Out of Court Disposal Scrutiny Panel minutes - September 2023

Disposal: Restorative Disposal (Level 1)

Type of case reviewed: Stalking Involving Serious Alarm / Distress

Panel Finding: 3

Documents reviewed – CR/0003625/23, MO, MG6, PNC

Summary

Victim and suspect are ex-partners and have one child together. Suspect sent victim multiple texts asking who had been coming to her address and about her movements. Suspect approached victim's new boyfriend and the person who feeds her cat when she is away. Suspect went to the victim's property and tried her doors leaving the victim feeling stalked, harassed, and put in fear. The Panel were also concerned about his use of CCTV installed at a neighbouring café to monitor her home.

Observations

Members of the Panel agreed that this case should have gone straight to CPS, given the Suspect’s previous history and that this was a DV case between ex partners, which an RJ1 cannot be used for. Both parties would have needed to agree and engage which would seem to contradict the no contact conditions set. The Panel couldn’t understand why an RJ1 was the outcome. The Suspect’s Mental Health should also have been taken into consideration; he could have had an obsession as part of his neuro diversity and support should have been put in place for this.

Disposal: Adult Conditional Caution

Type of case reviewed: Possess an offensive weapon in a public place

Condition: Not to come to Police attention for 3 months

Panel Finding: 1

Documents reviewed – CR/0003715/23, MO, MG6, CC, Pictures & PNC

Summary

Police have attended the location for Suspect making threats to kill his partner and on searching the address have seized various offensive weapons that happened to be on display.

Observations

The Panel agreed the decision for a CC as, although it didn’t feel entirely comfortable, it was made in accordance with Policy. There was no evidence to suggest the weapons had been used in the DA context or taken outside of the property. If they had been left lying around rather than mounted on walls ornamentally, this might have caused more concern. Suspect surrendered all the weapons and didn’t know that some were illegal, even in a private dwelling. The majority of items seized were not prohibited and were later returned. Panel rested easier knowing there is now a weapons marker on the Suspect’s address. Praise was given for the difficult but correct decision with this case.

Disposal: Community Resolution

Type of case reviewed: Assault a person thereby occasioning them actual bodily harm

Panel Finding: 2

Documents reviewed – CR/0010833/23 linked to CR/0010832/23, MO, Com. R; RJ1 & PNC

Summary

The Suspect had attended a house warming party where he became intoxicated and aggressive resulting in a head-butt to the Victim. This is linked to CR/0010832/23 where the offender has also bitten the nose of a family friend during the same incident which resulted in an RJ1.

Observations

Panel members felt the paperwork was a bit confusing with the 2 different Crimes and Victims and would have preferred a little more clarity. Some Panel members commented that a CC would have been beneficial in this case, with CGL being the condition, to support the Offender with his alcohol and anger issues and so the Condition could be followed up. However, they agreed with the Disposal, as both Victims did not want to pursue a Prosecution. The linked Crime could have also resulted in a CC, but the OIC had talked the Victim out of this due to the offender taking on board the offence and having actioned his behaviour by giving up drinking and seeking support for PTSD.

Disposal: Adult Conditional Caution

Type of case reviewed: Possess Knife Blade / Sharp Pointed Article in a Public Place

Condition: Impact of Crime Online Course

Panel Finding: 1

Documents reviewed – CR/0015065/23, MO, MG6, PNC, CC, & MG6

Summary

The Suspect was in possession of a lockable switch blade knife, which was confiscated by door staff when he tried to enter the location.

Observations

The Panel agreed that this was the correct Disposal for this offence. The Offender had recently moved over from South Africa, where it was normal to carry a knife and which he used for work; he was unaware that it was an offence in the UK and it only came to light when he was voluntarily searched by door staff. He had a clean record and had not used or threatened anyone with the knife. Some angst was felt that the knife had been carried as a weapon in SA and therefore queried if it would be different if the Offender had been British. CPS said the nationality made no relevance to the overall decision, although if the Offender came back to Police attention again for a similar Crime, this may differ.

Initially the Crime was resulted as a CR but was challenged by the Depend team as they felt this was incorrect. Chair agreed she would have had reservations had this not been caught, and Members were relieved that all cases are being monitored on a daily basis for the appropriate Disposals. An Inspector’s authority had been correctly obtained for the CC.

Disposal: Restorative Disposal [Level 1]

Type of case reviewed: Assault a Person Thereby Occasioning Them Actual Bodily Harm

Condition – Apology in Person to Harmed, Agree not to repeat behaviour that causes harm

Panel Finding: 3

Documents reviewed – CR/0016562/23, MO & RJ1

Summary

The Victim, who was slightly intoxicated, and the Suspect (the Victim’s father) had a verbal argument which resulted in an assault by scratching the Victim’s face and using threats to kill by stabbing, although no weapon was present. The Suspect, who was intoxicated, kicked the Victim in the groin and rugby tackled him. He also tried to head-butt him but missed.

Observations

The view of the Panel is this is not the correct Disposal because it is a DA Crime between father and son, which cannot result in an RJ1. The Crime had also been recorded incorrectly, as an ABH instead of an Assault by Beating. It appears to be two linked Crimes (Counter Allegations), however with neither party being supportive of a Prosecution, a CR would be the most suitable Disposal for a non-intimate family relationship, although some Panel Members stated that this should have been NFA’d.

Disposal: Community Resolution

Type of case reviewed: Stalking Involving Serious Alarm / Distress

Condition: Offender not to raise his voice to or upset the Victim (Daughter)

Panel Finding: 2

Documents reviewed – CR/0020906/23, MO & PNC

Summary

The Suspect and Victim are father and daughter, living in separate homes. The Victim (13 years old) refused to see the Suspect and he became angry and verbally aggressive causing the Victim to feel afraid. He texted the Victim repeatedly and sent voice notes crying, to manipulate the Victim. The Victim’s mother told her and her brother that their dad gets upset and cries himself to sleep when they don't see him.

Observations

Varying observations from the Panel; the lack of evidence should have resulted in a NFA, and if it had gone to Court it would have been. It was a father and daughter argument (DA) and may have been incorrectly recorded as stalking. Police have a duty to respond and attend as per Policy and therefore it must be recorded in some way. The CR is the lowest level which could have been given and was appropriate. There was a safeguarding concern for what the Suspect could potentially do, given his record. View was there could be more to this and it could have been followed through by referring to Children’s Services. Panel queried the conditions for the CR, feeling they were not ideal, the conditions have to be reasonable so it can be complied with and enforceable, and felt an apology letter may have been more appropriate or some online training. The form could have been filled out in a better way. The Panel concluded, however, that this disposal was not contrary to Policy and was dealt with the best way it could have been, given the Victim and her Mother did not support further action. An RJ2 would have been an alternative suitable Disposal, and could be used in the future if any further offences are disclosed.

Disposal: Adult Conditional Caution

Type of case reviewed: Possess an Offensive Weapon in a Public Place

Condition: Victim Awareness Course CGL

Panel Finding: 2

Documents reviewed – CR/0021179/23, MO, MG06, CC & PNC

Summary

Suspect attended a Pub with a hammer in a bag and got the hammer out stating he was there to "give someone a pasting for damaging my car". He had PTSD and no threats were made directly to anyone.

Observations

The Panel were in agreement that this was the correct and most sensible Disposal, however the CC was issued in Custody and there is no evidence that an Inspector’s authority was recorded for the Annex A offence.

Disposal: Community Resolution

Type of case reviewed: Stalking Involving Serious Alarm / Distress

Condition: Injunction

Panel Finding: 1

Documents reviewed – CR/0022110/23, MO, Injunction & PNC

Summary

Suspect had banged on the Victim’s door, causing alarm and distress. Further incident occurred when the Suspect turned up to the Victim’s door again, shouting abuse and calling the Victim obscene names. The Suspect is an alcoholic.

Observations

The right outcome for this Case, Panel Members wouldn’t want to see it in Court and the Civil Injunction forbidding the son from repeating the behaviour was the real solution. Police had recorded that they’ve done something and a CR is not inappropriate. Panel are interested to know what Crime the offence was recorded as in the end, as it is not stalking. There appears to be an ongoing issue between mother and son, with alcohol as the catalyst. An RJ1 would not have been suitable due to it being a DA offence.

Disposal: Community Resolution

Type of case reviewed: Use threatening / abusive / insulting words / behaviour to cause harassment / alarm / distress

Condition: Verbal Apology

Panel Finding: 1

Documents reviewed – CR/0023689/23; MO, Com. R & PNC

Summary

The 15-year old Victim and her cousin were confronted by the Suspect when out. He is the father of one of their acquaintances and the Victim had previously sent a message to the Suspect's daughter saying she was fat. The Suspect came towards both girls and said he would have hit them if they hadn’t been under age; he went on to say he would smack her mum and dad instead. The Suspect got in the Victim’s face.

Observations

The Panel queried whether a CC may have been more appropriate, especially from a safeguarding point of view, as the behavioural history could be missed. The Offender’s last previous conviction was very old though in 2009. He did not go on to carry out his threat to the girls or to threaten the parents directly and admitted he acted inappropriately in the heat of the moment, therefore a CR was justified. An RJ2 might also have worked.

Disposal: Adult Conditional Caution

Type of case reviewed: Possess Knife Blade / Sharp Pointed Article in a Public Place

Condition: Panel Finding: 3

Documents reviewed – CR/0025731/23, MO, MG06, Photo, CC & PNC

Summary

The Suspect was stopped and searched and found to be in possession of a kitchen knife measuring 4-5 inches.

Observations

The Panel were in agreement that a CC is not appropriate. The distinguishing factor was the type of knife which was being carried for self-defence, so the Offender could have perceived a non-threat as a threat and used it against anybody. He appears to give the incorrect email address and it should have been a Charge to Court, especially as linked to possession of cannabis. The Custody Sergeant wrongly believed that he could issue a CC, and also failed to obtain an Inspector’s authority. The background terrorism issue was not relevant. The Panel discussed the differences between Case 10 and Case 4 and their outcomes. The knife in Adult 10 Case was found in a stop and search after the Suspect jumped into a walled secure area, rather than surrendered voluntarily like Adult Case 4. The knife in this case was horrifying and should have been charged on its own merits.