Out of Court Disposal Scrutiny Panel minutes - June 2023
Feedback report to Learning & Development
Date Panel held: 8th June 2023
Number of cases reviewed: 10
Panel: Sgt Chris Mulrooney (Depend); Sue Alexander (JP); Victoria Bishop (OPCC) Kathryn Bailey (JP); Verity Walford (Probation)
Apologies: John Lynch (CPS); Anton Campbell (CI CJD); Lyn Northfield (CI Custody); Jennifer Crickett (RJ); Gary Horscroft (JP); Paul Adey (JP); Lyn Teague (Victim Support); Tue Baker (CPS)
Minutes taken & observer: Diane Hamilton and Charlotte Hunter – Depend Team
Report completed for: CJD (Criminal Justice Department), Crime Investigation Department, LPA Superintendents
How cases are reviewed
The Panel consists of representatives from a cross section of internal and external stakeholders. Such members normally include the CPS, Police, Probation, Victim Support, PCC, the Courts and Magistracy.
Ten anonymised cases are selected by the chair in advance of the Panel meeting. The case file paperwork for each case is researched, redacted and emailed securely to each Panel member two weeks prior to the Scrutiny Panel. Each case is discussed in detail and members vote as to how they feel each case was disposed as follows:
- 1 = Appropriate and consistent with policy
- 2 = Appropriate with observations
- 3 = Inappropriate and inconsistent with policy
- 4 = Panel unable to reach a decision
If the Panel are unable to reach a conclusion, the chair has the deciding vote.
Disposal: Community Resolution
Type of case reviewed: Possession of Class B, Ketamine, not Class A as originally recorded
Condition: Self-referral to CGL
Panel Finding: 1
Documents reviewed – CR/0025181/22; MO, MG6, MG11, SDC1 & PNC
Summary
Suspect was arrested and transported to custody. Asked to use the toilet in custody where a bag containing white powder was found in toilet after use. Suspect admitted it was in her underwear.
Observations
Some members of the Panel were initially concerned that offence showing as Class A received Community Resolution for Class B and also the time lag as crime was recorded June 2022 and CR not given until February 2023. CM explained that sometimes mobile phone downloads for intent can take up to six months, time which is out of police control. He explained that, until drugs are tested, sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish which Class they would fall into - both Cocaine and Ketamine are white powders. Given the explanation, the Panel felt the offence and action were correct in this instance.
Disposal: Restorative Disposal Level 1
Type of case reviewed: Offensive Weapon & Malicious Communications
Condition: N/A
Panel Finding: 3
Documents reviewed – CR/0053740/22 linked to crime CR/0053748/22; MO, MG6, MG11, RJ1 & PNC
Summary
Suspect had gone to victim’s address with a baseball bat, after texting her earlier in the evening “you watch”. The suspect repeatedly and aggressively banged on the victim’s window with the implement whilst shouting and swearing, causing the victim to feel alarmed and distressed.
Observations
The Panel noted that the offences had been merged together, that an offensive weapon should go to CPS and that RJ1 is not suitable for this offence. Concerns also that on PNC, offender was still subject to a suspended sentence and this should have been a strong reason not to have been given RJ1. The offender and the victim were known to each other and this is likely why RJ1 was offered. The Panel agreed that in a simple dispute between neighbours use of RJ1is acceptable but felt it was not a suitable course of action in this case due to the offensive weapon, alcohol being a factor in the crime and the suspended sentence, which had a requirement of alcohol abstinence.
Disposal: Community Resolution
Type of case reviewed: Possession with intent to supply Class A (Heroin)
Condition: Self-referral to CGL
Panel Finding: 3
Documents reviewed – CR/0060920/22; MO, CR & PNC
Summary
Section 8 PACE warrant was executed and suspect found in possession of small quantity of what was suspected to be heroin.
Observations
The Panel found incorrect recording, as intent to supply and no Inspector authority. This crime was resulted on the Smart App and a Community Resolution recorded for possession of Class B for a long-term heroin user. CM had already emailed the officer/supervisor who processed/supervised this crime. He had pointed out this was not a suitable disposal and was disappointed as the officer/supervisor had recently received training in this area. The Panel questioned if this was a training issue or supervision issue. CM advised training on Smart app was given to almost all officers/supervisors and the Depend Team now go through drafts on Smart Apps and refer back any cases if not a suitable disposal.
Disposal: Restorative Disposal Level 1
Type of case reviewed: Possession Bladed Article
Condition: N/A
Panel Finding: 3
Documents reviewed – CR/0061321/22: MO, PNC & RJ1
Summary
Suspect was stopped and searched following suspicions of hare coursing and was found in possession of a lock knife with Stanley blade. The suspect handed over the knife and stated he still had it from cutting bailing string earlier that day for his horses.
Observations
CM had again identified this as a problem before the Panel sat and emailed the officer/supervisor involved. He had identified that this offence should have been resulted as a CPS charge file with a recommendation that it was dealt with by way of a Conditional Caution. He also pointed out that an RJ cannot be issued for a REX offence and that possession of a Blade is a serious Annex A offence which requires an Inspector’s authority. The fact that the suspect had a knife on his person when committing a suspected offence would make it unsuitable for an out of court disposal without CPS authority. The supervisor was extremely apologetic and admitted that he had not properly considered the disposal. He was in an acting role and accepts that he requires additional training. The Panel agreed that the use of RJ1 was not suitable for this offence for all the above reasons and that it was also not appropriate for an offence having no victim.
Disposal: Community Resolution
Type of case reviewed: Assault by beating
Condition: Apology to victim
Panel Finding: 1
Documents reviewed – CR/0001923/23 linked to crime CR/001920/23 & CR/001929/23; MO, MG3 & MG11
Summary
The victim and suspect have been fighting. This resulted in the victim having a cut to his ear. Both parties were arrested for assault on each other. The suspect was found with Class B Amphetamine when searched. The suspect and victim did not wish to make a complaint against each other.
Observations
The Panel felt this was the best resolution, given that the victim did not want to engage with the police and was more beneficial than the offence being resulted as no further action. Asked whether the crime should have been Affray, CM advised that CPS would not normally authorise a charge as no weapon used. A question was asked if an RJ1 could have been another option, but CM pointed out that neither party wanted to engage and also the drugs is a REX offence. Victim not local to area and no likely reoccurrence of the offence helped support the decision to issue the CR. The Panel were happy with the disposal due to the difficulties with evidence, statements and co-operation of victim.
Disposal: Community Resolution
Type of case reviewed: Assault of emergency worker
Condition: Apology to victim
Panel Finding: 1
Documents reviewed – CR/0005281/23, MO & PNC
Summary
Police received reports of two parties on a bus arguing with each other. They attend and parties were separated. As officers were talking to one of the groups, they became aggressive. While controlling them, one of the group gave a light knock to face of victim, who is a police officer. The suspect lashed out after his father was being detained for a possible affray. The suspect while being detained himself waved his arm around and caught the police officer on the side of his head. The suspect soon after the incident made a full apology for his actions and was de-arrested and told to leave the area.
Observations
It was questioned whether an on the spot apology was acceptable, CM said not usually but sometimes, when there is body cam evidence or the officer affected reviews the offence, it is found that the incident is accidental or that an assault did not actually take place. CM pointed out that no paperwork could be found for this offence. The officers believed that the Smart app was filled out but may have crashed and not been correctly recorded. It is the view of the person assaulted whether they wish to proceed and, in this instance, they did not and accepted the apology. The Panel was happy with this course of action.
Disposal: Community Resolution
Type of case reviewed: Sexual Assault on female
Condition: Words of Advice
Panel Finding: 1
Documents reviewed – CR/0006115/23; MO & CR
Summary
The suspect had been at an event at a hotel and was drinking excessively throughout the evening. The suspect was seen to be pestering a number of females, before putting his hand up the victim’s skirt and grabbing her buttocks at the bar. The suspect was discovered by the police in the male toilets of the venue, excessively covered in his own vomit which was also over the floor in one of the cubicles. The victim did not wish to support a prosecution and just wanted the suspect spoken to about his behaviour. The suspect when spoken to about the incident, didn’t recall the touching element, but fully accepted the accounts of the victim and witnesses and agreed to review his drinking in future. He is not known to the police for drunken offences nor ones of a sexual nature.
Observations
The Panel noted that the offender was extremely intoxicated and that the victim didn’t want to take the matter any further. It was questioned when the words of advice were given, due to the suspect being intoxicated on arrest. The Panel was advised that words of advice were given a few days later when the suspect was not under the influence. Query was raised as to this being a red flag pattern of behaviour against women, but there was no evidence this was the case.
Disposal: Adult Conditional Caution
Type of case reviewed: Threaten with bladed article/criminal damage
Condition: Pay for damage
Panel Finding: 3
Documents reviewed – CR/0009413/23; MO, MG6, MG11, PNC
Summary
The victim was riding a push bike and the suspect a motorbike; the suspect accused the victim of cutting him up. The suspect pushed the victim off his bike causing injury to his head and then threatened the victim with a two-inch blade, making threats to kill when on the phone to police. The suspect then threw the victim’s bike into a hedge causing damage. Victim had an injury caused by RTC and there was damage to his bike, but made no suggestion of any assault and no mention of any threats.
Observations
CM updated that he had contacted the custody Sergeant who had made the decision to issue the Conditional Caution. He apologised and thought it would be suitable as it was simple possession of a knife. The Panel felt the offence should have gone via CPS for threatening with bladed article, as the suspect clearly had taken the knife out with him and then removed it from his pocket in anger and pointed it at the victim.
Disposal: Adult Conditional Caution
Type of case reviewed: Possession of Class A with Intent to Supply
Condition: Online course substance misuse
Panel Finding: 2
Documents reviewed – CR0011386/23; MO, MG5, MG6, MG11, PNC
Summary
Suspect was observed by two event staff at Cheltenham Races to make an exchange with another person. Whilst being detained and escorted out of the venue by security, the suspect dropped three individual sealed bags containing white powder, believed to be cocaine. The suspect was searched by the police and found in possession of an uncounted quantity of cash and a mobile phone. The suspect claimed this was for personal use.
Observations
As the exchange was witnessed by two staff and the suspect had two previous Cautions (over two years old), the Panel queried if this was the right outcome. The offence was downgraded to possession and all agreed there are learning points in relation to the paperwork completion in this case. The Panel asked if the online course had been completed and it was confirmed it had been, in line with the conditions of the caution. CM pointed out that often cases get downgraded to simple possession where there is little or no additional evidence. He also noted that the offender was clearly under the influence of Cocaine which would be unlikely if he was dealing. The Panel would have liked to have seen some more evidence to help make a decision on this case.
Disposal: Community Resolution
Type of case reviewed: Assault by beating
Condition: Words of advice by supported housing provider
Panel Finding: 1
Documents reviewed – CR; MO, MG11 & PNC
Summary
Relates to two allegations of common assault on the victim committed by two separate suspects who were friends. Both suspect and victim live in supported housing, where the incident happened. The incident involved the suspect, victim and another party in the communal kitchen area of the shared accommodation. The suspect and other party were bickering with another resident and the victim shouted at them to stop; in response the other party swung a punch at the victim’s face. The victim left the communal kitchen but went back later, saying nothing about the incident and all seemed fine and they all went outside for a cigarette. This happened again later in the evening, when the suspect tried to stop the victim going back into the building. The victim said “get out of my face leave me alone”. Staff then intervened and let the victim in the building. The suspect barged past and staff told the suspect to leave due to her intoxication levels, after which the suspect slapped the victim across the face, leaving it red and swollen.
Observations
The Panel felt the disposal was suitable for the offence but maybe not for the offender, due to alcohol/behaviour issues. Asked whether the Smart App gives details of the number of CRs issued to alert officers to multiple CRs being given to same offender and encourage them to look at other disposals, CM advised that officers need to check PNC and other systems for this information. Question asked if safeguarding had been considered; it was felt that as the suspect and victim living in supported housing, if there were safeguarding issues this would have been dealt with and also been raised by the housing provider.
Notes
Date of next meeting due to be 7th September 2023, this will be back online. (All ongoing dates to be reviewed as it has been pointed out that Thursday may not be best for all parties)
It was discussed about redacting information and what information the Panel wanted in future. CM confirmed that he was awaiting an update from the information disclosure team, as it was hoped that by all Panel members signing up to the data sharing, then no redacting would have to take place. CM has since received a reply, unfortunately we will still have to continue to redact the documents, which is unfortunate. The Panel were happy with the detailed information provided and found the MO very informative. There was a question raised around the value of having the witness statements and PNC. CM pointed out that previously some members asked questions which could not be answered, but having those additional documents allowed the Panel to easily obtain that information. CM will review this going forward and try and format the documents so that they can be sent out in 10 separate files, rather than on two emails.
From the minutes of the last meeting, concerns had been raised regarding a case of Fear of Violence which was resulted as an RJ1. CM advised that a discussion was ongoing regarding the use of RJ1 rather than CR; that there was now lots of evidence from past scrutiny Panels as well as this that RJ1s are being misused on the spot without supervision. It was felt that this case could be used as an example to reinforce change. CM confirmed that training had been given to custody staff and all officers, and this will be ongoing.
CM gave an overview on disposals and OoCD new legislation which should have come into effect on 1st April 2023, but has been delayed until end of March 2024. The new legislation will do away with Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND), Cannabis Warnings, and Simple Cautions. The new two-tier model will be Community Resolution and 2 new Conditional Cautions; Community Caution for low level offences and Diversionary Caution for more serious offences and DA low risk cases. DA Caution Condition to do 2-day CARA course. PCC will fund this and cases will remove the need for CPS to review.
CM gave an overview of Depend Team and explained that in the past too many offences were being resulted as no further action. Since Depend started in November 2021, cases have increased significantly, with training being given to officers and use of the SMART App. CM to send the Panel some stats and PowerPoint of Depend Team and Smart App. Panel also asked about monitoring of self-referrals and hub online course; details to be sent to Panel. A question was asked about compensation, and CM advised that sometimes it’s not wise for suspect to pay victim directly and use of Conditional Caution in these cases is a better way of ensuring compensation is paid, as if it is a condition of Community Resolution it is not enforceable. It was discussed how CC/CR multiple issuing to one suspect can be monitored and avoided; details of the crime closure team were given.
CM advised that hate crime would have to have Inspector Authority and needs to be victim led. DA also needs Inspector Authority but cannot be used for intimate partners. He explained that the use of CR has been authorised for juveniles who have no previous offending history but at this stage only includes 6 offences.
It was very regrettable that there had been no representation from Victim Support, RJ or CPS at this Panel. It was agreed by all that prior to next meeting, CM will contact all parties to confirm future participation and provide a suitable alternate if unable to attend. Also to agree what days and times and whether venue/online is the best way to meet.
The Panel requested that cases of violence against women and girls, bladed articles and harassment/stalking offences are looked at next time.
Conclusions
From the 10 cases discussed at Panel the following results were obtained with approximately 60% of cases receiving a score of 1 or 2:
- 1 = Appropriate and consistent with policy – 5 cases
- 2 = Appropriate with observations – 1 cases
- 3 = Inappropriate and inconsistent with policy – 4 cases
- 4 = Panel unable to reach a decision – 0 cases
All investigating officers and their line managers will be provided with a copy of this report to ensure that they are aware that their case was discussed at Panel. Chief Inspector of CJD will establish contact with individuals for all cases that obtained scores of 3 or 4 to provide specific feedback and guidance.