October 2014 - College of Policing

Transcription

THE PROFESSIONAL BODY FOR POLICING
Digest
October 2014
A digest of police law, operational policing practice and criminal justice
OFFICIAL
© College of Policing Limited (2014)
Digest October 2014
The Digest is a primarily legal environmental scanning publication intended to capture and
consolidate topical and key issues, both current and future, impacting on all areas of policing.
During the production of the Digest, information is included from governmental bodies, criminal
justice organisations and research bodies. As such, the Digest should prove an invaluable guide
to those responsible for strategic decision making, operational planning and police training.
The College of Policing is also responsible for Authorised Professional Practice (APP). APP is the
official and most up-to-date source of policing practice and covers a range of policing activities
such as: police use of firearms, treatment of people in custody, investigation of child abuse and
management of intelligence. APP is available online at www.app.college.police.uk
The College of Policing aims to provide fair access to learning
and development for all. To support this commitment, the
Digest is available in alternative formats on request. Please email
[email protected] or telephone +44 (0)1480 334566.
Disclaimer and copyright details
This document is intended as a guide to inform
organisations and individuals of current and
forthcoming issues in the policing environment
and the College of Policing cannot guarantee
its suitability for any other purpose.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reproduced, modified, amended, stored
in any retrieval system or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, without the prior written
permission of the College or its representative.
While every effort has been made to ensure
that the information is accurate, the College of
Policing cannot accept responsibility for the
complete accuracy of the material. As such,
organisations and individuals should not base
strategic and operational decisions solely on
the basis of the information supplied.
The above restrictions do not apply to
police forces, which are authorised to use
this material for official, non-profit-making
purposes only.
OFFICIAL
Copyright enquiries: +44 (0)1256 602650
Digest editor: +44 (0)1480 334566
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Contents
Overview
5
Legislation
6
6
6
7
8
9
Bills before parliament
The Modern Slavery Bill
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill
Serious Crime Bill
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Statutory Instruments
11
The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2014 11
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 Commencement No 6) Order 2014
11
Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2014 11
Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2014
Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014 Police (Complaints and Misconduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
Independent Police Complaints Commission (Investigation of Offences) Order 2014
12
13
14
15
Appointment of Chief Officers of Police (Overseas Police Forces) Regulations 2014
15
Police (Amendment) Regulations 2014 16
Police (Promotion) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 16
Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014
16
OFFICIAL
3
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Case law 18
18
18
Financial investigations R v Rogers, Samuels, French and Bell [2014] EWCA Crim 1680 Policing practice 25
25
25
27
Crime Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham Published Office for National Statistics Publish Statistical Bulletin on Deaths Related to Drug Poisoning in England and Wales 2013
Police 29
29
Consultation on revised PACE code of practice A – stop and search HMIC publish report ‘Core Business: An Inspection into Crime Prevention, Police Attendance and the Use of Police Time’
29
Best use of stop and search scheme published by Home Office 38
Training and development Expert International Cybercrime Taskforce is launched to tackle online crime Criminal justice system
Consultation on the Guardianship of the Property and Affairs of Missing Persons published
CPS and ACPO launch new protocol to improve service to stalking victims as new stalking legislation helps bring thousands more prosecutions
Parliamentary issues
Home Office Circular 014/2014: lawful supply of foil New vision for the treatment of victims is announced by Ministry of Justice OFFICIAL
4
41
41
43
43
45
46
46
48
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Overview
This month’s edition of the Digest contains a summary of issues relating to police law,
operational policing practice and criminal justice.
There is a report of a case on:
• the jurisdiction of the Crown Court to deal with an amended count charged as
money laundering contrary to section 327(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
where all the activities alleged to have taken place within the account concerned
were undertaken in Spain by a non-resident of the UK in relation to a Spanish
bank account.
We look in detail at the:
• independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham
• publication of the HMIC report ‘Core Business: An Inspection into Crime Prevention,
Police Attendance and the Use of Police Time’
• Home Office’s ‘Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme’
• launch of the Expert International Cybercrime Taskforce.
We also look at the:
• Home Office Circular 014/2014: lawful supply of foil
• launch of an open consultation on revised PACE code of practice A – stop and search
• new CPS and ACPO protocol to improve service to stalking victims
• Office for National Statistics’ statistical bulletin on deaths related to drug poisoning
in England and Wales 2013.
The progress of proposed new legislation through parliament is examined and relevant
Statutory Instruments are summarised.
OFFICIAL
5
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Legislation
The Modern Slavery Bill
The Modern Slavery Bill will strengthen the response of law enforcement and the courts by:
• consolidating and simplifying existing modern slavery offences into one Act.
Currently modern slavery and trafficking offences are spread across a number
of different Acts
• increasing the maximum sentence available for the most serious offenders
from 14 years to life imprisonment, with those who have a previous conviction
for a serious sexual or violent offence facing an automatic life sentence
• introducing Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Orders and Slavery and
Trafficking Risk Orders to restrict the activity of individuals where they
pose a risk of causing harm
• creating a new Anti-Slavery Commissioner, a vital post that will drive an improved
and more coordinated law enforcement response at all levels, working in the
interests of victims
• ensuring that perpetrators convicted of slavery or trafficking face the toughest
asset confiscation regime
• strengthening law enforcement powers at sea to close loopholes which prevent
the police and Border Force being able to act where it is suspected that human
trafficking or forced labour is taking place on board vessels at sea.
The Modern Slavery Bill will ensure victims receive the protection and support they deserve by:
• creating a statutory defence for victims of modern slavery so that those who are
compelled to commit an offence are not treated as criminals by the criminal justice
system. The defence will not apply to a number of serious offences – mostly sexual
and violent offences. It is particularly important that victims of modern slavery
have the confidence to come forward and give evidence against their enslavers.
• giving the courts new powers to order perpetrators of slavery and trafficking to
pay Reparation Orders to their victims. Where the perpetrator has assets available,
the court would have to consider making an Order to provide reparation to the
victim for the harm that they have suffered and give reasons if it does not
OFFICIAL
6
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
• extending special measures so that all victims of modern slavery can be supported
through the criminal justice process. This covers screening of witnesses, giving
evidence by live link, in private or video recorded.
• existing legislation on special measures includes some specific provisions for
trafficking cases, the Bill will extend these provisions to also cover slavery,
servitude and forced labour.
• providing statutory guidance on victim identification and victim services.
• providing an enabling power for child advocates to support child victims of
trafficking and
• creating a statutory duty for public bodies including the police, local authorities
and immigration personnel to notify the National Crime Agency about potential
victims of modern slavery.
This Government Bill was presented to Parliament on 10 June 2014 and had its second reading
debate on 8 July 2014.
This Bill has now been committed to a Public Bill Committee. The Public Bill Committee is
expected to report to the House by 14 October 2014.
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill
The aim of this Bill is to create protection from legal liability for those who act for the benefit of
society, demonstrating a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety of others
or intervening in an emergency.
The Bill does not prevent a person from being found negligent if the circumstances of the
case warrant it, but means that the courts would have to consider the wider context of the
defendant’s actions before reaching a conclusion on liability. In any negligence/breach of
statutory duty claim, the court must consider whether:
• the alleged negligence/breach of duty occurred when the defendant was acting
for the benefit of society or any of its members
• the defendant had demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards
protecting the safety or other interests of others and
• the alleged negligence/breach of duty occurred when the defendant took heroic
action by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger and
without regard to his own safety or other interests.
OFFICIAL
7
Legislation
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
The Bill had its second reading debate on 21 July 2014. This Government Bill was presented to
Parliament on 12 June 2014.
This Bill has now been committed to a Public Bill Committee. The Public Bill Committee last met
on Tuesday 9 September 2014. The Public Bill Committee will scrutinise the Bill line by line.
The Public Bill Committee is expected to report to the House by 14 October 2014.
Serious Crime Bill
The aim of the Bill is to strengthen current criminal and civil law to ensure that criminals can
be effectively brought to justice, and to protect victims.
The main benefits of the Bill would be to:
• provide the National Crime Agency (NCA) and other law enforcement agencies
with the tools they need to effectively tackle serious and organised crime,
including cyber-crime and the illegal drugs trade
• enhance the ability to prosecute those responsible for serious and organised crime
and deny them the proceeds of their illegal activity
• strengthen and update laws to protect vulnerable individuals at risk of child
cruelty, sexual exploitation and female genital mutilation
• introduce new powers to reduce the potential threat posed by UK citizens and
residents returning home after taking part in the Syria conflict.
Key elements of the Bill will:
• amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 by improving the ability of law
enforcement agencies to recover criminal assets
• extend the scope of Serious Crime Prevention Orders and gang injunctions
• create a new offence that targets people who knowingly participate in an
organised crime group
• create a new offence of possessing ‘paedophilic manuals’
• amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to ensure sentences for attacks on
computer systems fully reflect the damage caused
• establish new powers to seize, detain and destroy chemical substances suspected
of being used as cutting agents of illegal drugs
OFFICIAL
8
Legislation
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
• clarify the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to make it explicit that cruelty
likely to cause psychological harm to a child is an offence
• extend the extra-territorial reach of the offences in the Female Genital Mutilation
Act 2003 to apply to habitual as well as permanent UK residents
• the Bill will allow people suspected of committing an offence overseas under
section 5 (acts preparatory to terrorism) or section 6 (training for terrorism) of the
Terrorism Act 2006 to be prosecuted in the UK.
This Bill was presented to Parliament on 5 June 2014. Line by line examination of the Bill took
place during the third day of committee stage on 15 July 2014. Amendments discussed covered
clauses 62, 63, 65, 67, 69 and 70 of the Bill. Report stage – further line by line examination of the
Bill – begins on 14 October 2014.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
This is a Bill to make provision about how offenders are dealt with before and after conviction;
to amend the offence of possession of extreme pornographic images; to make provision about
the proceedings and powers of courts and tribunals; to make provision about judicial review;
and for connected purposes. In particular the Bill provides for:
• sentencing and the release and recall of offenders, the electronic monitoring of
offenders released on licence, and the giving of cautions
• adding certain offences, including those of weapons training for terrorist purposes
and causing gunpowder or other explosive substances to explode with intent, to
the enhanced dangerous offenders sentencing scheme
• the offence in section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to
be extended to cover the possession of extreme images that depict rape and
non-consensual sexual penetration
• the detention of young offenders, giving cautions and conditional cautions to
youths, and referral orders
• a new criminal offence of being unlawfully at large after recall from licence or after
recall from home detention curfew
• restrictions on the use of simple cautions for indictable only offences and certain
specified either way offences, as well as restricting the repeated use of cautions
for persistent offenders
OFFICIAL
9
Legislation
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
• a new procedure for use in criminal proceedings in the magistrates’ courts in
certain circumstances, provision about the recovery of the costs of the criminal
courts from offenders, appeals and costs in civil proceedings, and contempt of
court and juries
• the introduction of 4 offences (research by jurors, sharing research with other
jurors, jurors engaging in other prohibited conduct and disclosing jury’s
deliberations), a power for a court to order temporary removal of electronic
communications devices from jurors and changes to strict liability contempt by
publication including a notice procedure for temporary removal of potentially
contemptuous information from public access
• the circumstances in which the High Court and the Upper Tribunal may refuse
relief in judicial review proceedings and about funding and costs in relation to
such proceedings.
This government Bill completed its passage through the House of Commons on 12 May 2014.
The Bill was carried over to the 2014-2015 parliamentary session and had its first reading in the
House of Lords on 18 June 2014.
Line by line examination of the Bill took place during committee stage on 30 July. Amendments
discussed covered clauses 65-70, 73 and 75-76 of the Bill.
Report stage – further line by line examination of the Bill – is scheduled for 20 October.
OFFICIAL
10
Legislation
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
SI 2014/2522 The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
(Consequential Amendments) Order 2014
This order came into force on 19 September 2014. Article 2 of this Order amends section 21(6)
of the Firearms Act 1968. Section 21 deals with the prohibition on possession of firearms by
persons previously convicted of criminal offences. Section 21(6) provides for a statutory right to
apply to a court for the removal of the prohibition.
The effect of the amendment is that a right to apply to a court for the removal of the statutory
prohibition will be conferred in cases where the individual concerned has received a suspended
sentence of a minimum of 3 months duration. This amendment is consequential upon the
provision in section 110(1) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which
amends section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968 by inserting a new subsection (2C) to apply the
prohibition to suspended sentences cases.
SI 2014/2454 Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
Commencement No 6) Order 2014
Article 2 brings into force on 17 September 2014 a provision relating to the recovery of
possession of dwelling houses on anti-social behaviour grounds, for the purpose of making
regulations under section 85ZA(7) of the Housing Act 1985. Section 85ZA(7) makes provision
for the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning the procedure to be followed in
connection with the review of a decision of a landlord to seek an order for possession of a
dwelling house under section 84A of the Housing Act 1985.
Article 3 brings into force on 1 October 2014 provisions relating to the Independent Police
Complaints Commission.
Article 4 brings into force on 6 October 2014 a provision relating to Criminal Procedure Rules
applying to extradition proceedings.
SI 2014/2440 Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions)
(Amendment) Order 2014
Coming into force 1 October 2014, this Order amends the Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory
Licensing Conditions) Order 2010 (the 2010 Order).
OFFICIAL
11
Legislation
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Sections 19A and 73B of the Licensing Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) provide for the Secretary of State
to prescribe by order up to nine mandatory conditions applicable to relevant premises licences
and club premises certificates. Relevant premises licences and relevant club premises certificates
are those authorising the supply of alcohol to the public in licensed premises or to members or
guests of clubs in club premises.
The Schedule to this Order sets out the four mandatory conditions which apply to relevant
premises licences and club premises certificates from the date of coming into force of the
Order as provided in article 1. The conditions apply to all relevant premises licences and all
relevant club premises certificates authorising consumption of alcohol on the premises, with the
exception of the condition in paragraph 3 of the Schedule, requiring an age verification policy
to be adopted, which applies in addition to licences and certificates which permit the supply of
alcohol only for consumption off the premises.
Article 3 makes provision to the effect that an activity which is not prohibited by paragraph 1(2)(b)
of the Schedule to the 2010 Order, as it was in force immediately before the coming into force of
this Order, because it related to alcohol consumed at a table meal (as defined in section 159 of
the 2003 Act), will continue not to be prohibited provided certain conditions are met; these are
that the activity is available only to an individual who holds a ticket or other written invitation in
respect of that activity which was purchased by, or given to, that individual on or before
30 September 2014, and the activity takes place on or before 5 April 2015.
SI 2014/2422 Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No 2)
Regulations 2014
In force 2 October 2014, these Regulations amend the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration)
Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/435) (the 2013 Regulations) which make provision for the funding
and remuneration of advice, assistance and representation made available under sections 13,
15 and 16 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
Regulation 2(3) and the Schedule introduce interim payment of fees for litigators in proceedings
in the Crown Court. Effectively, a litigator may make a claim for an interim payment at one or
both of two stages in proceedings. The first is where a not guilty plea is entered following a plea
and case management hearing (regulation 17A(2)(a) as set out in the Schedule), or alternatively,
where a retrial is ordered and representation has been transferred to a new litigator (paragraph
(2)(b)). However, an interim fee is not available at this stage in cases committed or sent for trial to
the Crown Court on the election of a defendant (paragraph (3)). The second stage is where the
trial is listed for 10 days or more and the trial has commenced (paragraph (2)(c)).
OFFICIAL
12
Legislation
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Paragraphs (11) to (14) of new regulation 17A set out the mechanisms for calculating the
amount of each interim payment. Any hardship payment made under regulation 21 of the 2013
Regulations will be deducted from any subsequent claim for an interim payment under new
regulation 17A and vice versa (regulation 21 of the 2013 Regulations, as amended by regulation
2(4) of these Regulations, and paragraphs (16) and (17) of new regulation 17A). Regulation 2(5)
includes payments under new regulation 17A among the interim payments to be deducted from
the final claim under regulation 22 of the 2013 Regulations.
The fee regime for certain cracked trials and guilty pleas is amended for advocates and litigators.
Regulation 2(6) and (7) excludes from the fixed fees applicable to cases committed or sent for
trial to the Crown Court on the election of a defendant a case where the trial is a cracked trial
because the prosecution offer no evidence on all counts and the judge directs that a not guilty
verdict be entered. The graduated fee scheme will apply in these cases.
The amendments made by these Regulations apply to criminal proceedings in which a
determination under section 16 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders
Act 2012 is made on or after 2 October 2014.
SI 2014/2418 Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014
Coming into force on 1 October 2014 this Order applies to a disclosure made on or after
1 October 2014.
This Order prescribes persons for the purposes of section 43F of the Employment Rights Act
1996 (the 1996 Act).
The first column of the Schedule specifies the persons and descriptions of persons prescribed,
and the second column specifies the descriptions of matters in respect of which each person,
or description of persons, is prescribed.
The broad effect of the Order, taken with section 43F, is that a worker potentially protected by
the provisions of the 1996 Act will be protected by the 1996 Act if he or she makes a qualifying
disclosure to a person prescribed in the Order reasonably believing that the failure disclosed is
in the public interest and falls within the matters in respect of which that person is prescribed
and that the information disclosed, and any allegation contained in it, are substantially true.
OFFICIAL
13
Legislation
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
SI 2104/2406 Police (Complaints and Misconduct) (Amendment)
Regulations 2014
Coming into force 1 October 2014, these Regulations amend the Police (Complaints and
Misconduct) Regulations 2012 (the 2012 Regulations) to give effect to sections 138 and 139 of
the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the 2014 Act).
Section 138 of the 2014 Act amends paragraphs 24C and 27 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform
Act 2002 (the 2002 Act) to make provision enabling the Independent Police Complaints
Commission (the Commission) to recommend and direct unsatisfactory performance procedures
in relation to a death or serious injury matter. This reflects the Commission’s existing powers to
recommend and direct unsatisfactory performance procedures in complaint and conduct matters.
Section 139 of the 2014 Act inserts new paragraphs 28A and 28B into Schedule 3 to the 2002
Act. These provisions contain a framework in accordance with which the Commission may make
recommendations to persons following the completion of an investigation and such persons are
required to respond to the recommendation within the period of 56 days beginning on the day
on which it was made.
Regulation 2 of these Regulations inserts new regulation 29A into, and amends regulation 36 of,
the 2012 Regulations.
Paragraph 28A(4) and (5) sets out the categories of person to which the Commission may
make a recommendation. Paragraph 28A(4) provides that a recommendation may be made to
any person in death or serious injury matters and the other categories of matter specified in
regulations. New regulation 29A specifies those categories.
New regulation 29A(1) sets out the specified conduct matters. These include matters relating
to an incident in which a person has died or suffered serious injury, a serious assault or sexual
assault, serious corruption and a matter in respect of which the Commission has notified the
appropriate authority that the matter must be referred to the Commission for its consideration.
New regulation 29A(2) sets out the specified complaints. These include complaints alleging
that the conduct complained of has resulted in death or serious injury, complaints alleging
conduct that constitutes a serious assault or sexual assault, serious corruption and complaints
which the Commission has notified the appropriate authority must be referred to the
Commission for its consideration.
New regulation 29A(3) provides that the determination of an appeal relating to a complaint set
out in new regulation 29A(2) is a specified matter.
Regulation 2 also makes a consequential amendment to regulation 36 of the 2012 Regulations
to give effect to section 138 of the 2014 Act.
OFFICIAL
14
Legislation
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
SI 2014/2402 Independent Police Complaints Commission
(Investigation of Offences) Order 2014
Coming into force 1 October 2014, this Order confers powers on the Independent Police
Complaints Commission (the Commission) in relation to investigations it carries out under
paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (the 2002 Act).
Section 136 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 amends paragraph 19 of
Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act to confer power on the Secretary of State to make an order enabling
a member of the Commission’s staff to exercise a power under the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act 1984 (the 1984 Act) (which includes a power contained in a code of practice issued under
sections 60, 60A or 66 of that Act) in respect of which authorisation would otherwise be required
by a police officer of or above a specified rank if authorisation is given by another member of the
Commission’s staff of or above a specified grade.
This Order specifies the powers in or under the 1984 Act in respect of which a member of the
Commission’s staff may give such authorisation.
Article 2 of this Order specifies the provisions of the 1984 Act, Code B and Code C which apply,
subject to the modification of those provisions in article 3, to the investigation of offences
conducted by virtue of paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 by members
of the Commission’s staff designated under that paragraph.
Article 3(a) specifies the grade of the member of the Commission’s staff (by reference to table 1
in the Schedule) who may authorise the exercise of powers contained in the 1984 Act.
Article 3(b) specifies the grade of the authorising member of the Commission’s staff (by reference
to table 2 in the Schedule) who may authorise the exercise of powers contained in the code of
practice issued under section 66(1)(c) and (d) of the 1984 Act (powers of entry, search and seizure).
Article 3(c) specifies the grade of the authorising member of the Commission’s staff (by reference to
table 3 in the Schedule) who may authorise the exercise of powers contained in the code of practice
issued under section 66(1)(b) of the 1984 Act (detention, treatment and questioning of persons).
SI 2014/2376 Appointment of Chief Officers of Police (Overseas
Police Forces) Regulations 2014
Coming into force 1 October 2014, these Regulations amend existing provisions in the Police
Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 relating to the appointment of chief officers of police
forces in order to make it possible for those who have been or are serving in approved overseas
police forces, and in approved ranks in those forces, to be appointed as chief officers in police
forces in England and Wales. These Regulations designate various overseas forces and ranks in
those forces as approved forces and ranks.
OFFICIAL
15
Legislation
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
SI 2014/2372 Police (Amendment) Regulations 2014
Coming into force 1 October 2014, these Regulations amend the Police Regulations 2003
(the 2003 Regulations) to permit individuals to join the police force at the rank of superintendent
as part of the Direct Entry (Superintendent) Programme and to permit those taking part in the
Fast Track Programme to be promoted more quickly from the rank of constable to inspector.
Regulation 10 of the 2003 Regulations is amended to add passing the assessment centres for
participation in the Direct Entry (Superintendent) Programme and the Constable to Inspector
Fast Track Programme as qualifications for appointment to a police force. Regulations 12 and
13 are amended to allow a DE superintendent to be on probation and to be discharged during
probation if unsuitable.
SI 2014/2373 Police (Promotion) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
Coming into force 1 October 2014, these Regulations amend the Police Promotion Regulations
1996 (the 1996 Regulations) to introduce the Constable to Inspector Fast Track Programme
(the Programme). The amendments to regulation 3 of the 1996 Regulations have the effect
of permitting constables and sergeants participating in the Programme to be promoted
more quickly than if they were not participating in the Programme. Schedule 1 to the 1996
Regulations is also amended to permit constables and sergeants participating in the Programme
to take their qualifying assessments for promotion earlier than if they were not participating in
the Programme.
SI 2014/236 Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies
for Private Use) Regulations 2014
Coming into force 1 October 2014, these Regulations amend the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988 (the Act). Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related
rights in the information society (OJ No L167, 22.6.2001. p10) permits Member States to provide
for an exception to the copyright and related rights provided under the Directive in respect of
reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use for non-commercial ends.
The second sub-paragraph of Article 6(4) of the Directive provides that Member States may
take appropriate measures to ensure that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of
an exception provided for in accordance with Article 5(2)(b) the means of benefiting from
that exception, without preventing rightholders from adopting adequate measures (such as
technological measures) regarding the number of reproductions which may be taken. These
Regulations amend the way in which this exception is implemented in the UK.
OFFICIAL
16
Legislation
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Regulation 3 inserts new sections 28B and 296ZEA and new paragraph 1B of Schedule 2 into the Act.
New section 28B provides that an individual may make personal copies of a copyright work
(other than a computer program) which is lawfully owned by that individual, provided the copies
are made for that individual’s private use, without infringing copyright in the work. Any personal
copies must be destroyed if the individual transfers the work from which they were made to
another person, unless the copyright owner authorises the transfer of the personal copies to that
person. Any personal copy which is not so destroyed or is transferred to another person without
the authorisation of the copyright owner shall be treated as an infringing copy for the purposes
of the Act. Subsection (10) provides that any term of a contract which prevents or restricts the
making of a personal copy in accordance with section 28B is unenforceable.
New section 296ZEA provides a complaints procedure to the Secretary of State where the
application of any technology, device or component has the effect of preventing a copyright
work from being copied (in whole or in part) or restricting the number of copies which may be
made. In the absence of any voluntary measure or agreement by the copyright owner which
enables the individual to make personal copies, the Secretary of State may direct the copyright
owner to take steps to ensure that the individual has the means of benefiting from section 28B.
In deciding whether to give such directions the Secretary of State must consider whether the
measure unreasonably prevents or restricts the making of personal copies having regard to the
right of the copyright owner to adopt adequate measures limiting the number of copies which
may be made and whether other copies of the work are commercially available on reasonable
terms in a form which does not prevent or unreasonably restrict the making of personal copies.
New paragraph 1B of Schedule 2 provides an equivalent personal copying exception to that in
new section 28B in relation to the copying of a recording of a performance. The making of a copy
of a recording of a performance in accordance with paragraph 1B does not infringe the rights
conferred by Chapter 2 of Part II of the Act (rights in performances).
Regulation 4 contains consequential amendments to sections 27, 197 and 296ZF of the Act.
Regulation 5(1) and (2) contain a transitional provision which provides that a copy of a work
made by an individual prior to commencement of these Regulations will be treated as a personal
copy of the work for the purposes of new section 28B if the copy could have been made under
section 28B had those provisions been in force at the time the copy was made. Regulation 5(3)
and (4) make an equivalent transitional provision in relation to copies of recordings which could
have been made under paragraph 1B of Schedule 2.
OFFICIAL
17
Legislation
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Case law
Financial investigations
R v Rogers, Samuels, French and Bell [2014] EWCA Crim 1680
Summary
A hearing in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on appeal from Ipswich Crown Court before
Lord Justice Treacy, Mrs Justice Lang and His Honour Judge Bevan QC (Sitting as a Judge of the
Court of Appeal Criminal Division). The full case report can be found at http://www.bailii.org/
ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2014/1680.html
On 19 June 2013 in Ipswich Crown Court, the appellant, Rogers, and the applicants, Samuels,
French and Bell were convicted of certain offences after a trial lasting over two months.
On 12 July 2013 they were sentenced as follows:
• Rogers, who had been acquitted of Counts 1 and 2, two conspiracies to defraud, was
sentenced on Count 14 to 2 years and 10 months imprisonment for converting criminal
property contrary to Section 327(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).
• Bell, Samuels and French were each convicted of Counts 1 and 2, conspiracy to
defraud. Bell was sentenced to 6 years 6 months imprisonment. Samuels to 5 years
6 months imprisonment; and French to 6 years 5 months imprisonment.
Bell, Samuels and French renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal
by the Single Judge. French also renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction
after refusal by the Single Judge.
There was a co-accused, Muldoon, who pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 2 and was sentenced to
7 years and five months.
Background
The allegations involved two advance fee frauds that were operated by Muldoon from call
centres based in Spain or Turkey, employing British nationals who dealt with calls in respect of
debt elimination or escort services. Consumers in the UK who called the centres, having seen
advertisements, were persuaded by staff to pay advance fees on false promises made to them
of dates or debt elimination. The staff received commission through a cash card provided by a
legitimate UK company. The money was paid into UK accounts of bogus UK companies and used
to pay expenses and the profit was transferred to Spain.
OFFICIAL
18
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
In relation to the escort services fraud, many witnesses were told that they would be paid a fee
by the person they dated and that there was lucrative earning potential. They were either asked
to pay a fee in advance or were told that there was a date available for them, but they would
have to pay a registration fee. Once payment had been made, the date would be cancelled and
no further dates were forthcoming. The phone numbers used in the advertisements or websites
had the prefixes 0871 or 0845 so the individuals being defrauded had no idea that they were
speaking to a call centre based in Spain or Turkey.
The debt elimination fraud involved consumers being cold-called from lists bought from data
providers by Muldoon and Bell. The customers were promised that their debts could be written
off and bank charges reclaimed in return for a fee. Once again the calls appeared to come from
UK, but were actually from call centres in Spain. The websites purported that the business
operated in the UK and that it was authorised by the Ministry of Justice. Consumers sent fees
generated by the frauds to UK bank accounts which were controlled by a series of UK companies
with multiple bank accounts. Overall, about £5.7 million was obtained. Those accounts were
controlled from Spain by the use of passwords. The defendants were linked to a number of the
companies which had been set up to receive payments from the two frauds.
Muldoon was the principal behind both frauds. Rogers, who was acquitted of the conspiracy
counts, but convicted of money laundering, was Muldoon’s lieutenant in Spain. He held a UK
passport and received a large amount of money transferred into accounts controlled by him in
Spain. £715,000.00 was received in small sums to avoid any anti-money laundering provisions.
He allowed Muldoon to control one of his accounts and substantial monies were withdrawn.
Bell was Muldoon’s man in the UK, but he was active in Spain, and was consulted by Muldoon.
Amongst other things he recruited individuals to act as directors in the bogus companies and
used his legitimate business to provide telephone numbers and lines for the two call centres.
He was also involved with the Ministry of Justice when investigations commenced with a view
to misleading them.
Samuels received funds and distributed money from 2009. He was also involved in recruitment,
used his company bank account to process money, and corresponded with the Ministry of
Justice concerning the debt elimination fraud.
French worked as an administrator for Muldoon and was an accountant. Although based in
Spain, she returned to the UK occasionally to carry out tasks for Muldoon in relation to the
fraud. She had knowledge of all the bank accounts in the UK and Spain, including login details
and passwords. She moved money on Muldoon’s instructions and passed on his instructions to
others in the conspiracy. She had set up accounts and companies to be used in the fraud and
was named as a director for those companies, giving a false address. She was involved in the
deceit of AllPay Limited into providing a payment processing service for use in the fraud. She
signed documentation relating to enquiries by the Ministry of Justice, which gave the impression
that debt advice work was being carried out in the UK. She kept money transfers below any
anti-money laundering levels. Some £274,000.00 was paid on her Capital One card.
OFFICIAL
19
Case law
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
At trial the issue for the jury in relation to the conspiracy counts was whether or not the individuals
were involved in the fraud or believed that they were involved in a legitimate business. In relation
to the money laundering counts, the issue was whether Rogers knew or suspected that he was
dealing with criminal property. The conspiracy and money laundering counts were put and left
to the jury in the alternative.
Roger’s Grounds of Appeal
The appeal concerned the particulars of Count 10, namely a charge relating to money laundering
under section 327(1)(e) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which Rogers’ had been charged with.
This was as follows:
Between 23rd day of October 2007 and 1st day of September 2010
removed the sum of £175,000.00 being criminal property obtained
by fraud from England and Wales by arranging for the said sum to be
transferred from the jurisdiction and delivered to his personal bank
accounts in Spain.
As the Crown closed its case in the trial, a submission of no case to answer was made in relation
to this count. Section 327(1)(e) detailed the commission of an offence if a person removes
criminal property from England and Wales or from Scotland or from Northern Ireland. Evidence
had emerged in the course of cross-examination of the Crown’s financial investigator that whilst
vast sums of money were transferred from the UK bank accounts to Spanish ones, including a
bank account in the name of Rogers, anyone with the login details for the bank account could
have completed the transfers. Rogers acknowledged that the bank account was his and he
held the login details and password, but he had also provided Muldoon with the passwords
and permitted him to use the bank account. The pattern of usage of the account reflected the
change when the account had become a vehicle to launder money.
The judge accepted the submission that the evidence did not show that the removal of the
funds involved Rogers and was effected by those with control of the various UK company bank
accounts, who did not include Rogers in their number, and therefore Count 10 couldn’t succeed.
The Crown had anticipated this, and three weeks before the trial had indicated that it intended
to apply to amend the indictment in the event that a submission relating to Count 10 was
successful. The judge permitted the amendment, and a new Count 14 was added to the
indictment. Count 14 read as follows:
Between 23rd day of October 2007 and 1st day of September 2010
converted the sum of £715,000.00 being criminal property obtained
by fraud from England and Wales by permitting the receipt of money
into his personal bank accounts in Spain and allowing the subsequent
withdrawal of the money.
OFFICIAL
20
Case law
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
The new count was brought under Section 327(1)(c) which concerns converting criminal property.
Rogers appeal was based on three grounds:
i) The judge was in error in permitting amendment of the indictment after a
successful submission at the close of the prosecution case.
ii) He erred in ruling that the Crown Court had jurisdiction to deal with the amended
count in circumstances where all the activities alleged within the account were
undertaken in Spain by a non-resident of the UK in relation to a Spanish bank account.
iii) He erred in ruling that the acts alleged in the amended count were not subsumed
by the conspiracies in Counts 1 and 2.
Ground 1: Amendment of the Indictment
The defence stated that an amendment to the indictment should have only been allowed if it
was necessary and if it could be made without injustice, and this was not the case. The essential
test to be applied was whether injustice would be caused to the accused by an amendment, and
clearly the longer the amendment is delayed, the greater the possibility of the accused showing
that he has been injuriously affected.
The court stated that it could find no injustice arising from the amendment of the indictment,
and the facts which the appellant had to meet were in no way changed by the reframing of the
allegation and his role in the matter and his defence that had no criminal involvement remained
the same. The court was satisfied that there was no injustice in permitting the amendment,
which was in accordance with the overriding objective of the criminal procedure rules and
of acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty, and dealing with both prosecution and
defence fairly.
Ground 3: The amended count was no subsumed by the conspiracies in Counts 1 and 2
The court then addressed the issue highlighted in point 3, namely the submission that the acts in
the amended count were subsumed by the conspiracies outlined within count 1 and count 2 to
defraud dishonestly (1) obtaining funds from customers and (2) making arrangements whereby
funds provided by customers for the provision of services were diverted to the conspirators. The
defence stated that it was not fair to permit the jury to consider a separate substantive count
which alleged the same criminality.
The court stated that this ground of appeal was not well founded. It stated that the conspiracy to
defraud counts represent a different crime from conspiracy to money launder, and the detailed
structure of the conspiracy counts, as set out in the indictment, cover a considerably wider range
of activity than that alleged in the amended count against Rogers. The fact that there was one
OFFICIAL
21
Case law
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
element common to both counts 1 and 2, and the substantive count does not make good the
appellant’s argument. The court stated that the two types of count were always presented as
alternatives with the substantive count clearly representing a significantly diminished area of
criminal responsibility as the sentence imposed shows. Moreover the mental element required for
a conspiracy to defraud is significantly more difficult for the Crown to prove than that that required
for a conspiracy to defraud is significantly more difficult for the Crown to prove than that required
for a Section 327 offence, which requires that the offender knows or suspects that the property is
a person’s benefit from criminal conduct. The court ruled that ground 3 could not succeed.
Ground 2: Activities alleged within the account were undertaken in Spain by a non-resident
of the UK in relation to a Spanish bank account
The second ground for the appeal was then addressed by the court and concerned the point
of jurisdiction. The defence submitted that the judge was wrong in holding that there was
jurisdiction in English courts to cover an allegation of criminal property obtained by fraud in this
country by a person living and working in Spain and merely permitted money to be received
into his Spanish bank account and then withdrawn from it.
The defence stated that whilst the conspiracies to defraud led to UK consumers paying money
into UK company bank accounts, the consumer suffered loss at that point. Subsequent transfers
of those funds might have amounted to an offence under section 327(1)(e) had Rogers been
involved in that, however there was no evidence to suggest he was and therefore the judge was
correct in accepting that there was no case to answer on the allegation of money laundering in
its original form.
The defence stated that the amendment to the count did not involve any additional loss to any
UK consumer, and the allegation did not involve any activity that was taking place within this
jurisdiction and therefore anything done by the appellant was therefore outside the jurisdiction
of the English courts. Counsel for the defence submitted that the primary basis of English
criminal jurisdiction is territorial, and therefore English courts are not concerned with conduct
abroad unless there is a statutory provision indicating otherwise. Defence counsel went on to
state that there is no statutory provision within the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which would
give the court jurisdiction.
The Crown submitted that the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provided the
necessary jurisdiction in circumstances such as this case for money laundering offences.
Prosecution stated that modern law had moved away from testing whether an offence was
committed within the jurisdiction by asking whether the essence or gist of the offence had taken
place within the jurisdiction, and denying jurisdiction in cases where the consequences of the
criminal conduct had occurred outside the jurisdiction.
OFFICIAL
22
Case law
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
The Crown stated that the absence of any geographical limitation within the legislation means
that the existence and extent of any such limitation is to be discovered by applying a presumption
as to Parliament’s intention extraneous to the definition of the offence. In order to consider this,
it was submitted that a general rule is that each sovereign state should refrain from punishing
persons for their conduct within the territory of another state where the conduct has had no
harmful consequences within the territory of the state that seeks to impose that punishment.
The Crown went on to assert that the provisions of section 327(2A)(a) and section 340(2)(b) of
the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 give a strong indication that any money laundering activity that
the defendant partakes in is potentially within the jurisdiction of the English courts. In addition it
was asserted that the wording of section 340(3), section 340(9), and 340(11)(d) of the Proceeds of
Crime Act 2002 also indicate the extra-territorial reach intended by Parliament.
The defence argued that the language used within the legislation fell short of indicating a clear
intention by Parliament to confer exterritorial jurisdiction, and went on to consider the drafting
style of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 which deals with jurisdiction in a more explicit way.
The court stated that whilst the monies obtained by the fraud in the UK became criminal property
once they reached a bank account in the UK controlled by the conspirators, those proceeds did not
cease to be criminal property when they arrived in the appellant’s bank account in Spain. By allowing
his account to be used to receive and withdraw funds, the appellant was converting them. The court
rejected the argument that once the victims had been defrauded of their money and it had gone into
the conspirators’ UK bank account, there was no further consequences for the affected consumers.
The court stated that the actions of the appellant continued the harmful consequences of the fraud
by providing a haven further beyond the reach of UK consumers for the criminally obtained monies.
It also stated that even if the statute did not provide jurisdiction in this case, it would hold that the
alternative basis put forward by the Crown would suffice. The court stated that it would be surprising
if Parliament had not intended the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to have extra-territorial effect.
The court stated:
The criminal acts which led to the property in this case becoming
criminal property for the purposes of the Act plainly took place in and
had an impact upon victims in the UK. The laundering of the proceeds
by this appellant in Spain is directly linked to those acts in the UK by
virtue of the fact that the property is criminal property. This is not a case
where the conversion of criminal property relates to the mechanics of
a fraud which took place in Spain and which impacted upon Spanish
victims. In those circumstances our courts would not claim jurisdiction.
But in this case when the significant part of the criminality underlying
the case took place in England, including the continued deprivation of
the victims of their monies, there is no reasonable basis for withholding
jurisdiction, as is explained in Smith (No 4). This is not an offence in
which the Spanish authorities would have an interest.
OFFICIAL
23
Case law
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
The court stated that on this alternative basis, there was jurisdiction to try the appellant and
therefore his appeal against conviction failed and was dismissed.
French’s ground of Appeal
French renewed her application for leave to appeal against conviction based on the following
submissions:
i) The judge misdirected the jury by inviting them in the summing-up to speculate
on a matter upon which they had not heard evidence, namely the sequence of
events in respect of the sending of certain emails.
ii) The judge misdirected the jury in inviting them to draw a conclusion adverse
to the applicant on the basis of matters which had not been clarified or explored
in evidence.
iii) These misdirection’s are highly likely to have affected the jury, particularly having
regard to the timing of those matters at the end of the summing-up.
iv) In all the circumstances the convictions are unsafe.
The court considered the above points, and stated that matter complained was not one which
could have made any material difference and there was nothing to lead the court to conclude
that French’s conviction was unsafe and therefore her renewed application was refused.
Renewed Applications Relating to Sentencing
Finally the court considered the renewed applications from Bell, Samuels and French for
permission to appeal against sentencing which was refused by the Single Judge.
The court considered the applications, and concluded that the sentences passed were not
manifestly excessive for a case involving large-scale and persistent frauds with a number of
aggravating elements. There wasn’t any unfair disparity and the judge had the benefit of hearing
the trial and was well equipped to assess the roles of each co-defendant and the evidence before
him. The court stated that the judge gave a full and careful explanation for his conclusions,
and the Court of Appeal did not consider that there was any basis to interfere with the
sentences passed.
OFFICIAL
24
Case law
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Policing practice
Crime
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in
Rotherham Published
The findings of an independent inquiry which was commissioned by Rotherham
Metropolitan Borough Council in October 2013 has been published. The inquiry concerned
the council’s internal processes and procedures, as well as its work alongside partners, in
responding to historical cases of Child Sexual Exploitation from 1997-2013. The inquiry was
commissioned by the council’s Chief Executive, Martin Kimber, in September 2013, and was
carried out by Alexis Jay OBE.
The report states that a conservative estimate of the number of children who were sexually
exploited between 1997 and 2013 was approximately 1400 children. It also states that for the
first twelve years covered by the inquiry, the collective failures of political and officer leadership
were blatant, and that from the beginning there was growing evidence that Child Sexual
Exploitation was a serious problem in Rotherham.
The report details the various inspections and external reviews that took place in relation to
the council between 1998 and 2013, as well as considering the response of other services
and agencies to Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. This included the response by South
Yorkshire Police, and the report states that there were very many historic cases where the
operational response of the Police fell far short of what would be expected. It was stated that the
Police had excellent procedures from 1998, but in practice these appeared to have been widely
disregarded. The report outlines that, by 2007, there was evidence that the Police were more
pro-active in tackling Child Sexual Exploitation and senior police officers had established good
liaison arrangements with Risky Business, a youth project that was developed to address the
issue, and progress was being made in protecting the children and investigating the perpetrators.
In 2007, as a result of a successful prosecution, the police and children’s social care were
commended by the trial judge in the case. The inquiry details that shortly after this, work began
on what would eventually lead to the successful prosecution of five offenders in 2009 as part
of Operation Central, which was the result of excellent joint working between the Police, Risky
Business and children’s social care. The report outlines that it was clear that tackling Child Sexual
Exploitation was now a priority for South Yorkshire Police, and that the author considered that
the Police were now appropriately resourced to deal with Child Sexual Exploitation and had a
OFFICIAL
25
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
clear focus on prevention, protection, investigating and prosecuting perpetrators. The inquiry
also found that police officers on the ground had a good child-centered focus and demonstrated
a commitment to continuous improvement, and Senior police officers were keen to develop the
joint CSE team and were supportive of a single management arrangement similar to what is in
place in Sheffield as they thought that this would strengthen the operation of the team.
The report also details the response of the Crown Prosecution Service and states that many
issues have been raised in other reports about the protection and support of child witnesses.
These concerns will be addressed in the new national policy and guidance for the Police and
the Crown Prosecution Service that will be drawn up by the College of Policing. This will include
a checklist of support services that a victim of Child Sexual Exploitation ought to be offered
following the decision to prosecute the case. The report suggests that at the very least, pre-trial
therapy, a pre-court familiarisation visit and an opportunity to meet the prosecuting barrister
should be included in this checklist. It is also stated in the report that all victims of Child Sexual
Exploitation should be offered the services of an Independent Sexual Violence Advisor who is
trained in court processes and, wherever possible, the same person should support the victim
throughout the trial.
The report makes reference to the Home Affairs Select Committee, who proposed that the CPS
should review all prosecutions in Child Sexual Exploitation to identify barriers to taking cases
forward, and outline best practice in supporting victims, as well as conducting a review of all
recent cases to identify the key factors that led to a successful prosecution.
It also referred to the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions, in October 2013, revised the
CPS guidance on Child Sexual Exploitation and a list of stereotypical behaviours thought to
previously undermine the credibility of young victims was included to dispel the associated
myths when bringing a prosecution. The report lists some of these, namely:
• the victim invited sex by the way they dressed or acted
• the victim used alcohol or drugs and was therefore sexually available
• the victim didn’t scream, fight or protest so they must have been consenting
• the victim didn’t complain immediately, so it can’t have been a sexual assault
• the victim is in a relationship with the alleged offender and is therefore a willing partner
• a victim should remember events consistently
• children can consent to their own sexual exploitation
• CSE is only a problem in certain ethnic/cultural communities
• only girls and young women are victims of child sexual abuse
• children from BME (Black and Minority Ethnic Groups) backgrounds are not abused
• there will be physical evidence of abuse.
OFFICIAL
26
Policing
practice
Crime
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
The report states that all of these elements have been referred to at some point in historic files
that the inquiry examined, usually as reasons given by the Police of the CPS for not pursuing
suspected perpetrators.
With regard to recommendations, the report goes on to identify fifteen key areas which
are considered a priority which include risk assessment, looked after children, joint CSE team,
ongoing work with victims, and post abuse support. The recommendations made in the report
are in addition to those already made by other reviews, reports and inspections that have
taken place over the last two years, which have been consolidated by the Safeguarding Board
into a single document, which includes the HMIC South Yorkshire Police Response to Child
Sexual Exploitation.
The Full Report relating to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham
can be found at http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_
cse_in_rotherham
Office for National Statistics Publish Statistical Bulletin on Deaths
Related to Drug Poisoning in England and Wales 2013
The Office for National Statistics has published a Statistical Bulletin concerning Deaths
relating to Drug Poisoning in England and Wales 2013.
The key findings of the report included:
• 2,955 drug poisoning deaths were registered in 2013 in England and Wales,
and of those 2,032 of those recorded were male and 923 were female
• male drug poisoning deaths increased by 19% in 2013, compared to 2012
• male drug misuse deaths (involving illegal drugs) increased by 23% from 1,177
in 2012 to 1,444 in 2013
• drug poisoning deaths most commonly involve the use of heroin/morphine
• there has been a continued rise in deaths involving tramadol, with numbers almost
2.5 times the number seen in 2009
• there was a considerable increase in the number of drug misuse deaths in England
in 2013, increasing by 21%
• in relation to the substances heroin/morphine, benzodiazepines, and paracetamol,
male mortality rates significantly increased in these categories
OFFICIAL
27
Policing
practice
Crime
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
• in England, the North East had the highest mortality rate from drug misuse in 2013
and London had the lowest
• mortality rates from drug misuse were significantly higher in Wales than England.
The bulletin presents the latest figures on deaths relating to drug poisoning in England and
Wales in the last five years. Figures presented in the bulletin concern deaths that are registered in
each year, as opposed to occurring each year. Two revisions to methodology were implemented
in 2014, namely the introduction of a revised method for calculating age standardised rates
using the new 2013 European Standard Populations (ESP) and the inclusion of 20 extra drugs to
the drugs misuse definition following amendment to the list of substances controlled under the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The whole Statistical Bulletin can be found at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnationalhealth3/deaths-related-to-drug-poisoning/england-and-wales---2013/stb---deaths-relatedto-drug-poisoning-in-england-and-wales--2013.html
OFFICIAL
28
Policing
practice
Crime
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Police
Consultation on revised PACE code of practice A – stop and search
On 26 August 2014, the Home Office launched an open consultation on the revised Code of
Practice A to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
The revisions to the code relate to the legal grounds upon which police officers can conduct stop
and searches under powers which include section 1 of PACE to find stolen property or weapons
and section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to find controlled drugs.
The consultation follows the announcement made on 30 April 2014 by the Home Secretary that
a package of measures would be introduced to reform the use of stop and search powers by the
police. One of those measures was to amend PACE code of practice A to:
(a) make clear what constitutes ‘reasonable grounds for suspicion’ – the basis upon
which police officers carry out the vast majority of stops and
(b)emphasise, within the code, that officers who do not use their powers properly will
be subject to formal performance or disciplinary proceedings.
The Home Secretary has agreed that this will be an 8 week consultation which will end on
Monday 20 October 2014. All responses should be sent to [email protected]
no later than this date.
Full details, including a copy of the draft revised code, are available at https://www.gov.uk/
government/consultations/revised-pace-code-a
HMIC publish report ‘Core Business: An Inspection into Crime
Prevention, Police Attendance and the Use of Police Time’
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has published the results of an inspection
into crime prevention, police attendance and the use of police time.
The report outlines the inspection findings about the policing activity in these areas, and in
conducting this inspection HMIC gathered evidence through:
• the identification, examination and assessment of primary documents from forces,
including policies, guidance and plans and other documentation relevant to the
areas under scrutiny
OFFICIAL
29
Policing
practice
Police
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
• interviews with people experienced in these areas of activity and police officers
and staff within each of the 43 forces of England and Wales
• an in-force reality-testing programme within each of the 43 forces of England and
Wales, to examine, check and validate documentation, procedures and practices
• liaison with ACPO, APCC and the HMIC Reference Group
• liaison with relevant professionals and specialists in particular areas of police
business, such as the Technical Advisory Group and
• a public survey and a number of focus groups (conducted by independent
companies) about public expectations of police attendance and preventive
policing activity.
The report firstly addresses the area of Preventive Policing, and has made the following
recommendations:
Recommendation 1 – not later than 31 March 2015, the police service, through the national
policing lead for crime prevention, should establish and implement a national preventive
policing strategy and framework.
Recommendation 2 – not later than 31 March 2015, all forces’ planning documents should
contain clear and specific provisions about the measures forces will take in relation to crime
prevention, in accordance with the published national preventive policing strategy and
framework and in discharge of chief constables’ duties under section 8 of the Police Reform and
Social Responsibility Act 2011 to have regard to the police and crime plans of their police and
crime commissioners.
Recommendation 3 – by 31 March 2015, every force that does not have an adequate, force-wide
problem-solving database should develop and start making use of one, to record, monitor and
manage its neighbourhood problem-solving cases.
Recommendation 4 – by 31 March 2015, all forces should ensure they are using their
databases to track the progress and evaluate the success of actions taken in relation to each
neighbourhood problem-solving case recorded on the database.
Recommendation 5 – by 31 March 2015, each force should ensure that it is able to disseminate
information and share good practice from its database throughout the force, as well as to local
authorities and other relevant organisations involved in community-based preventive policing
or crime prevention.
Recommendation 6 – by 20 October 2014, the one force which has not already done so should
adopt a sound force-level definition of a repeat victim of anti-social behaviour.
OFFICIAL
30
Policing
practice
Police
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Recommendation 7 – by 31 March 2015, all forces should ensure that their records clearly
establish whether victims of crime and anti-social behaviour fall within the applicable definition
of ‘repeat victim’, and that appropriate steps are taken to ensure that when repeat victims call
the police, the force’s call-handlers have the means to establish immediately that the caller is
a repeat victim.
Recommendation 8 – not later than 1 September 2015, all forces should provide and
periodically refresh basic crime prevention training for officers and staff who come into contact
with the public.
Recommendation 9 – by 31 March 2015, all forces should ensure that crime prevention
or disruption activity carried out is systematically recorded and subsequently evaluated to
determine the effectiveness of tactics being employed.
The report secondly addresses the area of Police Attendance, and made the following
recommendations:
Recommendation 10 – not later than 31 March 2015, those forces using a threat, harm and
risk policy, that have not yet done so, should provide call-handlers with specific, sound and
comprehensible criteria against which they can assess threat, harm and risk.
Recommendation 11 – not later than 1 September 2015, all forces should work with the
College of Policing to establish as mandatory professional standards, service-wide definitions
of vulnerable persons and repeat victims.
Recommendation 12 – not later than 31 March 2015, all forces should ensure that call-handlers
are following the correct procedures to identify callers as vulnerable or repeat victims.
Recommendation 13 – not later than 31 March 2015, all forces should have in place adequate
systems and processes to enable the accurate recording and monitoring of the deployment and
attendance of officers and staff in response to all crime and incidents reported to them.
Recommendation 14 – not later than 31 March 2015, all forces should ensure that they have the
ability efficiently and promptly to differentiate in their records their attendance to specific crime
types, such as between burglary dwellings and burglary of other buildings.
Recommendation 15 – not later than 31 March 2015, all forces should establish and operate adequate
processes for checking whether attendance data are accurate, including dip-sampling records.
Recommendation 16 – by 1 September 2015, all forces should work with the College of Policing
to carry out research to understand the relationship between the proportion of crimes attended
and the corresponding detection rates and levels of victim satisfaction.
OFFICIAL
31
Policing
practice
Police
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Recommendation 17 – by 31 December 2014, all forces should ensure that PCSOs are not being
used to respond to incidents and crimes beyond their role profiles, in respect of which they have
no powers, or for which they have not received appropriate levels of training.
Recommendation 18 – by 31 December 2014, all forces should produce clear guidance for
officers and staff on what kinds of crimes and incidents need to be dealt with immediately and
are not appropriate for resolution by way of appointment.
Recommendation 19 – by 31 December 2014, all forces should ensure that where crimes or
incidents are being dealt with by appointment, these are, to the greatest extent reasonably
practicable, made for the convenience of the victim(s); and that appointments are never used
in cases requiring immediate attendance.
Recommendation 20 – not later than 30 September 2015, all forces should ensure their officers and
staff involved in investigation of crime over the telephone in call-handling centres, crime management
units and telephone investigation units have received appropriate investigative training.
Recommendation 21 – not later than 31 March 2015, all forces should ensure that all crime
reports have investigation plans that are being properly updated and supervised, whether these
are for crimes that have been attended or those being resolved by desk-based investigation.
Recommendation 22 – by 31 March 2015, all forces should have in place and be operating
adequate systems which ensure that all crime reports are appropriately investigated before
being filed.
Recommendation 23 – by 31 December 2014, those forces with ineffective Integrated Offender
Management arrangements should conduct reviews of their shortcomings to establish the
improvements which should be made. In each case, not later than 1 April 2015 the force should
have drawn up an adequate improvement plan and made substantial progress in its implementation.
Recommendation 24 – by 31 October 2014, all forces should ensure that they have adequate
systems in place to record (a) the number of open unsolved crimes being investigated in relation
to which there is a named suspect; (b) the number of people within their areas who have failed
to answer police bail; and (c) the numbers of suspects about whom details have been circulated
on the PNC.
Recommendation 25 – by 31 October 2014, all forces should ensure that effective monitoring
procedures and systems are in place to enable police managers to track the progress being
made with named suspects and ensure they are being pursued as quickly as possible.
OFFICIAL
32
Policing
practice
Police
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
The third area the report addresses is the area of Freeing Up Police Time, and has made the
following recommendations:
Recommendation 26 – all forces should work with the College of Policing to support its work
to establish a full and sound understanding of the demand which the police service faces. Forces
should understand what proportion of demand is generated internally and externally, and the
amounts of time taken in the performance of different tasks. All forces should be in a position
to respond to this work by 31 December 2015.
Recommendation 27 – all forces should progress work to gain a better understanding of the
demands they face locally, and be prepared to provide this to the College of Policing to establish
good practice in this respect. All forces should inform HMIC of their progress on this matter
through their annual force management statements.
Recommendation 28 – by 31 March 2015, all forces should ensure they have the means to
assess and better understand the workloads of their staff, and that officers and staff understand
what is expected of them and how they will be assessed.
Recommendation 29 – all forces should work with the College of Policing to continue with its
work to establish a full and sound understanding of the nature and extent of the workload and
activities of the police service. All forces should be in a position to respond to this work by
31 December 2015.
Recommendation 30 – by 31 March 2015, those forces that have not already done so should
conduct a review of the tasks currently being carried out by their police officers to establish
which activities do not require warranted police powers and could be carried out by police staff.
Recommendation 31 – by 31 March 2015, those forces without a mental health triage
programme should carry out analysis to assess whether adopting such a programme would be
cost-effective and beneficial in their particular areas. Where the analysis indicates this would
be positive, all forces should work with their local mental health trusts to introduce such a
programme by 1 September 2015.
Recommendation 32 – all forces should work with the College of Policing to progress its work
into how mental health cases and ambulance provision can be better managed. All forces should
be in a position to respond to this work by 31 December 2015.
Recommendation 33 – all forces should work with the College of Policing to progress the work
it has taken over from the Reducing Bureaucracy Programme Board to establish opportunities
where savings can be made. All forces should be in a position to respond to this work by
31 December 2015.
OFFICIAL
33
Policing
practice
Police
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Recommendation 34 – by 31 March 2015, every force should introduce a local bureaucracy
reduction programme with a plan for quantifiable efficiency savings.
Recommendation 35 – by 31 March 2015, all forces should begin monitoring how much officer
and staff time has been freed up by the policies they have put in place to reduce bureaucracy,
and establish how the force has used the extra time.
Recommendation 36 – by 1 September 2015, all forces should conduct a review into their use
of video and telephone conferencing and ensure that it is being used wherever appropriate.
Recommendation 37 – by 1 September 2015, all forces should have in place, and thereafter
implement to the greatest extent reasonably practicable, a sufficient and costed plan to progress
the development of mobile technology which prioritises the requirements of frontline officers
and staff, and to achieve the objectives of the National Policing Vision 2016.
Recommendation 38 – by 31 March 2015, the police service should establish sound
arrangements for its co-operation with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, the
College of Policing and (to the extent necessary) the Home Office to establish a national police
information strategy which facilitates the most efficient and economical steps to ensure the
greatest practicable accessibility of information (including its transmission and receipt) by police
officers and others in or concerned with the criminal justice system.
Recommendation 39 – with immediate effect, all forces should ensure that all ICT systems which
they acquire or upgrade should comply with the highest practicable standards of interoperability.
Recommendation 40 – with immediate effect, all forces should review their ICT design
and procurement arrangements and ensure that every appropriate opportunity for efficiency
and economy in ICT design and procurement which is provided by centrally-provided or
centrally-co-ordinated agencies is taken.
Conclusion
The report concludes by stating that in relation to crime prevention, the police service does not
have a national strategy, or standard definitions or operating procedures across forces, however
this does not prevent forces from undertaking prevention activity in their communities. HMIC
does state however that it recognises that to be successful in preventing crime, forces need to do
more than simply articulating crime prevention objectives on a planning document. An agreed
plan and a consistent understanding of definitions and procedures provides clarity to staff and
highlights the importance of crime prevention to the public and encourages the force to make
sure that it monitors progress made, and work is already underway to address this by the chief
officer lead for crime prevention.
OFFICIAL
34
Policing
practice
Police
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Good examples of local long term projects to prevent crime in relation to regular predictable
events had been provided by forces and good arrangements were also found to be in place for
forces to respond to unanticipated increases in crime and anti-social behaviour.
The report states that HMIC has found that too little is being done by the police to inform the
public of ways in which they can prevent crime, and far too little is done to train police officer
and police staff in crime prevention. HMIC states that this is a material deficiency in police
training and police practice, and it must change now.
The report states that the investigation established that, in around a third of all forces,
call-handling staff were failing consistently to identify repeat and vulnerable victims and this
means that those individuals, who may be in most need of action or protection from the police,
may not be getting it. The report states that these forces should ensure that they have robust
systems in place and policy guidance is clear so that the most vulnerable members of the public
are consistently and timeously identified.
HMIC also states that the disparity in definitions of vulnerable and repeat victims across forces
must be resolved. It was also concerned to find that almost half of forces were unable to provide
them with details of the reported crimes that they had attended, and this was unacceptable as
forces cannot adequately assess the service they are providing to victims, or properly understand
the demands being placed upon them, if they lack basic information about numbers and types
of crimes attended by officers and staff.
HMIC found that generally reports of more serious crimes, such as house burglaries, robberies
and assaults, had been attended by police officers and/or specialist staff such as crime scene
investigators. It found that the crime reports had been updated with the investigative activity
already carried out and that yet to be carried out, and there was, in the main, clear evidence of
supervision, guidance and quality assurance.
It was found that this was not the case for reports of crime investigated over the telephone, with
many crime reports examined showing little or no evidence of investigation or supervision, and
the inspection team also observed some call-handlers in effect encouraging victims to carry
out their own investigations. This, together with the lack of time devoted to investigating some
less serious volume crimes, indicates that, in many forces, the investigation is little more than a
crime-recording process.
The report then outlines that the investigation and detection of crime is core business for the
police and forces need to ensure that their investigative processes are robust, carried out by
appropriately trained staff and adequately supervised and quality assured. In 13 forces, HMIC
found unsatisfactory investigations and supervision and in around half of the cases examined in
these forces it found little or no evidence of investigative plans or assessment or guidance from
supervisors. In approximately half of the cases examined in the forces the cases had been filed
within 24 hours of being reported.
OFFICIAL
35
Policing
practice
Police
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
With regard to bringing offenders to justice, HMIC was extremely concerned to find that 11
forces were unable to provide them within the information on the number of named suspects
that had yet to be arrested or interviewed, and nine forces were unable to tell them the number
of suspects who had failed to answer their bail. HMIC also identified when conducting their
inspection, 20 files of suspects who had been named as responsible for a crime but who had
yet to be arrested or interviewed. In 12 forces, HMIC found deficiencies in at least six of the files
examined and these deficiencies included a lack of apparent activity to locate the suspect or
evidence of supervisory review or guidance.
In the report, HMIC states that it is unacceptable for some forces to be operating without the
ability to establish and routinely monitor efficiently such basic information as the number of
suspects yet to be arrested, or those who have failed to answer their police bail, and the lack
of effective systems in some forces to monitor progress of such a basic part of police work is
a matter of considerable concern.
The inspection findings revealed that there were limitations of some forces’ understanding of
the demands they face in a number of important areas for example:
• nineteen forces are unable to establish the number of crimes they attend
• seventeen forces are unable consistently to identify repeat and vulnerable victims
• eighteen forces are unable efficiently to establish either the number of named
suspects yet to be arrested or interviewed or the number of suspects who had
failed to answer their police bail
• twenty-six forces do not have any consistent way to monitor or assess the
performance or workload of their staff.
The report states that the College of Policing (the College) is currently carrying out work on
behalf of the police service to establish better how it provides services to the public and the
nature and extent of demands on policing resources. Following some initial data-gathering
and analysis, the College is considering how further work should be focused to maximise the
benefits to the service. The report states that forces shouldn’t wait for this work to conclude,
but should progress their own programmes and initiatives to improve their understanding and
management of demand locally, using good practice identified by the College’s work to date.
HMIC states that it is essential in this period of austerity, that decisions in relation to resource
distribution and the levels of public service being provided are made with accuracy and
certainty, and this can only be done if the force has a detailed and thorough understanding of
all of the demands upon it which is critical to the efficiency and effectiveness of the police and
more work needs to be done by forces in this respect.
OFFICIAL
36
Policing
practice
Police
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
HMIC states that none of the 43 forces is running a separate bureaucracy reduction programme,
however all forces have a programme in place to manage the organisational changes needed to
meet the financial challenges the service faces and most forces are carrying out work to reduce
unnecessary paperwork and duplicate or inefficient procedures. It is clear, however that while
forces are making financial savings through more efficient working practices and reducing
bureaucracy, they are not measuring the time freed up by these changes and in the majority of
corporate change programmes in forces, business cases for change were wholly focused on cash
savings and not saving time.
In relation to technology, the report states that nationally, across the police service it is
inadequate, and due to forces moving at different speeds and from different starting points
there has been disjointed development of ICT systems by forces with insufficient consideration
of wider issues, such as the need to be able to share information with other forces. Significant
work is required by some forces to achieve being fully digitised by 2016; an objective which all
forces have signed up to. Many forces are operating with old technology which is ill-suited to
modern crime fighting; it is keeping inefficient processes in place.
The report states that the current situation in relation to the development and the use of ICT in
the police service is unsatisfactory and the Home Office, APCC and the police service need to
develop a national police information strategy, with the support of the College, which ensures
future systems are interoperable with other systems, and clear governance, responsibility,
ownership and accountability are established. This is a priority for the service. The current
arrangements in relation to ICT, the infrastructure in forces and their connectivity with others,
and the use of mobile technology to support frontline officers and staff can only be described in
many cases as lamentable, and without significant changes to these important interlinked issues,
there is a material risk that important organisational change decisions are ill-informed, police
time is not used effectively, and the service to the public suffers.
The report concludes by stating that HMIC will continue to inspect these areas of policing core
business and has made recommendations that significant improvements be made by the service
as a matter of urgency.
The full report can be found at http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/
uploads/core-business.pdf
OFFICIAL
37
Policing
practice
Police
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Best use of stop and search scheme published by Home Office
The Home Office has published a ‘Best Use of Stop and Search Scheme’, following an
announcement by the Home Secretary in her statement to Parliament on 30 April 2014.
The principal aims of the scheme are to achieve greater transparency, community involvement
in the use of stop and search powers and to support a more intelligence-led approach, leading
to better outcomes.
The first feature of the scheme concerns data recording. Currently national data, published in
the annual Police Powers and Procedures publication does not give the whole picture
concerning the effectiveness of stop and search, and Forces adopting the scheme will provide
the public with a richer picture of how their use of stop and search powers is enabling them to
reduce crime rates in addition to how well officers are using their ‘reasonable suspicion powers’
to target suspects with prohibited items in their possession.
One of the key components of the scheme is the requirement on forces to record and publish a
broader range of outcomes which could follow a stop and search encounter. Forces participating
in the scheme will expand their data requirements and return information where stop and
search has resulted in any of the following outcomes:
• arrest
• summons/charged by post
• caution (simple or conditional)
• Khat or Cannabis Warning
• penalty Notice for Disorder
• community resolution or
• a no further action disposal.
The second key component concerns ‘lay observation policies’. In order to improve public
understanding of the police and to contribute to best practice, forces must be open and
accessible. It is important for the public, particularly young people and people from Black and
Minority Ethnic communities, to be able to see the police conducting their work in a professional
way and it is also important for the police to understand the communities they are serving.
A core element of the scheme is the requirement that participating police forces will provide
opportunities for members of the public to accompany police officers on patrol when they may
use stop and search powers.
OFFICIAL
38
Policing
practice
Police
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
The forces that are participating in the scheme will develop lay observation policies which
adhere to the following principles:
• members of the public are provided with the opportunity to see stop and search
in action
• the police have the opportunity to demonstrate their use of stop and search
• the public has the opportunity to provide feedback to the police based on
their observations
• the need to ensure the safety of lay observers is appropriately taken into account.
The Home Office states that it recognises that it is difficult to predict when a stop and search
encounter might take place, and some forces already facilitate public observation through ‘Ride
Along’ schemes. It is open to forces to meet this requirement through such schemes, and by
extension, where forces do not have public observation policies, they may wish to apply a policy
with a broader scope.
The third key component of the scheme is the ‘community complaints trigger’ which is a
requirement on forces to signpost the appropriate mechanism for members of the community to
raise any concerns or complaints that they have in relation to the way their police force has dealt
with stop and search. Participating forces in the scheme will have local discretion to determine
the most appropriate way to establish the community complaints trigger, however consideration
should be given to information relating to the complaints trigger either on the receipt provided
to all individuals who are subject to stop and search, verbally by officers or both. The scheme
states that forces will publish their policy to ensure transparency in the process, and where
complaints are particularly low, forces should consider treating every complaint as a ‘trigger’
requiring each complaint to be explained and scrutinised by community groups.
Each participating force in the scheme will develop a complaint policy which:
• Ensures individuals stopped and searched are made aware of where to complain
• Introduce a threshold above which the police are compelled to explain their use
of stop and search and
• That explanation will be given, primarily, to local community groups responsible
for scrutinising the use of stop and search.
The final element of the scheme is to reduce section 60 ‘no suspicion’ stop and searches under the
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Home Office states that these powers are the most
controversial of all such powers by virtue of the fact that individual police officers are not required
to have any reasonable grounds for suspicion, though it is a requirement of PACE Code A for an
officer to explain to a person who they have stopped that a section 60 authorisation is in place.
OFFICIAL
39
Policing
practice
Police
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Section 60 authorisations can result in community and police tensions, and the Scheme
introduces a set of requirements that, when combined, will ensure that participating forces
improve their use of this type of stops. These conditions are outlined in the scheme in detail
at page 6 of the report.
Forces that are signed up to the scheme are expected to adhere to it, subject to exceptional
circumstances. The scheme, however, is not binding in law, and therefore statute and case law on
stop and search remains unaffected. Any forces that leave the scheme must be publicised, and
where there is evidence that a force is not compliant with its terms, the Home Secretary reserves
the right to withdraw its scheme membership.
The publication concludes by stating that in order to comply with the public sector equality duty
set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, when forces are designing and implementing
any new policies as part of this scheme, they must consider the impact on all individuals and
the duty requires forces to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance
equality of opportunity and foster good relations between different people when carrying out
their activities. Forces participating in the scheme will ensure that the impact of the Best Use
of Stop and Search Scheme is monitored, particularly as it relates to individuals from Black and
Minority Ethnic groups and young people.
The full document can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/346922/Best_Use_of_Stop_and_Search_Scheme_v3.0_v2.pdf
OFFICIAL
40
Policing
practice
Police
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Training and development
Expert International Cybercrime Taskforce is launched to tackle
online crime
On 1 September 2014, the Joint Cybercrime Action Taskforce (J-CAT) was launched to further
strengthen the fight against cybercrime in the European Union and beyond.
The J-CAT, which is being piloted for six months and is being hosted at the European Cybercrime
Centre (EC3) at Europol, will coordinate international investigations with partners working
side-by side to take action against key cybercrime threats and top targets such as underground
forums and malware. The J-CAT will be led by the Deputy Director of the National Cyber
Crime Unit from the National Crime Agency, and will comprise of Cyber Liaison Officers from
committed and closely involved Member States, non-EU law enforcement partners and the
European Cybercrime Centre.
Key contributors to the intelligence pool will be the EU Member States via the European
Cybercrime Centre and other law enforcement partners, and to date Austria, Canada, Germany,
France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK and the US are part of J-CAT with Australia and
Colombia also committing to the initiative.
Troels Oerting, Head of the European Cybercrime Centre said:
The aim is not purely strategic, but also very operational. The goal is
to prevent cybercrime, to disrupt it, catch crooks and seize their illegal
profits. This is a first step in a long walk towards an open, transparent,
free but also safe Internet. The goal cannot be reached by law
enforcement alone, but will require a consolidated effort from many
stakeholders in our global village. But the J-CAT will do its part of the
necessary ‘heavy lifting’…
The European Cybercrime Centre is involved in cross-border cybercrime investigations and
has seen a rapid increase in major international cases. The J-CAT aims to add significant value
to international law enforcement cooperation and to maximise the effectiveness of joint and
coordinated actions.
The report states that it is crucial to share intelligence and align priorities, as cybercrime affects
citizens, business and governments regardless of their national borders or jurisdictions and
police forces across the world face similar crimes and criminal targets. The J-CAT offers the
possibility to address the most impactful crimes affecting many states in a joint, well-concerted
manner and with the assistance of European Cybercrime Centre.
OFFICIAL
41
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
It also states that J-CAT will organise dedicated consultation meetings with key actors in the
private sector and the Computer Emergency Response Team for the EU institutions, bodies
and agencies (CERT-EU), to obtain their input on cybercrime threats that affect them and
society in general.
The full report can be found at https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/expert-internationalcybercrime-taskforce-launched-tackle-online-crime
OFFICIAL
42
Policing
practice
Training and development
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Criminal justice system
Consultation on the Guardianship of the Property and Affairs of
Missing Persons published
The Ministry of Justice has published a consultation on the Guardianship of the Property and
Affairs of Missing Persons. The consultation states that when a person goes missing, their
disappearance exposes their property and affairs to the risk of deterioration as there is no
one to manage or direct them and leaves their families and dependants without the support
that they would have expected to receive.
The consultation states that in some countries there are legal provisions that operate in these
situations that enable a person to obtain authority from a court or tribunal to protect the
interests of the missing person and thereby assist those left behind. The consultation is seeking
views on whether there ought to be a similar legal mechanism to allow a person to be appointed
to act on behalf and in the interests of a person who has gone missing.
The consultation states that the Government acknowledges the support for reform and intends
to decide whether to introduce a legal status of guardian when it has considered the response
to this consultation. Notwithstanding this, this consultation paper sets out for consideration by
consultees provisional proposals as to the form that a scheme of guardianship could take, if it
was decided that a scheme should be implemented.
The key features of the provisional proposals are:
• guardianship will be a fiduciary role akin to trusteeship
• the guardian must only act in the best interests of the missing person
• actions taken by the guardian should have the same effect as if they had been
taken by the missing person
• the guardian should generally be able to access information relating to the missing
person and do anything in relation to the property and affairs of the missing person
(except make a will) that the missing person would have been able to do in person
• anyone should be able to apply for appointment as guardian provided he or she
has a sufficient interest but his or her interests must not conflict with those of the
missing person
• the appointment should be made by a court
OFFICIAL
43
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
• the appointment should only be capable of being made if a person has been
missing for 90 days or more and it seems likely that a decision will need to be made
regarding the property and affairs of the missing person
• the appointment should be for a period of up to four years with the possibility of
applying for an extension for up to another four years
• the appointment may be general or limited and may be made on condition that an
adequate security bond is provided
• the guardian will be supervised by the Office of the Public Guardian and will be
required to file accounts.
Indications from other jurisdictions on the use of their domestic legislation, together with
data relating to missing persons in England and Wales, suggest that if similar provisions were
introduced in England and Wales there would be between 50-300 appointments annually.
The consultation is aimed at anyone in England and Wales interested in subject, including
people who have been missing but have returned, their families and the families of currently
missing people, professional advisors, charities and other organisations that are involved with
missing people, and business and other bodies who have had to deal, or may have to deal with
problems relating to the property and affairs of a missing person.
The consultation commenced on 28 August 2014 and concludes on 18 November 2014 and a
response to the consultation is due to be published on 10 February 2015.
Responses to this consultation can be completed at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digitalcommunications/guardianship-property-and-affairs-missing-persons/consult_view
Or sent to:
Criminal and Civil Law Policy Unit
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Email [email protected]
OFFICIAL
44
Criminal
justice system
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
CPS and ACPO launch new protocol to improve service to
stalking victims as new stalking legislation helps bring
thousands more prosecutions
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has
launched a new protocol to improve the service provided to stalking victims. This follows a full
year of the new stalking legislation being in place and resulting in 743 cases brought to court
which may have not been charged under previous law.
In the year 2013/2014, prosecutions relating to stalking and harassment offences using both
the old and new legislation has increased by over 20%, from 8,648 cases in 2012/2013 to 10,535
last year. Breaches of restraining and non-molestation orders have also seen a 14.6% rise in
prosecutions brought to the court in 2013/2014.
Legislation which came into force in November 2012 allows prosecutors to bring charges where
an offender’s behaviour falls short of fear of violence, but where a victim is caused serious alarm
or distress affecting their lifestyle. To maintain the upwards trend in prosecutions, the new
protocol has been launched to ensure consistency of approach when tackling stalking.
The new protocol on the Appropriate Handling of Stalking Offences, which has been jointly
drafted and agreed by the CPS and ACPO, focuses strongly on the needs of stalking victims,
and reminds police and prosecutors to:
• ensure that in every case the victim has the opportunity to provide a Victim
Personal Statement to court and is able to read this out personally should they wish
• fully investigate the reasons behind any victim withdrawing a complaint, ensuring
that it is not the result of pressure from others
• ensure the victims are consulted on issues such as bail and restraining orders.
The protocol also instructs prosecutors to apply, where possible, for restraining orders on both
conviction and acquittal in order to protect the ongoing safety and security of victims.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders said:
I am pleased that prosecutors are making effective use of new stalking laws
in order to protect victims and put their stalkers before the courts where
previously, in some cases, we were unable to do so. These new offences enable
us to bring people to court potentially before they risk going on to commit
more serious crimes. The rise in prosecutions sends a message to both victims
and criminals about how seriously we are taking these types of offences.
The full report can be found at http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/stalking_protocol/
The new protocol can be found at http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/agencies/stalking_
protocol.pdf
OFFICIAL
45
Criminal
justice system
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Parliamentary issues
Home Office Circular 014/2014: lawful supply of foil
The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment No. 2) (England, Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2014 (SI
2014/2081) came into force at 00:01 on 5 September 2014 and amends Regulation 6A of the
Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (the 2001 Regulations) (SI 2001/3998) to make the provision
of foil by persons employed or engaged in the provision of drug treatment services, subject to
a strict conditions, lawful.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 prohibits the provision, supply, or offer to supply of articles
or paraphernalia which may be used for administering or preparing a controlled drug. To
date, needles and specified injecting articles have been allowed when provided by specified
healthcare professionals. The purpose is to reduce the risks associated with injecting from water
and blood-borne diseases and prevent other infections.
The 2001 Regulations provide the framework under which controlled drugs are made available
for use in healthcare, including the lawful provision of drug paraphernalia. Provisions enabling
the lawful provision of foil are being included in the 2001 Regulations to ensure that the
specific healthcare professionals working in this sector can lawfully provide foil under the strict
conditions that it is in the context of structured steps to get people into treatment or as part of
a treatment plan.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) considered the balance of benefit from
providing foil for the purposes of inhaling controlled drugs as opposed to injecting, and has
recommended that the provision of foil, to move people away from injecting to inhaling,
should be made lawful. The ACMD advised that the provision of foil reduces the health harms
of injecting drugs as the physical harms of inhaling drugs are significantly less than injecting.
It found no evidence that the provision of foil would encourage drug use.
SI 2014/2081 inserts 2 new provisions into the 2001 Regulations:
• regulation 6A(3) authorises a person employed or engaged in the lawful provision
of drug treatment services, when acting in their capacity as such, to supply or offer
to supply aluminium foil in the context of structured steps
(a) to engage a patient in a drug treatment plan, or
(b) which form part of a patient’s drug treatment plan
• regulation 6A(4) defines the term ‘drug treatment plan’ for the purposes of the
authority being granted.
OFFICIAL
46
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
Persons lawfully employed or engaged in the provision of drug treatment services
Under current provisions a practitioner, a pharmacist, a person employed or engaged in the
lawful provision of drug treatment services, a supplementary prescriber acting in accordance
with the terms of a clinical management plan and a nurse independent prescriber are all
authorised to supply swabs, spoons and cups (for drug preparation), citric acid, filters and
water for injection without further conditions.
As distinct from current exempt paraphernalia, aluminium foil can only be supplied lawfully by
‘persons employed or engaged in the lawful provision of drug treatment services’. This means
a healthcare professional currently specified in regulation 6A(2) is generally not authorised to
supply, or offer to supply, foil unless they are also ‘employed or engaged in the lawful provision
of drug treatment services’.
Drug treatment service
A drug treatment service is not defined in the SI. However, for the purposes of the authority
being granted a drug treatment service includes, but is not limited to, needle and syringe
programmes, including community pharmacies and other drug treatment services, who must
additionally meet the conditions below under which the provision of foil is made lawful.
Structured steps
Foil may be provided in the context of ‘structured steps’ to be lawful. For the purposes of these
changes ‘structured steps’ includes informal discussions with a patient in order to sign post them
into treatment as well as stages when a drug treatment plan is being developed.
Drug treatment plan
A ‘drug treatment plan’ must be written and specific to the individual service user and agreed
by the patient and the person employed in the lawful provision of drug treatment services.
The legislation only refers to a ‘treatment plan’ but the clear ambition of the drug strategy and
of the Home Secretary in allowing for the provision of foil is that this will be treatment aimed
at recovery from dependence, not only the reduction of harm. A treatment plan is not
a requirement at the stage when steps are being taken to engage a patient in treatment.
Although not covered in the legislation, the expectation is that in the vast majority of cases
foil will be provided at the early stages to engage a patient into treatment, or at a time when a
patient has been assessed and commenced treatment but has yet to stop taking drugs. However,
it is also recognised that there may be exceptional circumstances when provision of foil may be
necessary later in a patient’s treatment at a time when they are at risk of a relapse to help them
avoid returning to injecting.
OFFICIAL
47
Parliamentary
issues
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
The effect of the amendments is that anyone supplying, or offering to supply, foil for use in
inhaling drugs outside of the conditions referred to above will be doing so in breach of the
prohibition on the supply of drug paraphernalia under the 1971 Act.
Letters of comfort
Following implementation of the legislative changes, drug treatment providers who have
previously supplied foil as a result of ‘letters of comfort’ issued by some police forces will be
expected to comply with the new legislative provisions. This means the further provision of foil
after the legislative change comes into force must be in accordance with the conditions set out
in the legislation. Police forces will be informed of the expectation to comply with the conditions
as set out in the legislation.
The circular can be accessed at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/circular0142014-lawful-supply-of-foil
New vision for the treatment of victims is announced by Ministry
of Justice
The Justice Secretary has announced that victims’ rights will be enshrined in law as part of a
major set of reforms.
Next year, victims’ rights to tell the court how their crime has affected them will be set out
in statute and a new nationwide Victims’ Information Service will be set up to ensure better
information and support. In addition, millions of pounds will be invested in improving the court
experience and plans will be developed to require advocates to undergo specialist training
before taking part in sexual abuse or rape trials, which will make going to court easier and less
distressing for victims.
A new law will guarantee key entitlements for victims, including the right to:
• make a personal statement and ask to have it read aloud in court
• an automatic referral to support organisations
• a right to information about individual cases at each and every stage
• a right to an assessment of victims’ needs at the earliest opportunity.
A new Victims’ Information Service will be set up which will include a helpline to make sure
victims are guided to nearby support and a website where information can be found relating to
the services in their area, restorative justice, the criminal justice system, and their rights under
the Victims’ Code and Witness Charter.
OFFICIAL
48
Parliamentary
issues
OFFICIAL
Digest October 2014
The report states that the aim is to make this an online ‘one-stop-shop’ where complaints can be
submitted, feedback given about their experiences and cases tracked from the police station to
court. It is also proposed that courts will be modernised to include separate waiting areas, and
there will be easier access to information and services to better suit the needs of those affected
by crime as well as giving vulnerable victims and witnesses greater opportunity to give evidence
away from the court building. Work will also be done to roll out pre-trial cross examination for
child victims nationally, subject to the evaluation of ongoing pilots.
The Ministry of Justice also states that there will be less time for victims’ to wait for compensation,
and transparency and accountability will also improve with criminal justice agencies held to
account and required to publish information on how they have improved services.
Work will also be done with Police and Crime Commissioners as they tailor support to meet
local demand, and the Ministry of Justice will review whether the Ombudsman and other
independent organisations need new powers to make sure there is redress when required.
Finally, all courts and staff who work with victims will have as an explicit part of their job the
need to focus on the service they provide to those affected by crime.
The full report can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a-bold-new-vision-forthe-treatment-of-victims
OFFICIAL
49
Parliamentary
issues
Protecting the public
Supporting the fight against crime
As the professional body for policing, the College of Policing sets high
professional standards to help forces cut crime and protect the public.
We are here to give everyone in policing the tools, skills and knowledge
they need to succeed. We will provide practical and common-sense
approaches based on evidence of what works.
Contact us
To find out more about the Digest or to request this document
in an alternative format:
Call: 0800 496 3322
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.college.police.uk/digest
Interested in learning more about the College of Policing?
Why not subscribe to our monthly newsletter by emailing your
details to [email protected]
College of Policing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales.
Registered number: 8235199
VAT registered number: 152023949
Registered office: College of Policing Limited, Leamington Road,
Ryton-on-Dunsmore, Coventry CV8 3EN
C127|03102014

October 2014 - College of Policing

Transcription

Documents pareils

June 2013 - North Yorkshire Police Federation

Grand Chamber hearing concerning fatal shooting in

Newsletter Edition 24

Home Security Inspection Program

THE MONEY TRAIN. Répondez sur la copie d`examen

Digest November 2013

as a PDF - Indiana University

CIRCAMP Child Sexual Abuse Anti Distribution Filter

here - South Asian Women`s Community Centre

New Perspectives in Policing

the PDF file Judicial Review.

unit 2 - full docs : lesson notes