Meeting Standing Orders clear on public questions. #policescrutiny #live

I responded to tweet:

RT @PACambs: Scrutiny Cmt: Member of Public removed for persistent heckling. <-That's libelous. I asked why papers missing from public pack

[My approach to libellous material being written about me is generally to quote and refute it. I note that while I wasn't identified in this tweet, I was identified in an earlier tweet from the authority.].
I also tweeted:

RT @PACambs: Scrutiny Cmt: Member of Public removed for persistent heckling. <-I simply made the point papers were missing. Politely. Once.

Possible Next Steps

• I could complain to the police authority about :
  • The chair’s disproportionate action in throwing me out of the meeting
  • The omission of the papers from the public pack
• I could use the public speaking slot at the next full authority meeting to draw attention to the occurrence; perhaps also connecting it with other failures of openness and transparency in the police authority’s operations.
• The police authority’s clerk (styled “Chief Executive” to justify the ~£100K/year salary) offered me the omitted papers when escorting me out. What’s important though is not that I get them, but that they’re are officially made public.
• The chair, Cllr Lucas, is a representative of the County Council, on the authority, I could raise my complaint with the County Council.

At the moment I think raising it in the public speaking slot at the next full authority meeting is the best option. I would hope for an apology at the full authority meeting, from Cllr Lucas and the authority, as well of course for the papers in question to be published.

The Cambridge Community Safety Partnership proposes the city wide policing priorities for the city which are then approved (or not) by a full meeting of Cambridge City Council.

The group comprises representatives of the City Council, Police, County Council, NHS, and Magistrates. I have submitted the following public questions for their forthcoming meeting:

During the relevant slot on the agenda of the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership meeting on the 14th of December 2011 I would like make the following statements / ask the following questions:

1.Neighbourhood Profiles

Is the Community Safety Partnership responsible for determining the content of the neighbourhood profile documents provided to Cambridge’s Area Committees?

A number of the area committees in Cambridge have requested changes to the report contents so they are better informed when setting local priorities. Common requests include more information on speeding, and a better breakdown of violent crime.

I would like to suggest these documents need to be more responsive to councillors’ requests.

I also note that while they have the names of neighbourhood sergeants on the front many of the sergeants presenting the information appear quite surprised by what they find in the reports. It should, in my view, be clearer which elements, if any, are authored by the neighbourhood sergeants, and where the other elements come from.

I think councillors would find much of the data collated and visualised the Cambridgeshire County Council Research Team of value; for example localised versions of the maps (including on ambulance call outs for assault, needle finds and ASB) present in the Strategic Assessment which the CSP are considering at this meeting.

Is there an opportunity for those who produce the data for the CSP, and for the Interim Community Safety Countywide Board, to work more closely with those who produce the neighbourhood profiles? What about closer working with police.uk too?

2. Openness and Transparency

I would like to suggest the CSP work to improve the openness and transparency in crime and policing related services locally. I think this would be an appropriate theme to also promote at the level of the Interim Community Safety Countywide Board.

I note that during the Cambridge City Council debate on the CSP’s priorities earlier in the year, the lack of transparency and openness from both the CSP and other crime and policing related bodies was raised by many of the councillors who contributed to the debate.

In terms of specific examples: I would like to see the magistrates court lists and registers published. Some of this data is published for courts from the North West at http://www.qcourt.co.uk/ In Cambridge by comparison the magistrates operate in relative secrecy, even if you attend in person at the Cambridge “courts” full lists are not readily available. I think justice should be seen to be done, in public, and don’t think Cambridge should be lagging behind those parts of the country which already operate more openly, it should be leading the way.

Ideally I would also like to see the police incident logs, and crime records, published (with personal information withheld) and connected to the court data so that a fuller crime and justice picture can be easily obtained.

Another example of a lack of openness locally comes from the probation service, which has promised to publish its board papers and minutes but to-date has failed to do so. I think its important that those who want to find out about the work of the probation service are able to do so. What various sentences and orders handed down by the courts mean locally ought be readily accessible information.

A key local crime and policing body, the Cambridgeshire Local Criminal Justice Board, currently as far as I can see proactively publishes no information at all about its work.

Unlike many public bodies the police authority do not publish their draft minutes as even as part of the papers for a meeting which is to consider approving them. This means there can be months between a meeting of the authority and any record of it being officially published.

I hope these examples show how the entire policing and crime sector is not keeping up with advances in openness and transparency seen elsewhere.

I note the Community Safety Partnership has published its papers for this meeting in one large PDF; this vastly improves accessibility over the previous method of Microsoft office documents embedded in a word document. The Police, Police Authority, City and County Council all have public meeting calendars none of which currently list the Community Safety Partnership; I suggest they should to promote the partnership’s existence and activities.

All those crime and policing related organisations, which, like the CSP, are not formally subject to the Freedom of Information Act ought voluntarily comply with its provisions.

3. Police.UK

At the February 2011 meeting of the CSP it was resolved to write to police.uk (though this did not appear to make the minutes).
Was any letter sent? Was any response received?
If these documents exist can they be published?

4. Restorative Justice Disposals.

Particularly given the scale of the changes to policing arising from the use of restorative justice I think there has been far to little hard information about what the police’s policies are published.

I think the police authority in particular have failed to consider, and approve or not, the significant changes to police strategy which have occurred. The police authority appear not to have even been kept up to date with the police’s policies in this area.

Councillors setting police priorities appear unaware of what the police locally are doing. I was shouted down during the open forum section of the last police priority setting West/Central area committee when asking questions about the police’s restorative justice disposal policies, by a councillor, Cllr Brooks-Gordon asserting that all restorative justice was carried out post sentencing in court. I believe that exchange and lack of information there prompted a request from Cllr Bick to ask for the presentation to this CSP meeting. I note Cllr Bick has promised to take up my requests for more openness about the police’s policies and practices in this area.

In terms of specific aspects of the restorative justice disposals policy, on June the 1st 2011 North Area Residents were informed via ECops that an offender who had committed a cycle theft and 6 thefts from Motor Vehicles had been dealt with via restorative justice. Is this permissible under the force’s current policies? In his November Star Radio Cambridge police podcast Inspector Sissons said: “The idea is this is the first entry into the criminal system, though there are occasions when we can give two or three”; is that an accurate reflection of the force policy on restorative justice disposals?

On a national level magistrates have recently been expressing concerns about the increased use of out of court disposals. Last week, on the 8th of December, Minister Nick Herbert suggested magistrates could be given a role in handing out these out of court summary sentences. As the CSP is the only forum I’m aware of locally where a magistrates’ representative appears in public it would be interesting to hear what our local magistrates’ views are on this in the context of the dramatic changes in Cambridgeshire Police policy we have seen this year.

I will of course be happy to précis my questions to seek to fit them into the time allotted for public questions at the meeting.

–

Richard Taylor
Cambridge
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

See Also

• CSP webpage - containing link to meeting papers

Cambridgeshire Police’s Sector Inspector for the Ely area Robin Sissons - Again Featuring in a Star Radio Podcast.

Star Radio’s regular podcast with Cambridgeshire Police’s Inspector Sissons, the sector inspector for Ely, is a great route for finding out about how the police are operating.

One of the things that is particularly revealing is when there are differences between what Inspector Sissons says from his position close to the front line, and what councillors and police authority members charged with overseeing the police are told by senior officers.

In the latest podcast on the 28th of November Inspector Sissons, responding to a question I had sent in on Restorative Justice disposals, said:

We can only do it when the person has never had one before. Obviously we keep records on our crime system. The idea is this is the first entry into the criminal system, though there are occasions when we can give two or three. The general jist is that it is only the first time.

This directly contradicts what Deputy Chief Constable Feavyour told the police authority scrutiny committee on the 12th of September which was that no offender could have two goes at restorative justice within the force area.

Residents of North Cambridge have been informed that restorative justice has been used for someone who committed seven offences including six thefts from motor vehicles. Which appears to not only go against the “one chance” principle, but also exceeds the limits of what offences which Inspector Human, the force’s lead officer on Restorative Justice, told me apply, he said there was an exclusion for vehicle related thefts.

What I’d actually asked for was some real life examples of the use of Restorative Justice authorised by the inspector since the last podcast. By asking for instances which he had authorised I was hoping to find out about the more serious offences which had been dealt with by restorative justice disposals, rather than through the courts. While he didn’t speak about the more serious cases, he did give three recent examples:

• One school boy punched another on a school bus. Inspector Sissons said that there was no police caution given which “would have affected him for the rest of his life” but an apology to the victim, the school and the bus driver. Inspector Sissons expressed his view that this was proportionate and that the two boy were friends again now. Asked what age the boys were Inspector Sissons said 13-14
• A case of harrassment with a load of kids on someone’s rooftop garden/terrace verbally abusing the occupiers when challenged. The victim just wanted the kids to go away, the kids delivered a letter of apology which they went round to deliver with an officer.
• A public order case, a boy swore at someone in the street. Police found the boy was very stressed with exams and the behaviour was out of character, so a letter of apology was deemed appropriate and putting them through the judicial system doesn’t make sense

Asked if restorative justice was being used mainly with young people, Inspector Sissons said yes. He said it was being used for low level crime, where previously the police had strict rules which meant they gave out police cautions, they were now able to take more sensible action which was also a lot quicker as it doesn’t involve custody and formal interviews.

My Views

My view on these kinds of cases is that restorative justice disposals, or even possibly no police action at all (depending on the details), would quite possibly have been appropriate.

Inspector Sissons comment that a police caution affects someone for the rest of their lives though is the most worrying part of his comments here to me. I think society really has to change to allow people to reform. This will become increasingly important as it gets easier to find out about people’s pasts as more and more information is made available online. If we don’t accept people can reform then I think we will find it harder to rehabilitate people and reduce reoffending.

In many instances I suspect the way the system is set up leads people to accept cautions or to plead guilty. Often people are faced with the choice of either being kept in custody longer, or risking being given a custodial sentence or accepting a caution or pleading guilty. Understandably given those choices sometimes even if innocent people opt to keep their freedom. I see this as a major problem with our criminal justice system.

Also sometimes people, especially young people, are not aware of the potential consequences of pleading guilty or accepting a referral order on the rest of their lives.

One thing I particularly dislike is that even a arrest can have a negative impact on someone’s life; for example visa free travel to the USA is conditional on not having been arrested.

I have written more about this subject here.

Police not seen on patrol.

I had also asked for Inspector Sissons’ reaction to the British Crime Survey data published on the 17th of November 2011 which revealed 25% of people have never seen a police officer on patrol in their local area.

Inspector Sissons’ immediate response was:

Blimey, 25%!

He then said that people don’t see the police on patrol near their homes if they’re out at work, or if they’re in during the evening with their curtains closed.

He added that police resources are limited though, and the police generally patrol areas where crime is high or where there have been incidents. Inspector Sissons said it was a good thing not to see police officers on your street, and if he saw police officers down the street where he lives he’d wonder what was going on.

This subject was raised by Assistant Chief Constable Hopkins when he spoke to me following the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Strategy Group meeting. His concern was an elected police and crime commissioner might request visible policing patrols even of low crime areas on the grounds that everyone pays their taxes, and everyone should get the service, even if this can be shown to not be a very good use of resources. I share those concerns and hope that a commissioner will be elected who the public trust to allocate resources in the way which is most effective.

Other Items

Politeness

A listener had asked about why the police often addressed people informally, for example as “mate”.

I think this, and related questions about police - public relations are really key. If people think the police don’t have any respect for them that is very damaging to police public relations, a point made by Newsnight reporting on the Guardian’s interviews of those involved in the Summer 2011 riots. One of my big concerns is not just inappropriate and disrespectful language, but police officers lying and misleading people about the extent of their powers; particularly during stop and search and stop and account procedures, but in other interactions too.

I’ve been stopped when driving, and on asking why been told by the officer: “Because I’ve got the power to do so, sir” (That was in Cambridgeshire, but by a Hertfordshire officer) and was a response I was clearly unimpressed with, the follow-up when pressed of: “because of the security situation in Royston tonight, sir” wasn’t any better . PC Steve Hinks I believe mis-represented his powers when he stopped me for looking over a fence in Chesterton.

Inspector Sissons said that the force’s practice of being informal when talking to people had come from the previous chief constable Julie Spence. He said that Spence had wanted her officers to be seen as members of the community and thought that informal language was a way to achieve this. It was interesting Inspector Sissons was still referring to Spence’s style of policing despite the fact the new, low profile, Chief constable, Simon Parr, being in post for over a year now.

Inspector Sissons explained that ex Chief Constable Spence wanted the force to be more familiar, and said the language was one part of that, another was putting officers names on their uniforms.

Cycle Lights

On cycling without lights Inspector Sissons claimed that his officers do stop cyclists without lights on sight. I think he might have been a little disingenuous here as, as I understand it, PCSOs do not stop cyclists; and there are few PCs on patrol. In Cambridge I certainly regularly see police officers ignoring cyclists without lights. I think this is clearly dangerous behaviour which the police should not ignore.

Crossing Borders

In non-emergency cases Cambridgeshire police deal with cases in their force areas even if other officers are closer; leading to delays. But in emergencies they do cross borders.

Rural Crime

Focus is on prevention, but there is a scrap metal operation ongoing.

Policing in pairs

Police do operate in pairs in the evenings and at night when there is more violence, but during the day ought patrol singly.

Parking Tickets

The police have no targets for giving out tickets.

Overall

Inspector Sissons is clearly very good, but I think it’s important to remember he’s one of those the police trust to engage with the public.

Questions

The full note of questions which I submitted to Star Radio in advance of the November 28th podcast was:

Hi,

Here are some ideas for questions:

Can he give some examples of restorative justice disposals has he authorised in the last two weeks?

(We’ve had some textbook examples from him, but what about some real, recent examples - and by asking for what he as an inspector has authorised I’m wondering about the more serious cases in which restorative justice disposals might be being used).

Have councillors approved any uses of restorative justice where the local residents as a whole have been a victim of crime?

Are his team now dealing with most of their restorative justice disposals within the hour? Has “instant reparation” reached Ely?

If restorative justice is only going to provide a part of Cambridgeshire police’s target of reducing the number of those arrested and taken into custody by a quarter, what’s going to make up the rest? Can we have some examples of those the police are no longer going to arrest (and not ‘dispose of’ via restorative justice either).

How, if at all, is he expecting upcoming changes eg. the loss of the dedicated force helicopter and merging of the firearms, major crime, professional standards and scientific services services with Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire to impact local policy in Ely?

With so much of what was our local police force being merged with other forces, and with the National Crime Agency due to come into operation in 2013, what’s really going to left of Cambridgeshire police? Will it just be neighbourhood policing? Is the increasing separation of neighbourhood policing from the rest of policing a good thing?

When members of the public complain to the police about “anti-social behaviour” what does he think they mean? Are they complaining about: crime?; fear of crime? Is “anti-social behaviour” a useful term to use? Does it add or detract from clarity of communication between the police and public.

Recently released [November 2011] British Crime Survey data says 25% of people have never seen a police officer on patrol in their local area. (Guardian article) Why does he think this is? Does he think patrolling residential areas is a useful activity for the police to be doing or do they have better things to do with their time?

River Cam

The Conservators of the River Cam are to meet in Cambridge Guildhall at 0930 on Wednesday the 7th of December to consider a report prepared by consultants Ecorys Ltd at a cost of £27,963.

The report is on how the Cam Conservators might balance their budget in the future. A summary of responses to a consultation notes:

Free text comments revealed a strong view that Conservators should control their own costs in order to minimise any rise in fees.

The report makes no suggestions for any such savings and recommends increasing the various fees and charges the Conservators raise from river users, including adding a new additional charges for those organising events on the river. The report even suggests that the Conservators ought seek more money from local councils to fund its activities.

The report, like many of the Conservators’ activities, doesn’t look like good value for money to me. Much of the information isn not presented particularly clearly.

Despite only being responsible for a short stretch of river the Conservators spend over £200,000 a year on salaries for:

• River Manager
• Deputy River Manager
• River Foreman
• Deputy Foreman
• River Bailiff

Residential boater Amy Tillson has calculated that the Cam is the most expensive waterway in the country for residential boaters, at £77/mile compared with £0.30/mile for a canal licence.

(The charge the city council makes for boaters to moor on the city’s commons is a separate from the licence to use the river and does not go to the Conservators).

The Conservators are not an organisation made up of democratically elected representatives and despite their substantial public role are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (neither have they made any voluntary commitment to comply with the spirit of the law). The lack of transparency about how the organisation is run is one of its key criticisms, along with its high costs.

Green Councillor for Abbey Ward, which has a substantial river frontage, has sought for a long period to become a Conservator but the city council voted against allocating her one of its seven places it allocates the body. Only two Cambridge City Councillors, one County Councillor and one South Cambridgeshire councillor are Conservators. (The list on the Conservator’s website is out of date)

Much of the rest of the Conservators’ website is out of date too, despite the excess staff. The latest news on the latest news page is a year old for example.

See Also

• Conservators of the River Cam - January 2009

102 Hartington Grove, Including the Cycle/Bin Store

A planning application has been submitted to Cambridge City Council for a bike shed and bin store in the front garden of 102 Hartington Grove.

Comments are currently being sought on the application’s webpage.

As it is a retrospective application the structure in question is present in the image associated with this article.

I have submitted the following:

I support this application.

I think that the requirement for planning permission for this structure is bonkers. I think it is state interference in people’s lives gone bananas.

The structure is much less intrusive than many parked vehicles could be.

To encourage cycling in the city I would suggest the council ought find a way of permitting this kind of cycle store without the bureaucracy involved in gaining planning permission.

This is the second case I’ve seen recently where retrospective planning application has been submitted to the City Council for bike storage along these lines in a front garden. While walking around the city it can be seen that such structures are relatively common (though you have to actively look to see them). If we want to encourage cycling people need secure and dry places to store their bikes, especially if they are decent bikes for practical everyday use. I think this kind of minor modification to a home ought be generally permitted to let people adapt their homes to suit their lives.

I wonder what has prompted this application and wonder if city council planners have too little to do as housing development has slowed, and/or perhaps they are seeking new sources of revenue (there are charges for making planning applications).

It appears the structure is relatively new, so a little stark in terms of colour due to the new wood; but that could easily be sorted with some staining, or simply waiting a year or two.

I understand my comments have gone beyond the scope of the consideration of this individual application; I wonder though if something could be done, perhaps during next year’s review of the local plan, to make installing unobtrusive cycle parking in-front of homes in Cambridge possible without the excessive bureaucracy.

Cycle theft is a major problem in Cambridge and I think the council should be encouraging, not working against, those taking action to secure their bikes.

High Street Cottenham: site of my minor collision last year.

Almost exactly a year ago I was involved in a minor road collision.

I’m writing this post to:

1. Urge people driving in the snow and ice this winter to take care.
2. Encourage a revival of the principles of the Good Samaritan.
3. Raise some ideas for improvements in policing.

While it was only it a relatively very slow speed crash, and I was in a car, not on my bike or walking, it still hurt (I think my body really tensed up and I began to feel all sorts of aches a few hours after the incident), and generally shook me up. That’s my main point: take care, as the consequences of even very minor crashes are well worth avoiding.

At about 0830 on Monday the 29th of November 2010 I was on Rampton Road / High Street Cottenham approaching the roundabout at the junction with Histon Road. I was stopped in a queue approaching the roundabout and the car behind crashed into me. I saw the car in the mirror as it approached, but it appeared to be normal and I wasn’t looking in the mirror when it hit so it came as a surprise.

The driver of the car which crashed into me was Marcus Stamp of Tylers Estate Agents’ Histon Office. While perfectly polite, what he said to me after the crash was astonishing: he said it was his second crash of the morning, and told me he had skidded for “miles” before hitting me (I believe he was trying to suggest he had been trying very hard to stop), he also gave an impression that he didn’t really have any respect for others on the road or the vehicle he was driving, he was quick to say it was a company car and openly said he therefore didn’t care too much about it - it was a heavy and powerful Audi.

Following the crash we both got out of our cars briefly; and I decided the safest thing to do was to pull off the road. We couldn’t pull onto the green as there’s quite a bank on that side of the road, so I suggested we move the cars off the road on the other side, where there are houses and driveways. Staying on the road, so close to the roundabout would have caused a serious hazard as cars were already pushing to overtake us.

As we pulled up on the other side of the road someone was leaving one of the houses to take their children to school; Mr Stamp explained what had happened, moved his car out of the way, to let them out, parked up again and we began to look at the damage and exchange details. We were in-front of 356 High Street, Cottenham.

Shortly after this an irate man stormed out of the house we were infront of in what, in retrospect, was a slightly comedic, “Get off my land” mode. Mr Stamp said he had to get to work, confirmed I had everything I needed from him, and drove off. I hadn’t decided yet if I was going to drive away with the car as it was as the bumper had been pushed into the rear wheels. I explained the situation to the ranty irate resident, who took the view that we ought to have kept the cars on the road, even if they were in a dangerous position rather than pulling them infront of his house. He said that he wanted compensation and demanded my name and address, which I willingly gave him, saying that I would stand by my actions as being perfectly reasonable and the only safe option open to me. He claimed that his lawn would have been damaged.

I phoned some people for advice about the state of the car; which turned out to be that as the bumper was plastic it being in contact with the tyres was unlikely to shred/damage the tyres. While I was on the phone the man who had returned inside came out again and was again ranting. I of course didn’t continue my conversation on the phone, I gave him my full attention so I have a third party to who can vouch for how unreasonable he was being. Eventually he went back inside and asked me to knock on his door and speak to him again before I left, which I duly did, once I’d done my best to pull the bumper off the tyres and make the car safe to drive. He made no apology for his behaviour, and restated his intention to make a claim of some sort (insurance / small claims I don’t know) for compensation for having his property driven onto.

I returned once the snow had melted and saw that the area of grass which may have been driven on under the snow was in fact a muddy corner which the bins for the property are pulled up on.

What I think the resident ought to have done of course; is what I’m suspect 9/10 or more of people would do; ask if everyone’s all right, and offer help, use of a phone, a cup of tea, tape to sort of the bumper or whatever. I suspect I was just unlucky to come across two rather anti-social individuals in rapid succession that morning.

The crash also resulted in unnecessary hassle and even though I wasn’t at fault, slightly higher insurance premiums, as well as something else to remember to declare whenever I seek insurance in the future.

I don’t know what speed was involved in the crash, but the rear doors of the car didn’t open afterwards, and the car was thrown forward a bit, so there was a fair amount of energy involved.

Policing

I considered calling the police on the morning as I was being ranted at quite unreasonably. While I never felt unsafe, it was certainly intimidating behaviour which I suspect would have amounted to a public order offence.

I also considered that someone probably ought not be able to drive through Cambridgeshire crashing twice in one morning without the police taking an interest. Does crashing twice count as reckless? I don’t know I suppose it could just be unlucky, but perhaps worthy of some investigation.

Given the weather conditions I have no doubt that despite it being early on a weekday morning the police would have plenty of more important things to be dealing with. I also don’t have any confidence that the police would behave rationally or reasonably and if I had reported either or both aspects of what had happened I’d have probably ended up investigated for criminal damage to a driveway.

I’m wondering if an insurance company ought be required to report a series of crashes to the police; not only in relation to identifying potentially careless driving; but also to improve accident data used for policy making which currently only covers accidents reported to the police. I think for data collection, that would be a good idea, at least to get a better impression of what fraction of incidents are reported and including in statistics. As for if insurance companies ought ever be required to contact the police about the nature of a driver’s claims - I’m not so sure.

I’m also left wondering it is right that people can go straight from passing their test to driving a very powerful car which they might not be capable of driving safely. On balance though I’m not a fan of excessive curtailment of liberties and increased regulation as generally people are sensible. It would certainly be interesting to review the data on road traffic incidents to see if there are any more precise groups of people disproportionately responsible for collisions in the local area than simply younger men. It would be interesting to see if there are any Cambridge or Cambridgeshire specific high risk groups which can be tackled.

Since

I have not heard from the resident I encountered. Despite taking my address he did not contact me directly, either with any claim, or even an apology, which he might have thought on reflection, was due.

I didn’t write about this at the time as I thought it inappropriate to do so before the insurance matters were concluded.

TASER armed officer on duty outside a pasty shop in Padstow, Cornwall.

Channel Four News are this evening reporting the results of a survey of TASER use by UK Police Forces which they have carried out via Freedom of Information requests.

They have uncovered a 100% increase in TASER use in Cambridgeshire in 20010/11 compared with the previous year:

Total times Taser fired 2009/10: 9 (8 with darts, 1 drive stun).
Total times Taser fired 2010/11: 18 (18 with darts).

This has occurred despite TASER use in Cambridgeshire being restricted to firearms officers.

Elsewhere in the country, particularly it appears where non-firearms trained officers are routinely armed with TASER weapons, much larger increases have been seen. In Staffordshire where as of April 2011 164 non-firearms officers TASERs carried TASERs (the roll-out to non-firearms officers having occurred in 2009-10), an increase of 480% was found.

An 800% increase highlighted in the Channel Four article was from Suffolk Constabulary where usage rose from 2 firings in 2009/10 to 18 in 20010/11. There are a number of forces where the low absolute figures can make percentage figures misleading. The full absolute figures are presented below. There is even a force where usage increases from a level of 0, which presents a challenge to the calculation of a percentage increase.

Channel Four should not have had to conduct a FOI survey to obtain this data. UK Police TASER use statistics should be being collected, and published, by the Home Office. This is an example where proactive publication would have been much better, in terms of efficiency and quality of data, than having to resort to FOI. However the FOI requests were in my view justified as the Home Office has not been publishing TASER usage statistics in a timely manner.

The data released by Channel Four’s FOI survey is not as comprehensive or detailed as the Home Office collated data has been in the past. I have been campaigning for the reinstatement of the timely publication of TASER use statistics by the Home Office.

In January 2011 I drafted a written Parliamentary question which my MP Julian Huppert tabled. The question about routine future publication was dodged and a commitment given only to produce one further set of statistics, almost a year after the end of the period they related to.

More recently I have been seeking the TASER Statistics Publication Schedule from the Home Office. The responses I have received so far have been garbled but it appears that they are planning a two year delay in reporting some UK Police TASER use statistics, and providing much less regular reports than we have had previously.

The Channel Four data shows increases in TASER usage by all but one force (Surrey) where non-firearms officers began using TASER in 2009/10. It is possible that while TASER use by non-firearms officers in these forces got off to a slow start it is now becoming more common.

The Channel Four data does not distinguish between TASER use by firearms and non-firearms officers; if the Home Office eventually get round to collating and publishing the official figures we will be able to see if that is, as I hypothesise it might well be, one of the major areas of increase. (However as can be seen from the Cambridgeshire case this cannot be the only factor at work).

Change in TASER Use in Forces Which Recently Issued TASER to Non-Firearms Officers

Change in TASER use frequency between 2009/10 and 2010/11 in Forces where non-firearms officers began using TASER in 2009/10

The average increase in TASER use for the above group of forces in 10/11 compared with the previous year is 171%, higher than the figure of 130% for all forces from which data was obtained.

More meaningful comparisons will be possible when the full statistics are released by the Home Office. One interesting metric to monitor will be the percentage of all TASER firings carried out by non-firearms officers, which in January - March 2009 was one third.

Channel Four UK Police TASER Use Data Tabulated

The below shows the data obtained and published by Channel Four:

Source: Google Map from Channel Four News Story.

There are 39 forces listed.

Channel Four report Durham constabulary and Humberside Police refused their data and North Yorkshire police and Cumbria failed to respond. Durham was however included in the data released, and Durham do respond to FOI requests on TASER usage.

I have been appointed to the Cambridgeshire County Council committee responsible for scrutiny of policing and crime related matters in the county.

The chairman of the committee, Cllr Steve Tierney, co-opted me onto the committee apparently as a result of the campaigning, lobbying, reporting and scrutiny which I have been doing on matters the committee has been, and is due to, be working on.

I have been informed, by the County Council’s democratic services staff, that the next meeting of the committee is planned for the 14th of December 2011 at 2.30pm. The meeting information has not yet been published on the committee’s webpage which currently states: “There are no scheduled meetings”. This is something which ought be rapidly rectified.

While no agenda for the December meeting has yet been published, at the committee’s previous meeting on Wednesday, 07 September 2011 they discussed a plan for the December meeting which indicates subjects to be covered will include:

• Operation Redesign (My views following the announcement)
• The Constabulary’s use of its Control and Communication Centre (My article on Police phone answering performance)
• Restorative Justice. (My article following a discussion with the police’s lead officer on this subject)
• Police & Crime Commissioners
• Integrated Offender Management

Over the past few years I have been closely observing the Police Authority, Cambridge’s Community Safety Partnership, and Cambridge City Council committees dealing with police and crime related matters. I have also commented on the operation of Cambridge’s magistrate’s courts, and have participated in national debates on policing, particularly surrounding the use of force and the relationship between the police and the public.

Councillors have very broad responsibilities and committee members are rarely seen observing the operation of the various bodies whose performance they are charged with scrutinising. I was, for example, the only observer at the Interim Community Safety Countywide Board on the 24th of November despite this being the major strategic body operating in the area the scrutiny committee is constituted to monitor. I think co-opted members may be able to assist councillors who understandably find it difficult to find the time to specialise.

Hopefully I will be able to make a more effective contribution to the committee’s work as a member than I would be able to from the sidelines via using the public speaking slot and lobbying councillors.

One thing I would like to continue is obtaining greater openness from the police and criminal justice system. In order to have sensible and rational public debates on police and crime matters, which will hopefully occur in the run-up to elections of Police and Crime commissioners information on how the system is currently running needs to be much more accessible. One organisation particularly in urgent need of blowing open is Cambridgeshire’s Local Criminal Justice Board. I’d also like to see closer working with the courts, magistracy and judiciary who currently appear to me to operate in their own parallel universe.

It has not yet been announced who will be representing Cambridgeshire Police at the meeting; though I of course am hoping for a chance to put questions to the Chief Constable, Simon Parr. It would be good to see Mr Parr make a public appearance as he has been keeping a very low profile for a chief constable. The committee’s terms of reference suggest it can require the attendance of the Chief Constable (A Chief officer of the police is considered a “responsible authority”).

Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee

The formal name of the committee to which I have been co-opted is the Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee. It as well as being the crime and policing scrutiny committee it has other responsibilities, recently it has been working on libraries for example. My understanding is that I’ve been brought in to focus on policing and crime, though I note there are policing and crime related aspects to many of the areas the committee is charged with overseeing, for example it looks at the work the council does safeguarding vulnerable adults and vulnerable people are disproportionally likely to be victims of crime and can be particularly adversely impacted by crimes against them.

What Are Overview and Scrutiny Committees?

Having been invited to join the committee I looked up the role of the council’s overview and scrutiny committees and found it to be:

“to ensure that the Council and its partners deliver services as effectively as possible for the residents of Cambridgeshire”

Source: p10 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules

I also thought I ought review the arrangements for the specific committee:

Membership of the Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

From section six of the council’s Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules

• Up to 12 County Councillors, as appointed by Full Council in accordance with paragraph 2 of these Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules [in proportion to the number of seats held by each Group on the Council]
• Up to 3 non-voting co-optees
• 1 non-voting Police Authority member, nominated by the Police Authority, for ‘crime and disorder’ overview and scrutiny items only.

The police authority representative ought be clearly identified on agendas and the committee webpage. This does not currently happen.

Terms of Reference for the Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee

1. To be the Council’s designated ‘crime and disorder committee’, as required by Sections 19 and 20 of the Police and Justice Act 2006, as amended by section 126 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. In accordance with the Crime and Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009, the Committee will consider crime and disorder issues at least once a year and when so doing, will be able to require information and attendance by the relevant responsible authority or co-operating authority. This Committee will also receive Councillor Calls for action relating to crime and disorder and community safety issues in accordance with the Police and Justice Act 2006.
2. To perform the overview and scrutiny role in relation to
   • a) Functions that are the responsibility of the following officers:
     • Executive Director: Community and Adult Services [as responsible for the two Service Directors listed below] :
     • Service Director: Community Engagement (Fenland)
     • Service Director: Libraries, Learning and Culture.
   • b) Partnerships and joint working directly linked to services that are the responsibility of the above officers.

I would like to know if a canvass for councillor calls for action been made? All all councillors aware of the role of the committee?

Responsible Authorities

S.19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 requires the crime and disorder committee to review and scrutinise decisions and actions taken by the authorities responsible for crime and disorder strategies in the council’s area, these are defined in S5 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as the district councils and the police force.

Co-Opted Members

Section 6.06 within Article six of the Cambridgeshire County Council Constitution states:

An Overview and Scrutiny Committee may appoint up to three people at any one time as non-voting co-opted members, provided the appointments are made in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules set out in Part 4 of this Constitution.

The Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules on co-options state:

Co-optees
Each Overview and Scrutiny Committee shall be entitled to appoint up to 3 people at any one time as non-voting co-opted members of the Committee. The Committee shall determine whether the co-options shall be effective for a specified period, for specific meetings or for specific items.
A Committee may not co-opt any person who is an active member of any political party. An active member is defined as any person who engages in political activities which would not be permissible if that person was an officer holding a Politically Restricted Post within the Council.
Co-options may only be made if the person co-opted has particular knowledge or expertise in the functions for which that Overview and Scrutiny Committee is responsible

Section 7.1 of the council’s Members’ Allowances Scheme states: “Co-opted members serving on the following Committees [including strategy and oversight committees] shall be eligible to claim a £50.00 flat fee per meeting attended in addition to travel and subsistence allowances:”

Rule 9 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules suggests that only councillors, not co-optees, are able to get items on the agendas

Rule 13 states : “Members of Overview and Scrutiny Committees have the additional right to documents, and to notice of meetings as set out in the Access to Information Procedure Rules in Part 4 of this Constitution.” The key section appears to be 21.1 which says “an Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be entitled to copies of any document which is in the possession or control of the Cabinet and which contains material relating to:

• (a) any business transacted at a public or private meeting of the Cabinet; or
• (b) any decision taken by an individual member of the Cabinet.

This is subject to exemptions for drafts and some confidential information (but not confidential information relevant to a decision).

Rule 15 reads: “Members of the public will be allowed to speak on items included on the agenda for meetings of Overview and Scrutiny Committees in accordance with a public speaking scheme agreed by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Group.” I have made a Freedom of Information request for the public speaking rules which apply to the committee they should of course be proactively published.

Previous Meetings

The committee, in its current form, has met three times, in May, July and September 2011.

Wednesday, 07 September 2011

Below are excerpts from the minutes relating to policing and crime matters:

Planning for the December 2011 Meeting

The forward work programme discussed at this meeting indicated a number of policing and crime related matters which would be raised at the committee’s December meeting:

The Scrutiny & Improvement Officer informed the Committee that a member of Cambridgeshire Constabulary would attend in December to discuss Operation Redesign. Members expressed an interest in scrutinising the Constabulary’s use of its Control and Communication Centre at the same meeting.

The Chairman commented that he had received a suggestion from a member of the public that the Committee consider the Constabulary’s use of restorative justice. The Constabulary’s report on the subject would be circulated to the Committee.

The Service Director: Community Engagement, Mike Davey offered to provide a briefing on the appointment of Police & Crime Commissioners at the December meeting.

There would also be an update on Integrated Offender Management at the December meeting.

Member Led Review on Domestic Abuse

An update on the Member Led Review on Domestic Abuse (led by Cllr Hoy) was presented; this section was minuted:

Councillor Hoy updated the Committee on progress with the Member Led Review on Domestic Abuse. She stated that she had learned that domestic violence was prevalent across all ages, classes and ethnic boundaries. All the Serious Case Reviews the County Council had considered in the recent past contained a domestic abuse element within them. In addition 75% of looked after children had come from a background of domestic abuse. The cost to agencies was profound with workers only able to intervene at a late stage. The County Council’s 2.5FTE staff capacity, which covered this area were overstretched.
It was agreed that the interim report would be circulated to the Committee for comment and presented to 27 September Cabinet, recommending that funding be earmarked in the Integrated Plan towards tackling domestic abuse.
A number of Members stated that they would be meeting with staff from New Directions, a local agency working in this field, and would report back to the next meeting.
The Service Director: Community Engagement also recommended that Members receive a briefing from the Domestic Abuse Partnership Manager, Simon Kerss.

Thursday, 07 July 2011

Rural Crime

The committee received a report on Rural crime on the Council’s County Farms Estate and the Council’s response
The committee’s previous meeting had heard from the police about rural crime, the committee wanted to hear what the county council could be doing to help in relation to its own farms (the county owns and rents out a farms). The key thrust of the, one page, report was that the council views it as a tenants’ responsibility to take crime prevention steps and to deal with the consequences of crime. In terms of what the council had done, it reported it had:

encouraged tenants to join Countryside Watch, and many do, and have run on farm security workshops and included articles on dealing with rural crime in bi-annual newsletters.”

Future action proposed was:

This autumn tenants will be encouraged again to join Countryside Watch. Countryside Watch are running three Rural Crime Roadshows at Ely, Newmarket and Sawston in the autumn, to which tenants will be invited. An article promoting Countryside Watch will be included in the October tenant newsletter. In addition it is proposed to run an on farm workshop in the north of the County in October/November.

Community Safety Peer Review

The purpose of this item was described as being:

To inform the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of recommendations made by Local Government Improvement & Development (LGID) Peer Review Team to Cambridgeshire Community Safety Partnership and advise of actions to be taken as a result

The Cambridgeshire Community Safety Partnership was the Safer & Stronger Strategic Board and five local Community Safety Partnerships (one in each district). (The Safer & Stronger Strategic Board has now been replaced with the Interim Community Safety Countywide Board).

The report notes public confidence in how the council and police deal with crime and anti-social behaviour is lower in Cambridgeshire than any of the councils in its comparator group.

Another line I pulled out as notable was: “Quarterly updates of neighbourhood profiles appear to be a significant demand on time and resources and represent a cost of between £2,000 and £4,700 annually” that actually looks like a bargain to me; if those are county wide annual figures. If though they cost per ward then clearly that’s astronomical. It would be interesting to have some clarification.

The lack of consistently between what senior staff from crime and policing organisations say at strategic meetings and what those working on the front line say was noted - I agree from my observations that this is a real problem.

I have noted previously that there appears to be an opportunity for the police and county council crime statistics teams to work together rather than separately.

Friday, 27 May 2011

Integrated Offender Management

Report on responses to a review of Integrated Offender Management from central government and CSPs were reviewed.

Rural Crime Action Team

Committee members questioned the rural crime action team who explained their role, as a seven strong team, in training other officers. Members queried the effectiveness of short sentences as deterrents to crime. Members urged the police to tell the public about the outcomes of investigations.

Action Plan on Improving the Education and Training of Professionals to Help Alcohol Misusers

Operation Redesign

This appeared to be a vague discussion on the Chief Constable’s reforms, the committee agreed to re-visit it in 6-9 months. ie. perhaps in the December 2011 meeting.

On the reorganisation one item which I’d like to ask arises from the following section of the minutes of the police’s Force Executive Board meeting in June 2011:

The process for selecting senior staff for the six areas of operational command was discussed and the Chief Constable indicated that a representative from local councils would be on the selection panel.

I’m wondering if that has happened; and to what extent the realignment of the force’s operational areas with the district council areas is improving local democratic influence and accountability.

Filming

As far as I can see there is no policy on filming Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

I suspect I will have more than enough to do on the day of the meeting without trying to film the meeting as well as participate and probably #live tweet too, but if anyone is prepared to operate it I have a camcorder and tripod which could be used to record the proceedings. Many county council committee meetings are held without microphones though, so it may be very difficult to get a good quality recording.

Views?

If anyone wants to suggest any lines of questioning; or share views on if I should accept the £50 on offer for attending the committee, do let me know, preferably in the comments below.

The inaugural meeting of the “Interim Community Safety Countywide Board” is to be held at Cambridgeshire County Council’s Shire Hall on the 24th of November 2011.

This new board is intended to be central to the strategic oversight of policing and crime related matters in the county. Its members are made up of representatives from each of the county’s “Community Safety Partnerships” (one for each district council area) along with the police force, police authority, probation, public health, NHS, fire service and County Council.

The board is the “strategy group” required by the The Crime and Disorder (Formulation and Implementation of Strategy) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 which came into force on the 1st June 2011.

The “interim” in the name is due to the fact it is intended to operate until a Police and Crime Commissioner is elected. At that point presumably the incoming commissioner will shake things up and either re-invigorate the existing board or start from scratch with something better. The current board contains only one democratically elected member, and does not contain any representatives of many groups it would be useful to have present, including, at the top of the list, the judiciary / magistracy.

Openness

Since the committee was first suggested I have been trying to find out about it. In July 2011 I made a FOI request for its meeting dates and asked for its papers to be published. I obtained an assurance “meeting information” would be published on the County Council website, and a suggestion was made that I should watch the council’s meeting calendar.

The meeting never appeared on the council’s meeting calendar. The problem might be that like the CSPs themselves, it is not seen as a council meeting. This means it can be hard to find out when the meeting is scheduled and results in papers not being published in the usual way.

I lobbied the chairman of the relevant scrutiny committee, Cllr Tierney, asking for the council to put more information about the meeting on its website. Once the meeting date was eventually published I made a further FOI request for the meeting papers. The meeting papers were eventually released on the 23rd of November 2011, on the afternoon before the meeting.

Those who know what the predecessor to the new committee was called can find the committee date, but not the agenda or papers, on the Community Safety Strategic Board webpage.

There’s a section on public attendance which states:

Meetings of the Community Safety Strategic Board are open to the public. You are welcome to attend if you have a question for the Board on matters concerning community safety but please contact Katja Nielsen from the Community Safety Team prior to attending in order that we can notify our reception staff that you are coming.

One could read that to mean that members of the public who wish to observe have to have a question for the board; and that the council need to be notified in advance of an intent to attend.

There is no public question slot on the agenda, and if meeting papers are not proactively published in advance of the meetings that limits the opportunity for the public to comment on matters before the board.

The Agenda

The agenda released in response to my FOI request contains seven items:

1. Apologies & Declarations of Interest
2. DRAFT Terms of Reference
3. Community Safety Agreement 2011 -2014
4. Funding – from April 2012
5. Countywide Strategic Assessment
6. Police & Crime Commissioner - Implications
7. Future Structure and Strategy of the Cambridgeshire Domestic Abuse Partnership

DRAFT Terms of Reference

The purpose of the committee is given as:

To provide a countywide group for the oversight of community safety, ensuring action on those issues which are most effectively tackled at a county level. Those matters which are more effectively tackled at a local level should be dealt with at each individual CSP.

The terms of reference state: “The board is to agree county level priorities”. If the intent is for the board to set police and crime priorities I think that’s worrying given it contains only one elected member.

The terms also state: “The Interim Community Safety Board will meet bi-annually”, which if the Police and Crime commissioner takes over in November 2012 means it will probably only meet twice. With only two meetings it is hard to see how the requirement that meetings “will take place in locations throughout the county” will be achieved.

My main concerns:

• The terms of reference don’t mention public attendance at meetings, or any procedures for public involvement eg. public questions or filming/photographing/recording.
• The terms don’t set out requirements for proactive publication of meeting papers, or other aspects of openness such as responding to requests for information (the board is not subject to FOI).
• The magistrates and professional judiciary are not represented. Even if they won’t co-operate they ought be members and “empty chaired” at meetings if they don’t turn up.
• There are no education and housing specialists on the board
• Policy decisions should not be made by a board made up of predominantly “officers” rather than elected representatives. This should be clarified, especially with respect to the county wide priority setting.

Community Safety Agreement 2011 -2014

This notes: “where the chair of the CSP is not an elected member, the elected member from that area”, which is surely something which ought be in the terms of reference; but even so the elected member won’t get the vote. Better would be the elected member turning up and the elected member having the district’s vote.

Three issues are suggested as, due to complexity and wider impact, potentially benefiting from a countywide approach:

• Domestic Violence
• Integrated Offender Management (including Prolific and other Priority Offenders)
• Drug and Alcohol Misuse

The agreement says funding for these areas is administered centrally by the County Council.

The report states that in Cambridge “Public chose 3/5 priorities identified from Strategic Assessment.” i don’t think this is correct, there was no direct democracy, no Cambridge wide referendum on the city wide police priorities. In fact what happened was much better, area committees voted on the shortlist and the full Cambridge City Council voted on the final selection, albeit after the CSP, made up of mainly officers, had committed to it.

The agreement states: ” Funding primarily comes from the Government’s Home Office element of the Area Based Grant which for Cambridgeshire in 2011/12 is £503,597 and notes A funding reduction of around 50% is being planned for 2012/13. All funding for crime and disorder reduction arrangements are likely to be transferred to the Police and Crime Commissioners.

Funding – from April 2012

The key elements of this report state:

The first Police and Crime Commissioners are due to be elected in November 2012 and this individual will from that point onwards be responsible for allocating all police and crime funding to agencies and organisations (statutory as well as private and voluntary) which successfully apply for funding.

The current 2011/12 grant is £503,597, the report states £254,771 is expected from 2012. The report says it has been suggested only the proportion for April-November will be paid to the County Council as the rest will need to be under the control of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

(Will the Police Commissioner will be able to redirect police funding to the CSPs if the Commissioner thinks they provide good value for money? A good Police Commissioner won’t just have money, but influence, over bodies like probation and the courts. )

Countywide Strategic Assessment

This is a presentation of crime statistics produced by the County Council. It identifies location and crime type based trends.

It makes various recommendations; it will be interesting to see if the board work through them and agree to support them or not.

The 2010/11 rate of total crime / 1000 population in Cambridge was 104.9 ie. about 1 in 10 people experienced a crime. The county average is 59.0

One of the key things the report does is identify wards with the highest crime rate. The places are grouped into two sets, one where the high crime is correlated with an index of deprivation, and the others - which are major town/city centres. The wards of high deprivation and high crime are:

• Huntingdon North
• Abbey, Cambridge
• Peckover, Wisbech
• Clarkson, Wisbech
• Medworth, Wisbech

I think the relevant excerpts from this report relating to Abbey ought go to the East Area Committee in Cambridge, who I expect would find it very useful. (As would other local committees of councillors from the locations focused on).

There is a, justified, estimation on p27 that domestic violence costs the county in the region of £40million, taking into account policing, health, housing, social services and other costs.

Many all police and crime documents contain a definition of Anti-Social Behaviour (and they’re often widely different!) this report offers:

• Nuisance (e.g. rowdy behaviour, street drinking or misuse of vehicles)
• Environmental (e.g. Abandoned Cars, graffiti or fly tipping)
• Personal (e.g. acts of intimidation or harassment directed at individuals)

I have recently written about defining ASB.

~1 in 10 of those arrested in Parkside, Cambridge in August 2010 were “members of the street life community”.

One of the many informative maps shows how many of the youth (10-19) population enter the Youth Offending Service for the first time in each year. In Arbury, East Chesterton and Abbey in Cambridge the figure is greater than 13.3 per thousand. So that’s about one for every three classes of ~30 children; which is quite a lot when you consider this is just first time entrants, and the age range includes a lot of rather young children.

Another key thing the report notes is the lack of information sharing from the NHS, both A&E and the Ambulance service. this is something it’s really important to solve if we’re going to focus (as I think we ought) on the crimes which really disrupt lives by causing injury.

I’ve seen one of the lead authors of the report Michael Soper present statistical reports on crime to the Cambridge Community Safety Partnership. I was very impressed then, and I am very impressed by this report. Mr Soper does some excellent work presenting crime statistics and has a very good understanding of the data. I’d like to see him share some of his skills with those who produce the neighbourhood profile documents.

Police & Crime Commissioner - Implications

This report is a document produced by the Local Government Association and Centre for Public Scrutiny; it’s a high level briefing on the introduction of Police and crime panels and Police Commissioners.

The details are of course in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and we’re still awaiting lots of details to come out in the form of regulations.

One interesting note is that the Home Office proposes to make £30,000/ year available to the lead council which takes on running the police and crime panel (this will presumably be to give it independence from the commissioner).

The suggestion of “task and finish” groups to enable the panels to do more in-depth work than is possible at panel meetings is made. I think somewhere we will need to replicate some of the current police authority committees eg. the scrutiny committee. If possible I think making those committees of the of the police and crime panel might well make sense, as we ought have on that panel the relevant elected councillors with an interest and responsibility in policing and crime related matters. I think that members doing detailed scrutiny work would provide a good foundation of knowledge and understanding on which to base the panel fulfilling its strategic statutory roles.

Future Structure and Strategy of the Cambridgeshire Domestic Abuse Partnership

This report gets off to an odd and in my view rather inappropriate, start, as it describes one of its purposes as being “to celebrate past achievements”.

It notes “the continuing rise in the number of domestic abuse incidents to Cambridgeshire Constabulary (5000+ in 2008 to 7000+ in 2010)” (Though there has been work to encourage more reports).

The main, highest priority, recommendation is suggesting transferring scrutiny and oversight of Domestic Violence related activity to the scrutiny board responsible for the health service. There appears to be little logic presented behind this proposal.

My Pre-Meeting Views

I’m wondering what this group can realistically achieve in two meetings?

This looks like an exercise being forced upon the various bodies by the legislation.

The police should be leading on Domestic Violence and Drug and Alcohol misuse, working with others when needed.

I can’t see how any sensible discussion on offender management can take place without magistrates and judges (and perhaps the sentencing council).

Campkin Road Tesco, Cambridge

At 17.45 on Wednesday the 23rd of November 2011 the north Cambridge neighbourhood policing sergeant, Jason Wragg, sent the following to some of the residents of the area who have signed up to the ECops email system:

GOOD NEWS
Your north police officers, PC Tom Gallagher and PC Darren Goodwin caught someone who was shoplifting from Tesco Express on Campkin Road yesterday. The male was arrested and interviewed, and was made (through restorative justice) to clear up litter outside Tescos.

As often happens with policing related matters there isn’t as much information available as would be desirable in order to comment.

If say this was a child picking up some sweets or food while shopping with their family then I think some rapid reparation in the form of an apology and collecting trollies or cleaning baskets might well be proportional and be the best option for all involved, including wider society. It might even have been appropriate for the police to say there was no need for them, or the wider criminal justice system to get involved.

However this looks like a more serious occurrence as there is no mention of the offender being a child/youth, and the police officers clearly initially considered arrest was appropriate.

Surprising Stance from Tesco

Cambridgeshire Police have stated they use restorative justice disposals where the victim of the crime agrees to its use. I wonder at what level within Tesco the use of a restorative justice disposal in this case was approved. I am surprised if Tesco are, as suggested by this case, taking a less tough stance against shoplifters, from signs in their shops I’ve gained the impression that they were keen on prosecuting shoplifters, and where the police and/or fail to take action using the civil courts to obtain compensation. I wonder if approval was given by a local checkout operator, or if Tesco have adopted a corporate policy of letting shoplifters off in return for picking up some litter outside their stores.

Was RJ Offered or Imposed on the Offender?

Sgt Wragg notes that the arrested male was *made* to clear up the litter. I would be very concerned if this was actually the case and the individual in question was not in-fact offered the “restorative” option, as I understood what was being proposed both the victim and offender have to agree to the application of a restorative justice disposal. The key principles I would like to see adhered to here is that innocent people should have the opportunity to defend themselves in court (preferably without risking a harsher penalty, if found guilty, for doing so), and that the police shouldn’t have free reign to act as judge and jury, the either party involved ought be able to opt to go to court.

Not Instant Reparation

This was not a restorative justice disposal of the “instant reparation”, “within the hour“, variety which Cambridgeshire Police have told Cambridgeshire Police Authority they are using. This was though an out of court disposal, with the police alone, not the courts, deciding on the penalty.

No Record

Restorative justice means this individual will not be given a criminal record, and if he faces magistrates in the future for other offences they won’t be made aware of this one.

Why Avoid Court?

Effectively the punishment imposed was community service. The magistrates court would have been able to hand down such a sentence if they thought it was appropriate. I’m wondering why that route wasn’t taken and if our courts and probation systems (the latter run community service sentences) are seen as too slow and paperwork heavy by our police? I am concerned by the avoidance of court, and do not want to see the police taking on the role of the courts.

My View

I think it is excellent that the police, who are usually excessively secretive, have shared this information on a real example of how they are using restorative justice disposals. I am though concerned about the message sent out by this action that there are no serious consequences to shoplifting from Tesco on Campkin Road (assuming it’s the first time an individual has been caught - as the police say they only give people one chance at restorative justice, even though they use it for those who’ve committed multiple offences ).

I would like to see the police be much more open about their policies on restorative justice disposals, and about cases where they have actually been used.

There is evidence that using restorative justice post-conviction in court for more serious offences can reduce re-offending. I support Cambridgeshire Police experimenting with using restorative justice practices for instant disposals minor crime to see if it can be effective there.

Further Articles

• Only Human in Cambridgeshire Police Explains Restorative Justice Disposals Policy - November 2011 - Report of phone conversation on Cambridgeshire Police RJ polices with their lead officer for the area.
• Update on Cambridgeshire Police Use of Restorative Justice from Cambridgeshire Police Authority Scrutiny Committee - September 2011
• Cambridgeshire Police Expansion in use of Restorative Justice
• Update on Cambridgeshire Police Use of Restorative Justice - September 2011
• North Cambridge Police Priorities - May 2011 - article discusses restorative justice.