PROTECT
ACPO Criminal Records Office
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012
Document information Document status & version Final v1.0 Date of publication 17th December 2012 Author(s) David McKinney, Andrea Jackson, Fred Richards, Michael Scott, Heather Bullimore and ********** S40 Owner ACRO Disclosable under FOI Yes GPMS PROTECT
PROTECT PROTECT
PROTECT PROTECT Executive Summary
On the 7th November 2012, in response to the seriousness and scale of the allegations of child abuse by the late Jimmy Savile, the Home Secretary formally commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) to review the recording and investigation of these and related allegations by police forces across England and Wales.
Following the Home Secretary’s instruction to the HMIC, liaison was made with the ACPO Criminal Records Office (ACRO) in order for the organisation to impart its specialist knowledge and expertise regarding criminal record management, policing systems and public protection. Henceforth, the following terms of reference were issued to ACRO from the HMIC:
Terms of Reference
1. Starting from January 1960 what primary or secondary legislation, guidance, recommendations, including from the Bichard and Magee reviews, or administrative guidance from any source has governed, or required adjustment in practice in relation to, the recording, reporting, review and retention of police information and intelligence?
2. Can you overlay onto the answer to question 1 an account of the introduction, purpose and, where it has been required, decommissioning, of police systems (paper or electronic) for the handling of information and intelligence.
3. What systems are used for the inward and outward transmission of intelligence and information to international organisations and partners; and are there any obvious differences of approach (e.g. French ownership of certain kinds of information lying with the magistracy not the police, approaches to disclosure of information in other jurisdictions etc).
4. Provide a summary of the development of child abuse investigations and processes.
In response to the aforementioned terms of reference, this report is presented to the HMIC in order to inform the Specialist Operations team of the significant changes and developments in policing practices from 1960-2012, specifically regarding the management and exchange of police information and child abuse investigations.
The principal method of data collection in the compilation of this report has been the research and analysis of primary literature information sources. Such sources have included primary and secondary legislation, official guidance documents, government inquiry reports and relevant academic literature. In order to effectively demonstrate the evolution of policing practice over the preceding five decades however, the ACRO research team also adopted the method of police practitioner interviews. This stage of research includes 15 interviews with police professionals whose operational experience ranges from 1951 to present day.
The report consists of five core sections. A high level summary of each section is presented below:
Management of Police Information and Intelligence
This section presents and summarises a series of legislative acts relating to the domains of police information management, crime investigation and prosecution and child protection. This section denotes key developments in the 1980s and 1990s regarding the professionalisation and regulation of police investigations and improvements to the criminal justice systems response to child abuse investigations.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 1 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT The latter part of this section presents a summary of recommendations and guidance regarding the management of police information. The production and dissemination of such direction in the 1980s and 1990s respectively, was prompted primarily by the government’s response to the perceived failings of the police in the retention and exchange of critical criminality information and the investigation of major crimes.
Police Systems
This section provides commentary to the development of police information systems since 1960. Summary information is provided regarding the progression from manual and localised police crime index systems in the 1960s to the introduction of sophisticated nationally-interfacing police databases that record police criminal record and intelligence data today.
Police Information and Intelligence Exchange
This section is divided into two areas which summarise the development of information and intelligence exchange mechanisms both domestically within the United Kingdom (UK) and on an international scale. Historical reference is made to common police communication practices as early as 1960, in which information exchange lacked structure and consistency. Developments are marked through the introduction of ******************** S23 in 1965, national systems for crime recording (the Police National Computer- PNC) in 1974 and the implementation of a national major crime investigation computer capable of linking across borders (HOLMES) in 1986.
The international sharing of police information was stated to be irregular and restricted between the 1960s-1990s. Improvements to proactive and routine information exchanges are referenced to the creation of the European Union (EU) and the resulting Frameworks for criminal record notification and request exchange. Enhanced international police co- operation at the turn of the century, in reaction to globalisation and transnational criminality, also prompted increased police co-operation via the INTERPOL network of National Central Bureaux (NCBs).
Child Abuse Investigations
This section provides commentary of the significant improvements to the Police Service’s response to and management of child protection and safeguarding today. It is reported that since enhancements have been made to the way in which victims and witnesses of sexual abuse are supported by authorities, reports of abuse and convictions of child sex offenders have dramatically increased over the last 20 years. Reference is made to developments in legislation, guidance, training, multi-agency partnerships, joint investigations and the formation of dedicated Public Protection Departments, and the subsequent positive impact on child abuse investigations.
Practitioner Interviews
In order to demonstrate key developments in policing practice regarding information management and child abuse investigations, the ACRO research team undertook 15 interviews with police practitioners.
Each respondent was interviewed in accordance to a structured data collection sheet, which was composed of the following question areas: the evolution of police and public cultures; investigation; the reporting and recording of crimes, and the retention and exchange of
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 2 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT information and intelligence (within Force, cross-county borders, nationally and internationally).
This section highlights advancements in the police’s response to information recording and exchange (principally the transference of local manual crime index systems onto central computer systems) and also identifies relevant challenges that were faced by operational officers since the 1950s.
Looking into the Future
It should be noted that significant developments in child protection have been made since the 1960s. Whilst no guarantee can be made that the ‘seriousness and scale of alleged child abuse by the late Jimmy Savile1 could be repeated, recommendations following the Cleveland Inquiry in 1987 have reduced the risk of a repeat of such alleged criminality. Contemporary practice is defined by an enhanced level of interaction between the police and other agencies within the child protection and safeguarding arena. Significantly, the thorough investigation of allegations by the police is subsequently evaluated and reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Whereby allegations and the associated evidence is insufficient to support a prosecution, critical information and intelligence will be uploaded onto the Police National Database (PND) for future reference, should further allegations be made against a subject.
It must be noted however, that aside from such progressions, the success of any child abuse investigation is undoubtedly underpinned by the victim’s report. Due to the very nature of such criminality, despite vast improvements to the police’s response to reports of child abuse, the continued prevalence of under-reporting by children prevents the fully effective identification and conviction of child sex offenders.
1 Source: HMIC online; ‘Announcements’, updated 7th November 2012, http://www.hmic.gov.uk/news/announcements. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 3 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 8
1.1 Key Events Summary Timeline ...... 11
2 MANAGEMENT OF POLICE INFORMATION AND INTELLIGENCE ...... 18
2.1 Legislation Relating to the Recording, Reporting, Review and Retention of Police Information and Intelligence ...... 18
2.2 Guidance Relating to the Recording, Reporting, Review and Retention of Police Information and Intelligence ...... 22
2.3 Recommendations from Inquiries and Court Cases...... 34
3 POLICE SYSTEMS ...... 43
3.1 Introduction...... 43
3.2 Overview of Police Systems: 1960 to Present Day ...... 43
4 POLICE INFORMATION AND INTELLIGENCE EXCHANGE...... 50
4.1 Exchange within the UK: systems used for the transmission of intelligence and information to UK organisations and partners ...... 50
4.2 Introduction...... 50
4.3 Information Sharing: The Early Years ...... 50
4.4 National Agencies...... 51
4.5 Regional Developments...... 51
4.6 Cross Border Crime...... 51
4.7 National Developments...... 52
4.8 International Exchange: systems used for the transmission of intelligence and information to international organisations and partners ...... 56
4.9 Introduction...... 56
4.10 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 4 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23 ...... 56
4.11 INTERPOL NCB: 1967 - 1992...... 57
4.12 ********** ********** ********** ********** S23 ...... 57
4.13 ********** ********** ********** ********** S23 ...... 58
4.14 EUROPOL: 1999 – Present Day ...... 59
4.15 EUROPOL Computer Systems and Databases...... 60
4.16 Schengen Agreement ...... 62
4.17 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23 ...... 62
4.18 ********** ********** ********** ********** **********S23 ...... 62
4.19 Criminal Record Exchange across the EU ...... 63
4.20 Intelligence Exchange ...... 66
4.21 Additional Systems of Exchange ...... 67
4.22 Extradition Warrants...... 69
4.23 Foreign Representatives in the UK ...... 72
4.24 Repatriation of Prisoners ...... 72
4.25 Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons 1983...... 72
4.26 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code C, Annex F: 2003 - Present Day ...... 72
5 CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS...... 74
5.1 Introduction...... 74
5.2 Child Protection and Safeguarding the Early Years ...... 74
5.3 Improvements in Child Protection and Safeguarding: 2000 to 2012...... 79
5.4 Introduction of Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs)...... 80
5.5 Public Protection Departments or Child Protection Units ...... 80
5.6 Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) 200089...... 81
5.7 Child Sex Offenders Disclosure Scheme 2008...... 82
5.8 Lord Laming’s Progress Report...... 83
5.9 Charity Involvement in Child Safeguarding in 2012...... 83
5.10 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23 ...... 83
5.11 Inter-Agency Working to Safeguard Children93 ...... 83 Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 5 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 5.12 Police Training ...... 84
5.13 Force Overview: Public Protection Departments / Units (PPD / PPU)...... 86
5.14 Crime Statistics of Serious Sexual Assaults ...... 86
6 PRACTITIONER INTERVIEWS ...... 89
6.1 Introduction...... 89
6.2 Key Findings ...... 89
6.3 General Culture of Era ...... 90
6.4 Reporting of Crime ...... 91
6.5 Recording of Crime ...... 93
6.6 Retention of Information and Intelligence...... 95
6.7 Police Systems used for the Recording and Retention of Police Information ...... 96
6.8 Sharing of Police Information and Intelligence ...... 97
7 APPENDIX A - GRADING CRITERIA FOR CHILD PROTECTION...... 100
8 APPENDIX B - INTERVIEW WITH A SENIOR CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATOR ..103
9 APPENDIX C – INTERVIEW WITH FORMER DETECTIVE SUPERINTENDENT, SIO AND HEAD OF PUBLIC PROTECTION, HAMPSHIRE CONSTABULARY ...... 106
10 APPENDIX D – INTERVIEW DATA COLLECTION SHEET...... 108
11 APPENDIX E FULLY WITHHELD – S27...... 111
APPENDIX E FULLY WITHHELD – S27...... 112
APPENDIX E FULLY WITHHELD – S27...... 113
APPENDIX E FULLY WITHHELD – S27...... 114
APPENDIX E FULLY WITHHELD – S27...... 115
APPENDIX E FULLY WITHHELD – S27...... 116
APPENDIX E FULLY WITHHELD – S27...... 117
APPENDIX E FULLY WITHHELD – S27...... 118
APPENDIX E FULLY WITHHELD – S27...... 119
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 6 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT APPENDIX F – NON-EU COUNTRIES – SIGNATORIES TO 1959 COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTION...... 120
12 APPENDIX G – DESIGNATED AUTHORITIES / INTERNATIONAL LETTERS OF REQUEST ...... 120
13 APPENDIX H – MULTI-LATERAL MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATIES THE UK IS PARTY TO...... 121
14 APPENDIX I – BI-LATERAL MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATIES THE UK IS PARTY TO ...... 121
15 APPENDIX J – CATEGORY 1 TERRITORIES UNDER PART 1 OF THE EXTRADITION ACT 2003...... 122
16 APPENDIX K - CATEGORY 2 TERRITORIES UNDER PART 2 OF THE EXTRADITION ACT 2003...... 122
17 APPENDIX L – COUNTRIES THE UK HAS BI-LATERAL TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSON TREATIES...... 123
18 APPENDIX M – SIGNATORIES TO 1983 COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTION ON THE TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS ...... 124
19 APPENDIX N - POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 – CODE C...... 125
20 APPENDIX O - GLOSSARY OF TERMS...... 126
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 7 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
1 Introduction
Historical Context: Investigation and Information Management 1960s – 1980s
The role of the criminal investigator has traditionally been viewed as a craft, with specialist skill and knowledge passed down from practitioner to practitioner. Whilst in the 1960s it was acknowledged that investigators required such expertise, there existed local variations in the practical application of this.
The resourcing of Criminal Investigation Departments (CID) were limited, due to the adoption of the principle of the ‘omni-competent’ constable in which it was perceived that each officer could undertake an investigation using the skill of common sense. In addition, a lack of investigator training, accreditation or evaluation, prevented the standardisation of good investigatory practice and the evaluation of performance2.
During the 1960s and early 1970s, allegations of sexual abuse were reported to be infrequent, with allegations made direct from a child described to be rare3. At this time, the perception of child testimony (from both policing practitioner and academic domains) was that children could not provide an accurate or reliable account of information4. Prominent research undertaken by Professor Ray Bull (expert in Forensic Psychology) from the 1970s positively influenced this established ideology by asserting that “…children can, under appropriate conditions, provide accurate and compelling accounts of events”5.
However, a significant challenge that prevailed was that prior to the introduction of new investigation techniques in the 1990s (importantly the application and use of forensic science) the police relied heavily on the corroboration of evidence from witnesses in order to validate a child’s allegation or testimony. This commonly presented the issue that the weight of evidence was not substantial enough to pursue a charge against the alleged perpetrator6.
Prominent challenges also existed at this time regarding the effective management and exchange of police information. Section 6 of this report ‘Practitioner Interviews’ presents key findings from accounts made by police officers from as early as 1951. The interview scripts and the analysis of primary literature denote that prior to the establishment of national police systems, most prominently the Police National Computer (PNC) in 1974, there existed limited structure or consistency in the management of police information. Most notably, this refers to the proactive exchange of information and intelligence both within and outside of Force boundaries.
Prior to 1974, police forces maintained local, manual card index criminal record and intelligence systems. Whilst requests could be made of regional Criminal Record Offices and Local Intelligence Collators Offices (for information of both nominals and crimes), this system of information recording is significantly detached from
2 Source: Peter Stelfox, 2009, ‘Criminal Investigation; An introduction to principles and practices’. 3 Source: ACRO research - key finding from practitioner interviews. 4 Source: Information provided by Dr Becky Milne, Expert in Investigative Interviewing, Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth. 5 Source: Westcott, H., Davies, G. and Bull, R., 2002, ‘Children’s Testimony; A Handbook of Psychological Research and Forensic Practice’. 6 It should be noted, that despite advancements in interview techniques and forensic science, this problem continues in contemporary investigations of child abuse, particularly for those offences that fall outside of child rape, in which physical evidence of interference may be lacking. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 8 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT contemporary policing practice in which detailed national computer systems and sophisticated software allows Forces to interface with crime information and analyse the offending behaviour of criminals.
In reference to the sharing of information regarding the safeguarding of children, prior to the recommendations made in the Cleveland Inquiry (1988), no mechanism existed for the exchange of information between social and healthcare professionals with the police service. The introduction of and requirement for such exchange mechanisms were not introduced until the release of ‘Working Together’ guidance and best practice that followed the Cleveland Inquiry report.
Key Developments: The Drivers for Change
In the 1980s three thematic areas can be identified as important drivers for change regarding police investigations and information management. These are:
1. Changes to the legal framework of criminal investigation and child safeguarding. 2. Technological and procedural changes to the investigation process and the management and sharing of information. 3. Concerns regarding police effectiveness and conduct in prominent major crime and child abuse investigations (to include the retention and exchange of critical criminality information).
The above mentioned developments were both a reactive response from the Home Office and Police Service following a series of prominent miscarriages of justice and perceived operational failings, and indeed marked a proactive stance by the police to improve both the effectiveness of criminal investigations and the management of information.
The continuing sections of this report provides significant detail regarding the developments in criminal investigation, the protection and safeguarding of children and police information management. These progressions relate to changes and advancements in legislation, operational guidance, recommendations (resulting from independent government inquiries and court rulings), systems and technology, investigator training, joint agency working and the introduction of dedicated Public Protection Departments. Whilst the introduction of this report does therefore not aim to provide the reader with a comprehensive understanding of the aforementioned developments, the following tabled events have been deemed suitably important to detail in the introduction of this report.
Year Inquiry Following the event of Review Area
1981 Byford Inquiry The Yorkshire Ripper Police investigations 1988 Cleveland Inquiry Cleveland child abuse cases Child abuse investigations 1989 Pigot Committee Conviction of Stephen Barker for Videoing of child the rape of a female child- evidence in court concern regarding the live court proceedings cross-examination of children. 1991 Clyde Report Alleged child abuse in Orkney Child abuse investigations 2001 Laming Report Death of Victoria Climbié Child abuse investigations
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 9 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Year Inquiry Following the event of Review Area
2002 Mullins Inquiry Investigation of child abuse in Child abuse care homes investigations 2004 Bichard Inquiry Huntley Murders Information retention and sharing 2007 Magee Review The handling of conviction Criminality notifications of UK nationals sent Information from Europe 2008 Flannagan The general changing role of the Police training and Review police officer guidance
Current Practice
Regarding investigatory practice, the high level impact of the above events and subsequent reviews were the overall professionalisation of the role of the police investigator. This status is defined by the introduction of dedicated Public Protection and Child Protection Units within police forces in the 1980s, the level of expert and specialist training that investigators today receive, the collaboration that now takes place between the police and other agencies that form the wider multi-agency public protection network. Also research and good practice has been imparted on child abuse investigators regarding the appropriate technique to be applied when interviewing children.
With reference to the last mentioned area of practice, child interviewing, important changes were implemented from 1989. The Pigot Committee Report of 1989 and the publication of the first Memorandum of Good Practice guide for interviewing children in 1992 (author Professor Bull) introduced new protocols for the interviewing of children. Importantly, for the first time this enabled police officers and social workers to undertake video-recorded interviews with child victims and witnesses, replacing live court examinations. The Pigot Report also prompted the introduction and use of uncorroborated evidence from a child victim or witness, as admissible evidence in court.
The management of police information and intelligence has in parallel witnessed a transformation from the practices that were presented in the historical section of this introduction. In contrast to the local, independent and manual crime recording systems that existed up to the 1970s, the practice of information and intelligence recording and exchange is today consistent and suitably sophisticated. To put this into perspective, the work undertaken by ACRO today will ensure that upon receipt of a conviction notification detailing a sex offence committed by a UK national abroad, all relevant criminal record databases will be updated across the UK, the subject will be registered (where appropriate) on the national Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR), a network of international flagging systems will be updated in order to trace the movements of the offender and the local home force Public Protection Unit will be notified should the subject return to the UK.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 10 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 1.1 Key Events Summary Timeline
The following timeline presents a summary of key event relating to the development of police information management and child abuse investigations. Further explanation of these events can be found at the indicated paragraph number within this report.
Year Event Paragraph No. 1861 Offences Against the Person Act 2.12 7.1 1871 Prevention of Crimes Act 2.1.3 1923 International Criminal Police Commission formed 4.10 1933 Children and Young Persons Act 2.1.4 1956 Sexual Offences Act 2.1.5 2.1.6 1956 ICPC became INTERPOL 4.10 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 4.19.1 launched 14 1959 European Convention of Extradition launched 14 1960 Indecency with Children Act 2.1.6 1960s Crime Reporting in Ledgers and Occurrence Books 3.2.1 4.3 1964 Police Act 3.2.2 1965 Teleprinter Messaging 3.2.6 6.8.1 1965 ********************* S23 introduced 4.4.1 1969 Children and Young Persons Act 5.2.12 1970s Regional Criminal Record Offices 3.2.7 1970s Crime Reporting 3.2.8 1974 Police National Computer 1 2.2.8 - 10 2.3.4 2.3.8 2.3.10 3.2.4 - 13 3.2.15 3.2.20 - 23 3.2.28 - 29 3.2.31 4.2 4.7.1 4.12 4.19.2 4.19.4 4.22.3 4.24 11 1975 Sex Discrimination Act 2.1.7 3.2.1 6.2.1 1976 PNC Vehicle Owners functions added 3.2.10 3.2.21 1977 PNC Criminal Names functions added 3.2.11
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 11 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Year Event Paragraph No. 1978 Protection of Children Act 2.1.8 2.3.4 1978 PNC Wanted or Missing Persons functions added 3.2.12 1980 PNC Disqualified Drivers functions added 3.2.13 1981 Sir Lawrence Byford (HMIC) Inquiry 1 2.3.1 2.3.2 3.2.14 3.2.16 4.2 4.7.3 1983 Council of Europe Convention on the transfer of sentenced 4.24 persons launched 19 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 2.1.9 4.26 20 1984 The Short Report 5.2.13 1985 Schengen Information System introduced 4.16 4.18 1985 Prosecution of Offences Act 2.1.10 6.2.1 1985 Major Incident Room Standard Administrative Procedures 2.3.2 introduced 3.2.14 1985 PNC Conviction Details functions added 3.2.15 1985 Schengen Agreement signed 4.16 1986 Home Office Large Major Enquiry System introduced 2.3.2 3.2.16 3.2.18 3.2.25 4.2 4.7.3 1986 Centralised Analytical Team Collating Homicide Expertise and 3.2.17 Management introduced 3.2.24 1987 Cleveland Inquiry 1 5.2.10 9 1988 Criminal Justice Act 2.1.11 5.2.14 1988 HOLMES Deployed to Dumfries and Galloway 3.2.18 1988 Working Together Guidelines published by Department of Health 1 and Social Security 5.2.14 1988 Home Office Circular on Joint Training Initiatives 5.2.14 1988 Criminal Justice Act 2.1.11 5.2.14 1989 Children Act 2.1.12 5.2.13 5.2.14 5.11.2 8 9 1989 Extradition Warrants launched 4.22.1 1989 The Advisory Group on Video Evidence chaired by Justice Pigot 5.2.14
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 12 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Year Event Paragraph No. 1990s SCIMITAR Leadership Training 2.2.2 1990s Introduction of Sexual Assault Referral Centres 5.4 5.4.1 - 2 1990s Introduction of Public Protection Department and Child 5.5.1 Protection Units in Forces 5.13.1 - 3 6.2.1 6.4.4 6.6.2 6.7.2 6.8.4 7 7.1.1 7.1.4 1991 Working Together Guidelines re-issued by Department of Health 5.2.14 1991 Criminal Justice Act 5.2.14 1991 Orkney Inquiry 1 5.2.9 5.2.15 - 17 1991 Metropolitan Police Service and Bexley Social Services Joint 5.2.8 Child Abuse Investigation Pilot 9 1992 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2.1.13 1992 National Criminal Intelligence Service formed 2.2.7 2.3.4 4.4.1 4.6.4 - 10 4.11.1 - 2 4.12.1 6.8.3 1992 Memorandum of Good Practice issued by Home Office 1 5.2.14 9 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 5.2.14 1995 PNC Phoenix direct updating of criminal conviction data onto 2.2.8 PNC 3.2.20 1995 National DNA Database introduced 4.7.7 1996 Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 2.1.14 1996 Criminal Procedures and Investigation Act 2.2.15 1996 PNC Vehicle Online Descriptive Search (VODS) functions added 3.2.21 1997 Police Act 2.1.16 1997 PNC Automatic Number Plate Recognition introduced 3.2.22 1997 Sex Offender Act 5.6.5 1998 Murder Investigation Manual 2.2.3 2.3.7 1998 Data Protection Act 2.1.17 2.3.8 1998 Human Rights Act 2.1.18 1998 Crime and Disorder Act 2.1.19 1998 PNC Query Using Enhanced Search Techniques function added 3.2.23 1998 Serious Crime Analysis Section introduced 3.2.24 1998 Crime Sentences Act 5.6.2 1999 EUROPOL formed 4.14 1999 Working Together to Safeguard Children, first edition 5.5.6 Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 13 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Year Event Paragraph No. 2000 Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the Management of 2.2.15 Records 2000 ACPO General Rules for Criminal Record Weeding on Police 2.2.4 Systems 2.2.10 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 4.7.13 4.20 2000 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act. 2.1.21 2000 Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements introduced across 4.7.9 England and Wales 5.6 5.6.1 5.6.3 2000 Justice and Court Services Act 5.6.1 2000 Joint Public Protection Units introduced 5.6.3 2000 Professionalising the Investigation Process introduced by ACPO 2.1.22 and NPIA 5.12.1 - 6 5.12.8 2001 HOLMES2 introduced 3.2.16 3.2.25 2002 Home Office National Crime Recording Standards 2.2.5 2.2.15 - 16 2002 Police Reform Act 2.1.22 2002 Mullins Inquiry, The Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of 1 Abuse in Children’s Homes 2.3.1 2.3.3 2002 I-24/7 launched as the INTERPOL web based communication 4.10 system 4.12 - 13 4.20.2 2002 Joint Investigation Teams formed 4.15.6 2002 Joint Review of the Investigation and Prosecution of Rape 5.3.1 Offences published by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and HMIC 2002 Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings published 5.3.1 5.13.3 9 2003 Criminal Justice Act 2.1.23 2003 Sexual Offences Act 2.1.8 2.1.21 2.1.24 2.1.28 3.2.29 4.20.2 5.3.3 2003 Niche Record Management System introduced to some Forces 3.2.26 6.7.1 - 2 2003 Crime (International Cooperation) Act 4.21.4 2003 Extradition Act 4.22.1 - 2 4.22.4 16 17 2003 Every Child Matters Green Paper published 5.3.2
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 14 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Year Event Paragraph No. 2003 Sexual Offences Act 2.1.8 2.1.21 2.1.24 2.1.28 2.2.29 4.20.2 5.3.3 2004 IMPACT Programme 2.2.6 2004 Bichard Inquiry 1 2.2.7 2.2.9 2.3.4 3.2.20 4.7.1 4.7.14 2004 Casualty Bureau’s introduced 3.2.25 3.2.27 2004 Bichard 7 Court Resulting onto PNC introduced 3.2.20 3.2.28 2004 Policy for Prosecuting Cases of Rape published by CPS 2.2.13 - 14 5.3.1 2004 Children Act 5.3.2 5.11.2 5.13.1 2005 National Intelligence Model Code of Practice 2.2.7 2005 Police National Computer Code of Practice 2.2.8 2005 Violent and Sexual Offenders Register 1 2.1.24 3.2.21 4.3.3 4.7.8 4.7.10 4.19.2 2005 Ident1 (National Fingerprint Database) introduced replacing 3.2.19 NAFIS 4.7.16 2005 EUROPOL Information System introduced 4.15 4.15.1 2005 Guidance on Investigating Serious Sexual Offences published by 2.2.13 Centrex and ACPO 5.3.1 2005 Guidance on Investigating Child Abuse and Safeguarding 5.3.1 Children published by Centrex and ACPO 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 4.12.1 2006 ACPO Guidance on the Management of Police Information, 1st 2.2.6 - 7 Edition 2.2.9 - 10 4.7.14 2006 ACPO Retention Guidelines for Nominal Records on the PNC 2.2.4 2006 Police and Justice Act 2.1.25 2006 Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2.1.26 2006 IMPACT Nominal Index intelligence searching introduced 2.2.6 3.2.30
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 15 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Year Event Paragraph No. ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** 2006 EU Central Authority framework established to exchange 4.19.2 criminal records between EU Member States ********** ********** S23 ********** S23 2006 The Code of Practice for the Victim’s of Crime issued by Home 5.3.1 Office 2007 Magee Review of Criminality Information 1 2.3.1 2.3.5 2007 Without Consent report published by HMIC 5.3.1 2007 Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, 2nd edition 5.2.1 5.13.3 9 2007 Specialist Child Abuse Investigator Development Programme 5.12.8 introduced 9 2008 Sir Ronnie Flanagan, The Review of Policing 2.3.6 2008 S and Marper v UK 2.3.7 2.3.9 - 10 2008 Swedish Initiative commenced 4.21.2 - 3 11 2008 Prüm Decision 4.21.3 2008 Council Framework Decision, Repatriation of Prisoners launched 4.22.6 4.24 2008 Child Sex Offenders Disclosure Scheme launched 5.7.1 2009 ACPO National Standards for Incident Recording 2.2.11 2.2.15 2009 Five Chief Constables / PNC Ruling (Chief Constable of 2.3.8 Humberside and Others v Information Commissioner), 19th October 2009 2009 Secure Information Exchange Network Application launched 4.15.3 - 4 2009 Investigating Child Abuse and Safeguarding Children, 2nd edition 5.3.1 5.13.1 2009 Lord Laming’s Progress Report (The Protection of Children in 5.8.1 England: A Progress Report) published 9 2010 ACPO Guidance on the Management of Police Information, 2nd 2.2.9 Edition 2010 Police National Database – Code of Practice on the Operation 2.2.12 and Use of PND Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 16 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Year Event Paragraph No. 2010 ACPO Guidance on Investigating and Prosecuting Rape 2.2.13 2010 Crime and Security Act 2.1.27 2.3.7 2010 Working Together to Safeguard Children published 5.3.1 5.8.1 5.11.1 - 2 5.11.4 5.13.1 5.13.3 8 9 2010 Local Safeguarding Children’s Board introduced 5.3.2 5.11.2 2011 GC and C v MPS 2.3.9 2011 Police National Database introduced 2.2.12 3.2.31 4.2 2011 Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, 3rd edition 5.3.1 2011 National Register of Professional Child Abuse Investigators 5.12.10 introduced 2012 ACPO Guidance on Information Management, Common Process 2.2.15 in Managing Police Information 2012 Launch of ACPO Authorised Professional Practice, Online 2.2.15 Guidance Forum (Modules including Information Management, Intelligence Management, Investigation and Protecting Vulnerable People) 2012 Home Office National Crime Recording Standards and Counting 2.2.5 Rules, introduced in 2002 with guidance reissued in 2011 2.2.16 2012 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (remedial) Order 2012 2.1.28 2012 Protection of Freedoms Act 2.1.29 2.3.7 2012 Coroners and Justice (Amendment) Bill 2.1.30 2012 RMC and FJ v MPS 2.3.10 2013 Schengen Information System (SIS II) to be introduced 4.17
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 17 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
2 Management of Police Information and Intelligence
Terms of Reference: Question 1
Starting from January 1960 what primary or secondary legislation, guidance, recommendations, including from the Bichard and Magee reviews, or administrative guidance from any source has governed, or required adjustment in practice in relation to, the recording, reporting, review and retention of police information and intelligence?
2.1 Legislation Relating to the Recording, Reporting, Review and Retention of Police Information and Intelligence 7
2.1.1 Introduction
Research has been undertaken to identify relevant primary and secondary legislation relating to the domains of police information management, crime investigation and prosecution, and child protection. The latter two areas of research have been deemed valid in order to chronologically present key legislative developments within the criminal justice system’s response to child abuse investigations. The following paragraphs provide a high level summary of relevant legislation.
2.1.2 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Relates to offences against the person, including conspiracy to murder, serious and minor assaults, bigamy, procuring abortion and other kindred offences.
2.1.3 Prevention of Crimes Act 1871
Required registers be kept of every person convicted of a crime in Great Britain. What later became the Criminal Record Office was housed in Scotland Yard, which maintained the Habitual Criminal Register and amassed a vast amount of information on such offenders. At the beginning of the twentieth century fingerprints were added to the files which by then also contained photographs. In 1913, a Methods Index was established in the belief that professional criminals generally acted in the same way time after time.
2.1.4 Children and Young Persons Act 1933
Introduced to prevent children and young persons being exposed to moral and physical danger. The Act addressed problems such as cruelty, neglect, safety, employment and performing in entertainments and provided rules and guidance in relation to children and young persons involved in the criminal justice process.
2.1.5 Sexual Offences Act 1956
Consolidated the law relating to sexual offences including rape, incest, indecent assault, buggery and the abduction, procuration and prostitution of women (repealed with effect from 1st May 2004 – except for sections 33 to 36 which refer to brothels and prostitution).
7 Source: PNLD online: http://pnld.westyorkshire.pnn.police.uk/docmanager/content/default.mth Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 18 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 2.1.6 Indecency with Children Act 1960
Made further provisions for the punishment of indecent conduct towards young children and increased the maximum sentence of imprisonment under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (repealed with effect 1st May 2004).
2.1.7 The Sex Discrimination Act of 1975
Established the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) who worked towards the elimination of discrimination, promote equality of opportunity between sexes and to keep under review the workings of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act 1970. In October 2007 the EOC became part of a new single equality body, the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Act also saw the integration of women police officers from dedicated “women’s departments” onto standard police patrol shifts.
2.1.8 Protection of Children Act 1978
The Act introduced a number of offences to prevent the exploitation of children. This included the making of indecent photographs of children, the distribution and showing of such photographs (later amended in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 by raising the age of a child to 18).
2.1.9 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)
The Act made provisions covering police powers and duties, persons in police detention, evidence, police discipline and complaints against the police. This was introduced following the 1981 Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure which scrutinised police investigative processes following a number of high profile miscarriages of justice in the 1970s.
2.1.10 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
Established the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who took over responsibility for criminal prosecution from the police. The CPS worked directly with the police to improve performance in criminal investigations in order to bring more offenders to justice.
2.1.11 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Provides anonymity in rape and similar cases and creates an offence of possessing indecent photographs of children under 18 years.
2.1.12 Children Act 1989
Provides for local authority services for children, amends the law relating to children’s homes and makes provisions for fostering, child minding and day care of younger children. Enables police to take children into police protection and ‘emergency protection orders’ to be made by the courts.
2.1.13 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Makes provision with respect to anonymity in connection with allegations in criminal proceedings relating to certain sexual offences.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 19 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 2.1.14 Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996
Extends the jurisdiction of courts within the United Kingdom to offences of conspiracy or incitement to commit particular sexual offences anywhere in the world.
2.1.15 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
Lays down provisions for prosecution and defence disclosure to be conducted in stages within criminal proceedings.
2.1.16 Police Act 1997
Makes provisions for the issue of certificates about criminal records and associated offences.
2.1.17 Data Protection Act 1998
Brought in new provisions for the regulation and processing of information relating to individuals, including the obtaining, holding, use or disclosure of such information. The Act introduced eight principles of Data Protection and is regulated by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).
2.1.18 Human Rights Act 1998
Gives effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Act introduced the requirement for all actions of the police and criminal investigator to be justified, authorised, proportional, accountable and necessary.
2.1.19 Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Intended to reduce the general level of crime and disorder in society, through the introduction of several changes to the criminal justice system. The Act covers crime and disorder strategies, youth crime, racially-aggravated offences, sexual or violent offenders, and introduced various police powers.
2.1.20 Regulation of the Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Provides for the interception, acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications. The Act covers surveillance, use of covert human intelligence sources and to entries on and interference with property or with wireless telegraphy.
2.1.21 Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000
Amends the Sexual Offences Acts 1956 and 1967 with regard to the reduction in the age of consent for certain sexual acts. The Act introduced a new offence in relation to ‘a person in a position of trust’ (later repealed and covered under S16 - 19 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003).
2.1.22 Police Reform Act 2002
Makes new provision about the supervision, administration, functions and conduct of police forces, police officers and other persons serving within. The Act amends the law relating to anti-social behaviour orders and sex offender orders, and introduced the Professionalising the Investigation Programme (PIP), in order to enhance the investigation process through training and development. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 20 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
2.1.23 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Makes provision about criminal justice and gave the Crown Prosecution Service responsibility for selecting charges (previously reviewed police charges).
2.1.24 Sexual Offences Act 2003
Amended many of the offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (most of which has now been repealed) including the introduction of offences of Exposure, Voyeurism, Grooming and some trafficking for sexual exploitation offences. The Act established the Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR) as a database of records of those required to register with the Police under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the 2003 Act), those imprisoned for more than twelve months for violent offences, and those thought to be at risk of offending or reoffending.
2.1.25 Police and Justice Act 2006
Established the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and about the powers and duties of community support officers. Note: On 3rd December 2012 the NPIA became the College of Policing.
2.1.26 Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
Makes provisions in connection with the protection of children and vulnerable adults and places responsibilities on individuals working in regulated activities. The Act established the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA).
2.1.27 Crime and Security Act 2010
Partly enacted it provides powers by making amendments to PACE in respect of taking DNA and fingerprints post conviction. Established a list of serious offences deemed to be ‘Qualifying Offences’.
2.1.28 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2012
Introduced an appeals process following the UK Supreme Court ruling that indefinite notification requirements in the Act were disproportionate and in breach of human rights. Appeals can be made after inclusion on the register for 15 years and are made to the local police force where the individual resides.
2.1.29 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
This Act (part commencement only) provides for the destruction, retention, use and other regulation of certain evidential material. It also imposes the requirement to obtain consent and other requirements in relation to processing of biometric information relating to children in certain circumstances. In addition it makes provisions about the safeguarding of vulnerable groups and about criminal records including provision for the establishment of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and the dissolution of the ISA. It also creates offences about the trafficking of people for exploitation and stalking.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 21 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 2.1.30 Coroners and Justice (Amendment) Bill 2012
A private members Bill currently at Committee stage in the House of Commons, seeks to amend S.62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to apply additionally to the possession of prohibited written material about children.
2.2 Guidance Relating to the Recording, Reporting, Review and Retention of Police Information and Intelligence
2.2.1 Introduction
The following section provides a summary of significant guidance that has been issued on behalf of the Home Office, ACPO and the NPIA regarding the management of police information. In accordance to the principle of ‘information management’, this guidance relates to the appropriate recording, reporting, review and retention of police criminal record information and intelligence. Prominent developments in the production and dissemination of such guidance are witnessed in the latter years of the 1990s and have been reviewed with significant pace over the last 10 years.
The method of dissemination and target audience of this guidance is broad, ranging from the standards of incident recording relevant to front line police officers to leadership training for chief police officers overseeing cross-border investigations and major crime activities. It has been impractical to detail each individual piece of relevant guidance distributed to police officers and information managers and therefore the following section presents the most significant guidance relevant to this report.
2.2.2 SCIMITAR Leadership Training8
Serious Crime Investigation, Management, Information, Technology and Resources (SCIMITAR) Course
Introduced at the Bramshill Police College in the 1990s for senior police officers, the training was implemented to draw upon lessons learnt from previous major crime investigations. The core training content traditionally included the review of selected cases. This resulted with guidelines and best practice on the follow subjects:
Crime intelligence and crime pattern analysis. Investigative and tactical interviewing. Offender profiling. Cross-border investigations. The role of forensic science in the investigation process. The role of computers and associated technology to major crime investigation. Information disclosure.
In 2012 the leadership training was revised in order to reflect current critical issues in policing and now aims to ‘prepare prospective ACPO officers for the challenges associated with taking strategic command of major, complex and/or high profile criminal investigations’. The training programme is now constructed around the following core themes:
8 Source: NPIA SCIMITAR training documents. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 22 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Strategic command and leadership. Public confidence. Strategic partnerships. Resource and strategic management of information and intelligence.
Critically for reference within this report, a key subject area of the training is ‘Managing Vulnerability’ (including children) with guidance provided regarding legislative and operational practice and the dynamic risk assessment process.
2.2.3 Murder Investigation Manual9
The ACPO Murder Investigation Manual was first published in September 1998. It was compiled by a group of experienced Senior Investigating Officers (SIOs) supported by experts and other professionals working in the criminal justice system.
The group carried out extensive consultation within the police service and partner agencies to identify good practice in homicide investigation. The resulting manual was widely praised for bringing together the vast array of issues involved and it is now seen as the definitive guide on homicide investigation, by practitioners and policy makers alike. It is used to underpin the training and development of SIOs and has become a reference point and central guide for the investigation of all types of major crime.
The second edition of the Murder Investigation Manual was published in December 2000 and later revised in 2006 in order to take into account changes in legislation and procedure and offer revised guidance. The Manual offers critical guidance including:
Strategic management of homicide and major crime investigations. The role of the SIO. Major crime reviews. Working with other agencies and multi-agency bodies. Investigative support. Crime scene management and forensic strategy. Enquiry methods. Witness management. Managing communication. Community involvement. Elimination enquiries. Suspect management. Surveillance strategy and covert human intelligence sources.
9 Source: Murder Investigation Manual 2006, Produced on behalf of the ACPO by the National Centre for Policing Excellence. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 23 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 2.2.4 ACPO General Rules for Criminal Record Weeding on Police Systems10
In November 2000, Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan published the ACPO weeding rules on police systems which were used until 31st March 2006 when they were replaced by the ACPO Retention Guidelines for Nominal Records on the Police National Computer.
2.2.5 Home Office National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS) 2002 revised in 201111
The NCRS was instigated by research from ACPO, the Home Office and HMIC (On the Record, HMIC 2000) that revealed a lack of consistency in recording practices across police forces.
The NCRS was introduced nationally on 1st April 2002 with the aim of promoting greater consistency between police forces in the recording of crime and to take a more victim oriented approach. Following the introduction of the NCRS, the National Crime Recording Steering Group (NCRSG) has met regularly to review the Counting Rules. The Steering Group includes members of the Home Office Statistics Unit, Force Crime Registrars, Statistics Officers and representatives of ACPO and HMIC. The Counting Rules are updated annually to reflect decisions taken by the NCRSG, changes in legislation and changes to improve clarity and ensure consistency in recording by police forces.
Primary aims of the recording standards:
To promote greater consistency between police forces in the recording of crime. To take a more victim oriented approach to crime recording.
The standard accords with four basic principles:
1) All reports of incidents, whether from victims, witnesses or third parties and whether crime related or not, will result in the registration of an incident report by the police.
2) Following the initial registration, an incident will be recorded as a crime (notifiable offence) for offences against an identified victim if, on the balance of probability:
(a) the circumstances as reported amount to a crime defined by law (the police will determine this, based on their knowledge of the law and counting rules); and (b) there is no credible evidence to the contrary.
For offences against the State the points to prove to evidence the offence must clearly be made out, before a crime is recorded.
3) Once recorded, a crime would remain recorded unless there was additional verifiable information to disprove that a crime had occurred.
4) It is important that the standard supports a victim focused approach to crime recording where the public’s call for service is met.
10 Source: ACPO ‘General Rules for Criminal Record Weeding on Police Systems’, Author Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan, November 2000. 11 Source: Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime, Annex A, April 2011. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 24 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 2.2.6 IMPACT Programme12
Background
Following the murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells in August 2002 and the subsequent conviction of Ian Huntley in December 2003, Sir Michael Bichard was tasked by the (then) Home Secretary to lead an independent public inquiry into child protection measures, record keeping, vetting and information sharing in Humberside Police and Cambridgeshire Constabulary. The Inquiry Report was published in June 2004 and importantly identified shortcomings in the way in which Forces accessed and exchanged intelligence.
The Programme
The IMPACT Programme was established by the Home Office as part of the Government response to Sir Michael’s recommendations. Its objective is to improve the ability of the police service to manage and share intelligence and other operational information, to prevent and detect crime and make communities safer. In doing so, the Programme is responsible for implementing those recommendations relating to the management and sharing of information by the police service.
IMPACT is judged as a ‘mission critical’ programme by the Home Office, with the core objectives covering two main strands of activity:
Helping Forces to implement the requirements of the statutory Code of Practice and supporting guidance on the Management of Police Information (MoPI), which provides a national framework for improved and more consistent processes for managing information. Delivering a new Police National Database (PND) – an extensive store of police intelligence and other operational information.
The Programme was also responsible for developing the IMPACT Nominal Index (INI). The INI provides a means for an investigating officer in one Force to quickly and efficiently identify which other Forces might hold information on an individual of interest to their enquiries.
The Programme has worked closely with the police service and other stakeholders to clarify their requirements and provide intelligence related guidance in the following areas:
a) Data upload and entry. b) Search and retrieve. c) Security and audit. d) Communication. e) Review, retention, disposal and system administration.
2.2.7 National Intelligence Model (NIM) - Code of Practice13
In 1993 the Audit Commission identified a series of failings to address crime, revealing a significant variation between Forces of intelligence practices which
12 Source: ‘NPIA, Impact Programme: Police National Database- Privacy Impact Assessment Report’, April 2009. 13 Source: Centrex Report: National Intelligence Model Code of Practice 2005. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 25 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT hindered the sharing of information locally, regionally and nationally. In 1999 the National Criminal Intelligence Service (**** S23) created the National Intelligence Model (NIM) in order to provide best practice guidance regarding the exchange of intelligence both nationally and internationally.
The Minimum Standards for the NIM were accepted by ACPO Council in April 2003. The Minimum Standards framework and its successor document, the Minimum Standards 2 seeks to raise the degree of sophistication of the NIM compliance and use, and form the benchmark for HMIC inspections.
In January 2005 the National Centre for Policing Excellence (CENTREX) published the ‘National Intelligence Model: Code of Practice’, defining the code’s purpose as the following:
To set out to chief officers of police the basic principles and minimum common standards for the NIM. To promote compatibility of procedures and of terminology for the NIM. To clarify the responsibilities of Chief Officers and of Police Authorities in relation to the application of the NIM. To ensure observations of these principles, and the standards for implementation, results in a systematic programme of continuous development of police policy, practice and capability. To identify and promulgate good practice.
The NIM code denotes guidance on an array of matters including intelligence ownership, information technology, security and data protection, tasking and co- ordinating groups, intelligence products, training standards and accreditation, monitoring, evaluation and communication.
Relationship of the code to other guidance:
The NIM Minimum Standards document of April 2003 sets out the criteria for which should be applied. In accordance, Chief Officers will ensure that the arrangements for applying the model within their Force comply with the principles of the code. The Code of Practice on the MoPI, as recommended by the Bichard Inquiry, and associated guidance (including the ACPO Manual of Standards of the Recording and Disseminating of Intelligence Material) set out national standards for the management of police information, including intelligence material, its physical security and the security of sensitive material. Other guidance manuals of relevance to NIM include ACPO Manual for the Deployment of Undercover Officers, Standards of Surveillance, Professional Standards in Policing, Murder Investigation Manual, Covert Surveillance and Interception of Communications.
2.2.8 The Police National Computer - Code of Practice (2005)14
Background
Operational efficiency and data protection legislation necessitate the highest standards of data timeliness and accuracy on the PNC.
14 Source: Centrex Report- ‘Code of Practice; The National Police Computer’, 1st January 2005. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 26 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Prior to 15th May 1995, records of persons against whom criminal process had commenced in England and Wales were forwarded by police forces to the National Identification Bureau (NIB), run by the Metropolitan Police Service, for input onto the PNC. Any subsequent conviction details were entered onto the PNC, stored on microfiche and copied to police forces by post when required. Upon completion of the PNC Phoenix project on 15th May 1995, Forces were required to update records locally. When this part of the NIB function ceased, the organisation’s name changed to the National Identification Service.
PNC requirements and operating procedures are set out in two Police Information Technology Organisation user manuals (combined into one manual from 2012). Quality and timeliness standards were set out in the ACPO Compliance Strategy that was adopted as the national standard in 2000. In January 2005, on behalf of the Home Office, the Centrex published a PNC Code of Practice. In addition to the defined purpose below, the code sought to replace the challenging performance criteria for the recording of events on PNC (as introduced in the ACPO Compliance Standards in 2000), which were deemed to be impractical (commencement of proceedings within 24 hours and finalisation within seven days).
Purpose
The primary purpose of the code is as follows:
To set out achievable timeliness and quality criteria in relation to data entered onto the PNC. To promote the national adoption of good business practices to ensure the integrity of PNC data in the future. To guide organisational standards regarding leadership, policy and strategy, people and training, partnership and resources (including performance) and processes (including risk-assessed PNC audit programmes).
2.2.9 Management of Police Information 15
ACPO Guidance
In July 2005, as a direct result of the Bichard Inquiry, the Home Secretary issued a statutory Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information and in 2006 ACPO published the Guidance on the Management of Police Information which was revised in 2010.
Effective from 2006 the MoPI programme has put a framework in place to improve the way Forces collect, record, evaluate, review and improve the quality of information. The over-arching objective of the programme and aligned guidance is to contribute to enhanced public safety by improving the ability of the police service to properly manage and share operational information within a nationally consistent framework. MoPI guidance is focused on the following areas:
The purpose of managing police information. The process for managing police information. The collection and recording of police information.
15 Source: NPIA Report, ACPO ‘Guidance on the Management of Police Information’, 2nd Edition, 2010. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 27 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Evaluating and actioning of police information. Information sharing. Review, retention and disposal. 5x5x5 Information / Intelligence.
Code of Practice
The purpose of the code and associated guidance is to enable the police to effectively obtain and use a variety of information (including personal information), in order to discharge their responsibilities appropriately. The code emphasises the responsibilities of Chief Officers in the management and use of information, in order to ensure that information is used effectively for police purposes and in compliance with the law. A primary objective of the code is to ensure that there is broad consistency between Forces in the way information is managed within the law, to ensure effective use of available information within and between individual Forces and other agencies, and to provide fair treatment to members of the public.
The code sets out the principles governing the management of information which the police service may need to manage and use including:
Procedures to be applied in obtaining and recording that information. Procedures to ensure the accuracy of information managed by the police. Procedures for reviewing the need to retain information and, where it is no longer needed, to destroy it. Procedures governing authorised sharing of information within the police service and with other agencies. Measures to maintain consistent procedures for the management of information within all police forces so as to facilitate information sharing and the development of police service technological support for information management.
2.2.10 ACPO Retention Guidelines for Nominal Records on the Police National Computer16
The ACPO Retention Guidelines were introduced on the 31st March 2006, replacing the existing ‘ACPO General Rules for Criminal Record Weeding on Police Systems’. The Retention Guidelines formed part of the guidelines issued under the Code for the Management of Police Information.
The Retention Guidelines are based on a format of restricting of access to PNC data, rather than the deletion of data. Restricting access is achieved by setting strict time periods after which the relevant event histories will ‘step down’ and only be open to inspection by the police. Following ‘step down’ other users of PNC will be unaware of the existence of such records, save for those convictions where the individual is the subject of an Enhanced Check by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB17) process. The ‘step down’ time periods are based on the following criteria:
The age of the subject.
16 Source: ACPO ‘Retention Guidelines for Nominal Records on the Police National Computer; Incorporating the Step Down Model’, 16th March 2006. 17 On 1st December 2012 the CRB and the ISA merged to create the Disclosure and Barring Service. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 28 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT The final outcome. The sentence imposed. The offence category.
2.2.11 ACPO National Standards for Incident Recording (NSIR) 200918
The principal aim of the NSIR is to ensure that incidents, whether crime or non- crime, are recorded by the police in a consistent and accurate manner, so as to allow resulting data to be used at a local and national level to meet the management and performance information needs of all stakeholders. The need to be able to measure and compare the effectiveness of operational police delivery was the catalyst for the creation and implementation of the standards.
Secondary aims of the NSIR project included:
To allow police incident data to better inform, shape and support the Government’s Police Reform Agenda. To allow the government, the police and other agencies to quantify more clearly the totality of demand that is placed upon the ‘policing’ services, leading to improved policy making and operational planning. To support the introduction of meaningful and appropriate Key Performance Indicators around NSIR data.
In a revised guidance document published by ACPO and the NPIA in April 2011, the report stated that “NSIR was introduced to replace the wide variety of incident recording (and non-recording) that differed from force to force so that common understanding and recording practices would result in effective data provision and use. NSIR now supports effective recording of over 80% of calls for service, ranging from messages to major incidents”.19
2.2.12 Police National Database20
Code of Practice on the Operation and Use of the Police National Database, 2010
Background
The PND is a national information management system that improves the ability of the police service to manage and share intelligence and other operational information, to prevent and detect crime and make communities safer. The PND offers a capability for the police service to share, access and search local information electronically, overcoming artificial geographical and jurisdictional boundaries. As a national system, it is crucial that both the PND and the information obtained from it are used consistently across the police service and in compliance with legal and policy requirements. This will provide Chief Officers with confidence that the information they provide to the PND is being used appropriately by other Forces.
18 Source: NPIA / ACPO ‘The National Standards for Incident Recording; Definitions and Guidance’, April 2009 and ‘The National Standard for Incident Recording 2011’, April 2011. 19 Source: NPIA / ACPO ‘The National Standards for Incident Recording; Definitions and Guidance’, April 2009 and ‘The National Standard for Incident Recording 2011’, April 2011. 20 Source: NPIA: NPIA Report - Code of Practice on the Operation and Use of the Police National Database, 2010. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 29 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Purpose of the Code
In March 2010 the Home Secretary presented the Code of Practice on the Operation and Use of the Police National Database.
The purpose of this code and associated guidance is:
a) to promote the lawful and consistent use of the PND and the information obtained from it; b) to ensure that Chief Officers adopt practices for the use of the PND and the information obtained from it in order that such information is used effectively for policing purposes; c) to ensure that the operation of the PND complies with data protection and human rights legislation; and d) to ensure that the PND is not used in a way which is discriminatory or otherwise unfair to anyone based on their age, race, ethnicity, any faith or belief, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any disability.
This code sets out the principles governing the use of the PND and any information obtained from it (including personal data). It covers:
a) the purpose and strategic priorities of the PND; b) general principles applying to the operation of the PND, including accountability, security, vetting and training of users; c) that the use of information is fair, necessary and proportionate; d) that information is accurate and up to date; e) that information obtained from the system is managed appropriately; f) disclosure of the information; and g) using the PND including access to information, and administering and auditing the use of the PND.
2.2.13 Investigating and Prosecuting Rape21
In 2010 ACPO published Guidance on Investigating and Prosecuting Rape. This guidance document replaced the ACPO (2005) Guidance on Investigating Serious Sexual Offences and is an additional resource to the then CPS (2008) Rape Manual and more recently the CPS Policy for Prosecuting Cases of Rape 2012. The guidance was developed in partnership with the police and the CPS to enhance the prosecution team approach, which is being adapted throughout England and Wales, to improve the outcomes for victims of rape. The objective of the guidance is to enhance the priorities of the police service and the CPS in responding to rape offences:
Improve the standard of investigation and prosecution of rape offences. Improve the quality of treatment for victims who make complaints of rape. Take effective action against offenders so that they can be held accountable through the criminal justice system.
21 Source: Guidance on Investigating and Prosecution Rape 2010, Produced on behalf of ACPO and the CPS by the NPIA. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 30 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Increase confidence in the criminal justice system and encourage more victims to report rape to the police. Increase the proportion of cases which result in a charge, court case and conviction. Use existing national systems to record information and intelligence that will assist in the identification of linked offences. Adopt a proactive multi-agency approach in the provision of services to victims.
In order to achieve these priorities, the 2010 report guides officers regarding:
reporting and identifying risk; investigative development; suspect management; charging, bail and case preparation; victim and witness care; and specialist roles.
2.2.14 CPS Policy for Prosecuting Cases of Rape revised 201222
This is the second edition of the policy statement and reflects the changes in the law and CPS procedures that have taken place since the publication of the first edition in 2004. Rape is one of the most serious of all criminal offences. It can inflict lasting trauma on victims and their families. The CPS want people to know that their aim is to prosecute rape cases effectively and they want people to know what they can expect from them.
Cases of rape where the victim is a child present additional challenges. The CPS will take account of the needs of abused children, the effects of the crime, and the effects of the court appearance on the child witness.
The CPS currently work with Independent Sexual Violence Advisors and a number of national and local organisations (for example the Witness Service provided by Victim Support), which offer support to victims throughout the proceedings. Special measures can be used to help a victim or witness to give evidence.
Since 1st October 2007, only prosecution advocates who have attended a CPS accredited course and have demonstrated the right skills while being monitored are able to undertake rape prosecutions in court.
2.2.15 ACPO Guidance on Information Management: Common Process for Managing Police Information23
Crime Recording
Forces use the NCRS and the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) and should comply with them when recording crimes. Information and guidance are referred to in the Home Office (2012) NCRS and HOCR.
22 Source: www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/rape_policy_2012.pdf 23 Source: ACPO Authorised Professional Practice (2012) - online guidance forum, ‘Information Management’ module. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 31 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Each Force has a crime register which acts as final arbiter for the interpretation of NCRS and HOCR and for the quality assurance process.
Many crimes are initially reported and recorded as incidents. Incident recording is set out in the ACPO (2011) NSIR.
National Standards for Incident Recording
An incident report is defined as any communication from any person, by whatever means, about a matter that comes to police attention and which is required by the NSIR to be recorded. There are a number of minimum data standards to be complied with when recording information on an incident record:
Time and date the report was received. Method of reporting. Time and date the report was recorded. An incident Unique Reference Number. Details of the person making the report (name, address and telephone number). Sufficient information to describe the location and nature of the report. Opening and closing category. Time and date of initial closing classification.
Crime report will record details which include:
Name. Time, day, date of incident and recording. How the crime was reported, to whom and by what method. Location. Modus Operandi (MO).
Principles of Recording Police Information.
There are key principles which apply, regardless of the format and business area where police information is held. The person recording the information must ensure that they have regard to the following principles:
A record must have been created for a policing purpose. All records must comply with the Data Quality Principles (accurate, adequate, relevant and timely). A record of police information is the start of an audit trail and must identify who completed the record, when it was completed and for what purpose. Before recording information, checks should be made in other business areas to see whether this information is already held, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication. If it becomes apparent that the information being recorded is connected to other information, it must be appropriately linked. Police information must be recorded as soon as practicable in accordance with the standards relating to the business area in which the information is held.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 32 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Consideration should be given to the application of the appropriate Government Protective Marking Scheme (GPMS).
Management of Police Records
The integrity of police information relies on the information being trusted, acceptable, useable and available. To assist the evaluation, actioning, sharing and review of information, the information should be in a format that is accessible and easy to use, whether it is electronic, photographic or paper record.
The purpose of record management is to ensure that police information is documented and maintained in such a way that its envisaged weight and integrity is not compromised over time. To achieve this, records need to be managed throughout their lifecycle, from creation through to disposal. This process involves the audit and maintenance of records to enable them to remain a useful tool for policing purposes.
Records should be managed in line with a records management policy. Further guidance is provided within the Lord Chancellor’s (2009) Code of Practice on the management of records issued under section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Retention of Police Information - National Retention Assessment Criteria (NRAC)
The key points relating to NRAC are:
The infringement of an individual’s privacy created by the retention of their personal information must satisfy the proportionality test. Forces should be confident that any record they dispose of are no longer necessary for policing purposes. There should be a consistent approach to the retention of police information. Records which are accurate, adequate, up to date and necessary for policing purposes will be held for a minimum of six years from the date of creation. This helps to ensure that Forces have sufficient information to identify offending patterns over time, and helps guard against individual’s efforts to avoid detection for lengthy periods.
Scheduled Reviews - Potentially Dangerous People (Information Groups)
Scheduled reviews acknowledge potentially dangerous people who have not been convicted or even accused of serious offending but whose behaviour causes concern. The Review Schedule is offender focused and is based on the following two premises:
Past behaviour is an indicator of future behaviour and is a clear indicator of risk. Information relating to those offenders who pose the highest risk of harm to the community must be retained the longest.
Under the Review Schedule, information held for policing purposes is divided into four groups:
Group 1 - Certain Public Protection Matters.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 33 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Group 2 - Other Sexual, Violent or Serious Offences. Group 3 - All Other Offences. Group 4 - Miscellaneous.
Reviews of information (including intelligence) in accordance to Group 1 and 2 must be undertaken every 10 years and after every 10 year clear period respectively.
Victim and Witness Information
Victim and witness information should be retained for an initial six year clear period or for the length of time required by the Criminal Procedures and Investigation Act 1996, if this is longer.
Beyond this point, the decision about whether to retain victim and witness details should be made on a case by case basis. Records should be retained if they provide detail of an offenders MO or relevant risk factor. Witness statements will generally fall into this category.
2.2.16 Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime24
The HOCR provide a national standard for the recording and counting of notifiable offences recorded by police forces in England and Wales (known as ’recorded crime’). The Rules were revised to take account of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) which was adopted on 1st April 2002 with the aim of recording crime in a more victim focused way and maintaining greater consistency between police forces in the recording of crime.
The HOCR are applied across nine categories of recorded crime. These categories relate to violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery, burglary, theft and handling stolen goods, fraud, criminal damage, drugs and other offences.
The General Rules of the Home Office guidance for recorded crime cover key areas, to include:
Whether and when to record. Classification and reclassification. No crimes. NCRS. CPS Code for Crown Prosecutions.
2.3 Recommendations from Inquiries and Court Cases
2.3.1 Introduction
Since the beginning of the 1980s, a series of official and independent inquiries have been initiated by the government in response to the perceived failings of the police in the retention and exchange of critical criminality information and the investigation of major crimes. Significant inquiries include those undertaken by Sir Lawrence Byford following the Yorkshire Ripper case, Sir Michael Bichard following the murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, Sir Ian Magee in his review of criminality information and the investigations undertaken by the Mullins Inquiry into the conduct of investigations in past cases of abuse in children’s homes.
24 Source: Home Office online; ‘Counting Rules’, 30 March 2012. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 34 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Also of relevance to this section is a series of recent court rulings regarding the police’s retention of criminal record and biometric information and the judgements made regarding the associated infringements on an individual’s human rights.
The recommendations that have emerged from the following inquiries and legal cases respectively have sought to introduce consistency regarding the creation and sharing of criminality information and have also most recently challenged the balance of policing powers and civil liberties in the retention and disclosure of police information.
2.3.2 Sir Lawrence Byford Review (HMIC): The Yorkshire Ripper Case25
Between October 1975 and November 1980, a series of murders occurred in and around the North of England where the victims were women, most of who were known prostitutes. The suspect for these crimes became known as The Yorkshire Ripper. Eventually, a man named Peter Sutcliffe was arrested, charged and convicted of these offences.
On 26th May 1981, the (then) Home Secretary, the Right Honourable William Whitelaw, appointed Sir Lawrence Byford (HMIC) to carry out a review of the police investigation of the Yorkshire Ripper Case. This review was completed and presented to the Home Secretary on 1st December 1981.
The conclusions for this review included:
a) The single most important lesson for Major Incident Rooms (MIR) is that standardisation of the procedures must be achieved so that compatible systems, capable of being interfaced in appropriate cases, are introduced in all Forces. b) Standardisation is even more important when the use of computers in MIR is contemplated. Unless methods if indexing, recording and filing are common to all police forces, the computerisation of multi-Force records in a series type investigation is likely to prove impossible to mount. c) The operational efficiency of an incident room will greatly depend on the extent to which the staff allocated to it are specially trained. d) A MIR index system particularly in a large scale investigation should be subjected to a continuous process of audit. The crucial consideration is that the misplacing of a single card in a nominal index system can jeopardise a whole enquiry and with this in mind, systems management should ensure errors are kept to a minimum.
The system of card indexing was later replaced by the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System (HOLMES), although some Forces (since the late 1990s) used a spreadsheet system to manage smaller enquiries.
Following the Byford report ACPO published the first edition of the Major Incident Room Standard Administrative Procedure (MIRSAP) manual in 1985. This manual provided standardisation of the process of running a MIR. This is further explained at paragraph 3.2.14.
25 Source: Sir Lawrence Byford (HMIC) - The Yorkshire Ripper Case; Review of the Police Investigation of the Case. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 35 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
2.3.3 Mullins Inquiry: The Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children’s Homes, 200226
In 2001 the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee initiated a review of the conduct of investigations into past cases of abuse in children’s homes. The purpose of the review was to examine the general method and process by which convictions had been achieved during relevant investigations, with particular emphasis on police information gathering (trawling) and interviewing techniques.
The decision to undertake the review was prompted by two influencing factors:
In the 5 years previous to the review being commission in 2001, 34 out of the 43 police forces in England and Wales had been involved in investigations into allegations of historic child abuse in children’s homes. There was general concern regarding high levels of potentially false victim allegations and therefore subsequent miscarriages of justice prompted by ‘over- enthusiastic’ police investigation methods and a culture of compensation.
A summary of the key conclusions and recommendations of the review are as follows:
Whilst there are reservations regarding the method and conduct of police trawls, trawling should not be prohibited in an investigation. In recognition that the longer the delay between the alleged offence and the allegation being made, the more difficult the investigation. SIOs should retain the discretion to determine the nature and scale of the investigation. There should be a general rule to record police interviews of complainants and other significant witnesses on video or audio tape (audio tape mandatory). Recommendation for the Home Office to issue a code of practice for the audio and visual recording of police interviews with complainants and other significant witnesses in cases of historical child abuse. Resources to be channelled into researching and piloting the use of ‘statement validity analysis’ as a tool for evaluating the credibility of witness testimony in complex historical child abuse cases. Encouragement for ACPO to distil the core recommended practices and procedures into prescriptive lists, to be included in a new police handbook for SIOs ‘Handbook on Investigations into Historic Institutional Child Abuse’. Where a victim trawl is conducted, complainants should be offered appropriate victim support services. The Criminal Justice System needs to be more sensitive to the needs of victims and witnesses. The prosecution of offences relating to child abuse should not be time barred, but those that occur more than ten years after the date of offence should only proceed with the court’s permission. The statutory reporting restrictions, which preserve the anonymity of victims of sexual offences, should be extended to persons accused of historical child abuse.
26 Source: The Government Reply to the Fourth Report from the Home Affairs Committee Session 2001-2001 HC 836. The Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children’s Homes. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 36 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Advice that there should be a return to the legal position, pre-2001, when employers were not generally regarded as liable for sexual assaults committed by their employees, unless the employer was also at fault through their own negligence. An invitation for ACPO to revise the internal police handbook for SIOs, with a view to minimise the risks of inducing false or exaggerated allegations.
2.3.4 Bichard Inquiry 200427
Following Ian Huntley’s conviction on 17th December 2003 for the murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, the Home Office commissioned a public Inquiry on child protection procedures in Humberside Police and Cambridgeshire Constabulary. Appointed by the Home Office, Sir Michael Bichard led the Inquiry with the objective to review the effectiveness of relevant intelligence based record keeping, vetting practices since 1995 and information sharing with other agencies.
The primary aims of the Inquiry were to discover what happened, why it happened and what lessons could be learned for the future. The Inquiry identified key failings regarding the inability of the police and social services to identify Huntley’s behaviour pattern and the ‘systematic and corporate’ failures in the management and quality assurance of police intelligence and criminal record systems (PNC). The report makes recommendations on matters of local and national relevance.
Five main improvements to be made:
a) A new system for registering those working with children and vulnerable adults. b) A national IT intelligence system. c) Clear guidance on record creation, retention, review, deletion and the sharing of information. d) Referral of sexual offences against children and the subsequent action. e) Training for all individuals involved in appointing people to work with children.
Recommendations for action:
A national IT system for police intelligence in England and Wales. Routine inspection of the quality and timeliness of PNC data inputting. A new code of practice on information management. Reaffirmation of Home Office guidance on the handling of allegations of sexual offences against children. A registration scheme for those who wish to work with children or vulnerable adults. HMIC standards regarding police vetting checks. The introduction of new legislation to enable the CRB to access the following agencies databases and safeguarding lists:
o HM Customs and Excise o ********** S23 o ********** S23 o British Transport Police
27 Source: The Bichard Inquiry Report 2004. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 37 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT o The Protection of Children Act list o The Protection of Vulnerable Adults list in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
2.3.5 Magee Review of Criminality Information 200728
Following an inquiry in early 2007 into the handling of conviction notifications of UK nationals sent from European countries, Sir Ian Magee was commissioned by the Home Office to undertake an independent inquiry of criminality information. In the interests of public protection, the inquiry sought to examine and recommend necessary improvements for recording and sharing information about criminality within the UK and between the UK and other countries.
The published review made a total of 31 recommendations with the objective to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the whole public protection system and directly assist staff working on the frontline. Recommendations are made in accordance to eight strategic areas:
a) Governance and Delivery. b) Leadership. c) Risk and Risk Management. d) Investment. e) International Dimension. f) Technology. g) At the Frontline. h) The Future.
In summary, the Magee Review asserted the priority for the Government to set a strategic direction for the improvement of criminality information management across the Public Protection Network (PPN), principally in relation to an awareness of information flows, enhanced PPN communication and joined-up approaches, improvements to accurate data capture, expanding agreed information flows with other countries and clearer accountability and standard procedures for the storage and access to all PPN information.
2.3.6 Sir Ronnie Flanagan: The Review of Policing 200829
In 2007 the (then) Home Secretary commissioned an independent review of policing, conducted by Sir Ronnie Flannagan. Through research, discussion with senior police officers and by visiting the frontline, the report aimed to review policing in England and Wales, against the backdrop of the significant development and change to the role of the police officer in recent years.
Sir Ronnie denoted a number of conclusions relating to public trust, confidence and satisfaction with the police. Of importance the report asserted the requirement to improve the standards of citizen focused policing (enhanced public interaction) and to clarify the principles of accountability. Key principles within the 33 recommendations of the report include:
The re-design and clarification of the roles of responsibilities of the Home Office, HMIC, ACPO, Association of Police Authorities and the NPIA.
28 Source: Government Response to the Magee Review of Criminality Information 2008. 29 Source: The Review of Policing Final Report 2008 by Sir Ronnie Flanagan. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 38 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Objective grant funding to police authorities to better match resources to threat and demand. The NPIA to begin building standard processes for the use across Forces (particularly in relation to IT). The establishment of the Home Office workforce reform strategy, facilitated by the NPIA ten year workforce plan for the service. Improved guidance and assistance to police officers and staff to assist career progression and professional development. Chief Constable’s review of Force working practices. All existing doctrine, to include regulations, codes of practice, operational policing manuals and best practice in the police service to be reviewed and consolidated (to be led by ACPO and the NPIA). In order to improve public trust and confidence, ensure that all incidents and crimes are recorded and proportionately responded to. Promote improved partnership working with the closer integration of Neighbourhood Policing.
2.3.7 S and Marper v UK [2008] Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights30
DNA Testing, Right to Private and Family Life and Limitations on Rights
The case of S and Marper v United Kingdom considered whether the retention of DNA and fingerprints from innocent people is consistent with human rights law.
Facts
******************** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********
Decision
In making its decision, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) considered the following:
Whether the retention by the authorities of the applicants’ fingerprints, DNA profiles and cellular samples constituted an interference in their private life; and if so, whether the interference was: (i) in accordance with the law; (ii) in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and (iii) necessary in a democratic society.
The Grand Chamber decided that the retention of both cellular samples and DNA profiles constituted an interference with the right to respect for the private lives of the applicants within the meaning of Article 8 of the ECHR. The storing of data relating to the private life of an individual amounts to an interference.
30 Source: Human Rights Law Centre, online source. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 39 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Further, the Grand Chamber found that the interference was not justified. In this regard, the Grand Chamber stated:
“the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests. Accordingly, the retention constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life and cannot be regarding as necessary in a democratic society.”
In November 2009 the Government announced that refined proposals for a new DNA retention framework would be contained in primary legislation, the Crime and Security Act 2010, which includes revised requirements for the destruction of DNA. However, the relevant sections of the Act were not subject to a commencement order and are included in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
2.3.8 Five Chief Constables PNC Ruling (Chief Constable of Humberside and Others v Information Commissioner) 200931
Summary
The case issue was whether by virtue of the principles under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), the police were bound to delete certain old convictions from the PNC. A judgement was made that the retention of old conviction data on the PNC relating to the past convictions of individuals was not contrary to the principles of data protection and may be retained for the purposes of prevention and detection of crime.
Facts
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S40
Decision
The High Court summarised that:
a) it is for the Data Controller to determine the purpose(s) for which the data is processed; b) it is not open to the Commissioner to impose his own determination of those purposes; the imposition of a concept of ‘core police purposes’ was misconceived; c) in any event the proper purposes of the police in managing the PNC plainly include the retention of information for provision to others who have a legitimate need for it, including (but not limited to) provision under statutory duty created by the Police Act 1997;
31 Source: Five Chief Constable / PNC Ruling (Chief Constable of Humberside and Others v Information Commissioner) 19th October 2009. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 40 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT d) those purposes sufficiently appear from the notification of purposes lodged, but even if they do not, the notification could be amended tomorrow; e) accordingly retention of the records in these cases for those purposes was not a breach of Data Protection Principles 3 or 5; f) none of the foregoing is in any sense inconsistent with the Directive, which plainly contemplates (though does not require) the maintenance by the police of a comprehensive record of convictions; and g) the holding of information for the purpose of assisting other public bodies who share ‘common public policy objectives’ to perform their functions was lawful under the DPA.
2.3.9 GC&C v MPS Supreme Court32
R (on the application of GC) (FC) (Appellant) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and R (on the application of C) (FC) (Appellant) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, on appeal from the High Court, 18th May 2011.
Summary
On 18th May 2011 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment. The case of appeal relates to the requested destruction (by GC & C) of their DNA samples, fingerprints and photographs that were taken when they were arrested. Following police enquiries, GC had no further action against him and C was acquitted of the alleged offence. The Supreme Court, by a majority, allowed the appeals and made a judgement that the indefinite retention of the appellants’ data under the current retention policy is a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR.
Facts
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********S40
Decision
The Supreme Court, by a majority, allowed the appeals (Lords Rodger and Brown dissenting). Lord Dyson gave the lead judgment. The majority granted a declaration that the present ACPO guidelines are unlawful because they are incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR. It is also agreed that in light of Marper ECtHR, the indefinite retention of the appellants’ data under the current retention policy is a breach of Article 8 ECHR.
32 Source: The Supreme Court, online source (www.supremecourt.gov.uk). Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 41 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
2.3.10 R (on the Application of RMC and FJ) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2012] EHWC 1681 (22nd June 2012)33
Summary
The High Court of England and Wales held that the indefinite retention of photographs of persons who are arrested, but not subsequently prosecuted, breaches the right to private life protected in Article 8 of the ECHR. The case applies and extends the earlier ECtHR decision of S and Marper, which concerned the retention of DNA samples and fingerprints.
Facts
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S40
Decision
Lord Justice Richards, with whom Justice Kenneth Parker agreed, held that the retention of the photographs interfered with the right to respect for private life protected in Article 8(1) of the Convention, and that this interference was not justified under Article 8(2) of the Convention.
33 Source: Human Rights Law Centre, online source. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 42 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
3 Police Systems
Terms of Reference: Question 2
Can you overlay onto the answer to question 1 an account of the introduction, purpose and, where it has been required, decommissioning, of police systems (paper or electronic) for the handling of information and intelligence.
3.1 Introduction
Throughout the last 50 years, policing processes have evolved through changes in culture, technology and public demand. Advances in computing and mobile communications have brought the Service to a standard that, although common place today would have been unthinkable in the 1960s. The following section is a brief history of police systems and processes around crime reporting and recording from the 1960s to today.
3.2 Overview of Police Systems: 1960 to Present Day
3.2.1 1960s Crime Reporting
In the 1960s, crimes were mostly reported at police stations where the details of the crime would be entered into a ledger or occurrence book. This book would be kept by the Station Sergeant and used to brief officers as they paraded for duty so they were aware of what crimes had been committed and in what area.
Crimes of a sexual nature, including rape would also be recorded in these ledgers but it would be left to women police officers to investigate. At this time, there was a separate Women’s Police Department which remained such until the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 when pay and conditions for women officers was brought into line with their male colleagues.
This style of crime recording in ledgers remained in place for many years and continued until official crime reporting forms were devised. These forms would be capable to capturing greater detail, in particular statistical information for onward reporting to the Home Office.
3.2.2 1960s Murder Investigations
In the early 1960s it was not uncommon for any murder investigation to be carried out by a team of detectives from New Scotland Yard (NSY), headed by a Superintendent. Around that time many police forces were smaller in number and did not have the requisite skills to carry out such a major enquiry.
On completion of such an investigation, the senior detective from ‘the yard’ would complete and submit a report to the Chief Constable of the Force in who’s area the crime had been committed.
The Police Act 1964 brought about changes to Policing areas. This reduced the number of police forces in England and Wales from 127 in 1966 to 46 in 1969. The Local Government Act 1972 redefined the boundaries of Local Authorities, which in turn affected the police areas, further reducing the number of Forces to the current 4334.
34 Source: P. Hitchens, A Brief History of Crime: The Decline of Order, Justice and Liberty in England, First Edition 2003, Pages 79 – 80. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 43 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
3.2.3 1960s Intelligence and Information Collating
Most large stations or boroughs had a Collators Office which employed a full time Collator who would collate intelligence and information on local criminals. The collator’s records would be on a simple card index system filed in alphabetical order.
The Collator was often a senior PC or DC who would be a mine of information. As a long serving officer in that police area, they would have first hand knowledge of active criminals and most likely had dealings with them or their families.
This process continued until computerised systems were designed and implemented in the 1980s.
3.2.4 1960s Local Vehicle Licensing Offices
Details of registered keepers of vehicles were held in the Local Vehicle Licensing Offices (LVLO) which were regionally based in towns and cities before the introduction of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre, which is now the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). The LVLO kept the keeper details of vehicles registered in their geographic area. They provided a Monday to Friday 9-5 service mainly for the public to obtain a Vehicle Excise Licence or transfer registration of vehicle ownership. It was also for those in the motor industry to register a new vehicle. Local arrangements between the LVLO and the police allowed out of office access to the premises for vehicle records to be searched. A long process taking many hours which would only be authorised in serious incidents and not for routine checking of vehicles by the police.
Many LVLO’s are now closed. However, police can access vehicle keeper details via the PNC (see 1976 below).
3.2.5 1960s Stolen Vehicles
When a vehicle was stolen, the details were reported to the local police either in person at a police station or if more urgent via a 999 call. The record of the stolen vehicle would be maintained in a card filing system. These details were kept at the Force Headquarters control room, it meant only the Force in whose area the vehicle was reported stolen would have the record of that fact. The PNC stolen vehicle index in 1974 replaced Force card index systems for stolen vehicles.
3.2.6 1965 Teleprinter Messaging
Teleprinter messaging allowed a message to be sent to a known destination that had a similar compatible device on which to receive a message. This method was used to send an All Ports Warning – a message to all Forces giving details of a wanted person who may seek to leave the country. The introduction of facsimile machines and PNC replaced teleprinters. PNC broadcast function replacing the All Ports Warning feature.
3.2.7 1970s Regional Criminal Record Offices
Forces had Regional Criminal Record Offices (CROs) which were regarded as just one step away from a national system. Examples being SouCRO (Southern region), ManCRO (Manchester area) and MidCRO (Midlands area). These regional offices would provide a link, although they did not function as a national system. When PNC
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 44 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT was introduced, the terminals (dedicated stand alone computers linked directly to the PNC) were located in the regional CROs.
With the inception to the PNC and the later availability to access it from a police national network (pnn) desktop computer, regional CROs no longer existed. Each Force would have a Force Intelligence Bureau (FIB) who would route information and intelligence to the respective receiving Force or other Law Enforcement Agency (LEA).
3.2.8 1970 Crime Reporting
In the 1970s Forces began to use a proforma approach to record crimes. This was often a self carbonating form where the top copy was colour coded to the crime type reported. The top copy of this form would be removed and retained in a ring binder for further dissemination within the station. Other carbonated copies would be sent to departments within the Force including a data processing unit who would extract information from the tick box part of the form to submit to the Home Office as statistical information. The reverse side of the back copy of the crime report would be used as the investigators working sheet. This working sheet recorded what investigative action had been taken including details of any persons arrested and charged. Once the investigation had been completed, it would be submitted to senior officers for review and filing.
This method of recording a crime would continue into the 1980s including the point where crime recording systems became computerised.
3.2.9 1974 Police National Computer
In 1974 PNC went live. Initially as a stolen vehicles database it was to expand its capabilities in the following years. This was the first time a national stolen vehicle index was made available to the police. When the victim of a stolen vehicle reported the matter to the police, often via a 999 call, the details of the theft would be recorded onto the PNC, but a police officer had to meet with the victim and complete a stolen vehicle form which would be sent to the Force Bureau to confirm the PNC entry. The PNC continues as the national system through to the current date.
3.2.10 1976 PNC Vehicle Owners
In 1976 the PNC Vehicle Owners function was added (via a database link to the DVLA) and continues today. This provides Forces with an intelligence tool and greater knowledge when carrying out routine checks on vehicles and their occupants.
3.2.11 1977 PNC Criminal Names
PNC started to record criminal names from paper copies of arrest reports (CRO 74s). This paper system remained until around 1980 when, due to the volume for storage, reports were copied onto microfiche. To obtain a copy of subjects’ previous convictions, Forces would have to request a copy of the microfiche from the National Microfiche Library, a process conducted by post and would take many days. This practice has now ceased with current offence recording and resulting being conducted by the police and the courts direct. However, there are still over 1 million historic records held on microfiche which have not been back record converted onto the PNC.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 45 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 3.2.12 1978 PNC Wanted or Missing Persons
PNC started to hold details of persons sought by Police as either Wanted or Missing. Before this became a nationally accessed system, circulations would be made via publications such as the Police Gazette which was printed and distributed from NSY.
3.2.13 1980 Disqualified Drivers
In June 1980 PNC held records of persons who had been disqualified from driving. This was a further development in intelligence for policing as previously it would be for the individual officer to become aware that the subject was disqualified, or indeed some would admit so when challenged at the roadside.
3.2.14 1985 Major Incident Room Standard Administrative Procedures
Following the Byford report 1981 ACPO published the first edition of the MIRSAP manual in 1985. This manual provided standardisation of the process of ‘running’ a major incident room.
This has been updated over the years but is still used to support the system of investigation of major crime today. It details the processes and methodical functions carried out by trained dedicated staff, each knowing their own roles in considerable detail. This often includes the dedicate staff working in Major Investigation Teams (MITs) in each Force. As MIRSAP is a nationally agreed standard, MITs can be deployed across Force borders to assist if required to do so.
3.2.15 1985 PNC Conviction Details
PNC started to record conviction histories (initially recording the most recent three convictions only) with documents still being copied onto microfiche. This remains in place until Forces manage their own PNC entries starting in 1995 through Phoenix.
3.2.16 1986 Home Office Large Major Enquiry System (HOLMES)
As previously referred to in paragraph 2.3.2, the Byford report led to the introduction of HOLMES by the Home Office to support a standardised process of conducting a major investigation. This is made available to all Forces with the first generation of software being developed by four different suppliers in accordance with the HOLMES Application Design Specification with a view to make each suppliers system compatible with the others. Unfortunately this was not very successful with limited data sharing across Force borders. Incompatible systems required a tape transfer between one system and another.
HOLMES (original version) became decommissioned as the next generation, HOLMES2 in 2001 was developed and rolled out to Forces.
3.2.17 1986 Centralised Analytical Team Collating Homicide Expertise and Management (CATCHEM)
Derbyshire Police establish the CATCHEM database which contained information of murders of all female victims aged 21 or under, and all male victims aged 16 or under. It was set up to assist in the national police hunt for the killer of young girls. A success of CATCHEM was the arrest and subsequent conviction, in 1994, of Robert Black for child murder offences.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 46 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT The CATCHEM database is still available and has been brought under the management of the Home Office (previously NPIA) Crime Operational Support Team.
3.2.18 1988 HOLMES Deployed to Dumfries and Galloway
HOLMES was deployed to Dumfries and Galloway Police to assist in the investigation of the Lockerbie mass murder involving the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103 killing 270 people.
The investigation was managed by HOLMES and was linked to NSY, the FBI in Washington, a local incident room in Lockerbie and the West German Police in Frankfurt.
3.2.19 1992 National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS)35
ACPO first mandated the requirement for automated fingerprints in 1987 and over the last 22 years significant developments have taken place. These have included the:
1992 – Automated Fingerprint Recognition (AFR) was introduced across the UK. This later became NAFIS. 2001 - Introduction of Livescan systems and services. April 2005 - Transfer of Responsibility from NAFIS and Scottish Livescan services to IDENT1. Feb 2006 - Roll-out of the national palm searching capability. January 2007 - Extra 193 Livescan units installed in sites in England and Wales. January 2007 - Roll-out of mobile fingerprint readers to pilot sites. April 2008 - UK Visas interface to IDENT1 implemented and operational. April 2008 - mobile fingerprint readers rolled-out to another 10 pilot forces in England and Wales.
3.2.20 1995 PNC Phoenix
Criminal conviction data started to be recorded directly onto the PNC (Phoenix), with the paper storage systems ceasing. This is still the case today with the criminal justice system (magistrates courts) having the ability to result cases directly onto the PNC (Bichard 7).
3.2.21 1996 PNC Vehicle Online Descriptive Search (VODS)
VODS was added as a function to the PNC. VODS is an enhancement to the searching capabilities of the Vehicles File. It provides the means to identify a vehicle when identity numbers such as VRM or VIN are not known. Instead it searches using descriptive features or police and DVLA administration details36.
35 Source: http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10504.htm. 36 Source: PNC Manual v12.01 2012. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 47 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 3.2.22 1997 PNC Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)37
ANPR is used to take a visual image of a number plate, the PNC scans thousands of numbers each hour, alerting police to any that are of interest.
3.2.23 1998 PNC Query Using Enhanced Search Techniques (QUEST) 38
QUEST enables the search of the names database to identify suspects through the use of gathered information such as physical description and personal features.
3.2.24 ******** S23
********************************************************************************************************* ********************************************************************************************************* ********************************************************************************************************* ***** S23
3.2.25 2001 HOLMES2
HOLMES2 became fully operational and was rolled out to Forces replacing the original HOLMES system. This newer version gave a windows style display with dropdown menus. Later versions include the i2 analyst notepad application where associate charts could be created and printed. It also included better free text searching tools to enhance retrieval of vital information.
Later add on packages made the task of the disclosure requirements under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 more manageable.
A Casualty Bureau function is also available as an add-on function within HOLMES2.
3.2.26 2003 Records Management System (RMS)
Niche RMS was introduced in some Forces in 2003 and is still used to the present day. This is a modular system from Niche Technologies (a Canadian company) providing Forces with a computerised database for handling custody processes, intelligence and crime reporting and recording. Data from this system is uploaded on a regular basis to the PND system allowing the sharing of intelligence on a national basis. There are around 14 England & Wales Forces using Niche with other non Niche Forces having similar products also capable of uploading data onto PND.
3.2.27 2004 Casualty Bureau
In December 2004 the Indian Ocean Tsunami struck killing over 230,000 people, some of whom were UK citizens. Coordinated by the Metropolitan Police Service, a Casualty Bureau was established in Hendon, London.
3.2.28 2004 Bichard Inquiry Report (Bichard 7)
Part of the recommendations from the Bichard report, resulting of cases onto the PNC was transferred from the police to the courts service ensuring speedier updating of the database, beginning in 2007.
37 Source: http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10508.htm. 38 Source: http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10508.htm. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 48 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
3.2.29 2005 Violent and Sexual Offenders Register (ViSOR)
By April 2005, ViSOR was rolled out to all Forces as a database in which to record details of Violent and Sexual Offenders. The system was introduced to support the requirement for offenders to register with the police following their conviction under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This database provides a link to the subjects PNC record.
3.2.30 2006 Impact Nominal Index (INI)
INI started in 2006 following the Bichard recommendations. This is a national system which could be accessed by all Forces to research a nominal by name and date of birth. Any matches would provide a reference number which would then require the researcher to make direct contact with the Force owning that information. INI was decommissioned in June 2011 following the introduction of the PND.
3.2.31 2011 Police National Database (PND)
PND went live to replace INI. The PND is a national system populated with data from Force systems. This includes custody and intelligence systems. It was not designed to replace the PNC and does not hold conviction information, although arrest events will be shown. This system is subject to the MoPI rules of the retention of police information.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 49 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
4 Police Information and Intelligence Exchange
Terms of Reference: Question 3
What systems are used for the inward and outward transmission of intelligence and information to international organisations and partners; and are there any obvious differences of approach (e.g. French ownership of certain kinds of information lying with the magistracy not the police, approaches to disclosure of information in other jurisdictions etc).
4.1 Exchange within the UK: systems used for the transmission of intelligence and information to UK organisations and partners
4.2 Introduction
Police information sharing has developed over the last 20 years with the introduction and advancement of technology principally around computing and mobile communications. Prior to 1974 and the introduction of the PNC as a national database initially used for recording stolen motor vehicles, each Force dealt with information on a local basis on what is regularly referred to as collator card indexes. Information was held at station and Force level and the sharing of information outside of that Force was not consistent.
By the mid 1980’s technology was being rolled out across the police service with the introduction of Force level crime recording and police information systems replacing paper registers and collator card indexes. Significant inquiries such as the 1981 Byford Report standardised MIRs and introduced HOLMES technology for the recording of information. Further developments of the PNC enabled information to be available to frontline officers.
Information sharing developed significantly by the end of the 1990s with further developments in technology and in 2000 with the introduction of the NIM, provided a standardised system of information exchange.
In 2011 the PND was launched. This is a national system that provides users with direct access to local Force intelligence and other information. The information held on the PND is not new information but comes from existing Force systems that support Force intelligence, crime, domestic abuse, child abuse and custody business areas. The PND provides access to information and intelligence about vehicles, locations and events.
4.3 Information Sharing: The Early Years
4.3.1 In the 1960s there was no formal means to record information and there was no structure to the sharing of information. If an enquiry led to another Force the Officer might have to rely upon personal contacts in the area to seek answers or assistance.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 50 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 4.3.2 Crime was recorded in ledger books maintained as a daily occurrence book by the Station Sergeant and in the Force annual report statistics were collected manually from these ledgers. Typewriters were used to document court files, crime reports (including carbon copies) was the common means of recording day to day crime and information39.
4.3.3 Card indexes were the routine manner of storing information, whether regarding local crime intelligence or a major incident. The supervisors or collators were normally Detective Sergeants assisted by Police Constables who had long standing general knowledge of criminals and the local area. This system of filing continued as the means to store records until the development of IT in the 1980s and 1990s. As the 1960s progressed Collators were used to look after what was a very local system of information gathering40.
4.4 National Agencies
4.4.1 ************** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ************************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************************ ************************************************************************************** S23 in 2006. Part of the remit was to cooperate regionally to gather intelligence and deal with the emerging threat from travelling criminals. It was recognised that a tactic to deal with and investigate cross border crime and latterly international crime, was necessary41.
4.5 Regional Developments
4.5.1 By the 1970s the method to communicate with the neighbouring divisions and Forces was through telex message, local liaison, and regionally when Force Crime Intelligence rooms were developed.
4.5.2 The ‘Police Gazette’ and ‘Confidential Information’ were principally Metropolitan Police Service printed journals which published information on escaped prisoners, notorious crimes and wanted persons. These were posted to all Forces throughout the UK to alert officers of the status of such persons.
4.5.3 Regionally, CROs produced weekly publications on crime and wanted persons, and on occasions when a serious crime was committed42.
4.6 Cross Border Crime43
4.6.1 By the mid 1990’s the police service still had no national data on the extent of cross border crime. The majority of police forces experienced significant difficulty in quantifying the extent to which they suffered from cross border crime. Nationally, 10% of detected crime was cross border in nature and most of this was inter-Force, that is, criminals offending in a Force which neighbours the one in which they lived.
39 Source: Lord Stevens autobiography. 40 Source: Practitioner Interviews. 41 Source: Royal Commission on Criminal Justice: ‘The Conduct and Supervision of Criminal Investigations 1992 42 Source: Practitioner Interviews. 43 Source: ACPO Tackling Cross Border Crime report 1996.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 51 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 4.6.2 The rates of cross border offending varied dramatically between Forces. Forces adjoining or in close proximity to large metropolitan areas and those which attracted large numbers of tourists experienced rates of cross border offending of up to 23% of all detected crime.
4.6.3 Research in 1996 found 43% of Force squads’ operations were directed at cross border crime and the demarcation between Force squads and the **** S23 in the 1990’s, over who should undertake a cross border operation appeared unclear in some areas.
4.6.4 Informal regional groups had arisen on an ad-hoc basis, to provide intelligence on cross border offenders ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23, yet were nonetheless considered worthy of particular attention at that time by Forces.
4.6.5 Drug squad operations directed at offences of importing and supplying drugs originated almost exclusively from informants and the gathering of intelligence, ********** ********** ********** S23
4.6.6 Operations directed at vehicle theft originated from a variety of sources such as divisions, other Forces, informants and intelligence packages, ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.6.7 The question of whether an operation should be undertaken by a Force squad or the **** S23 would be helped by an operational definition of what ‘serious’ crime is within whose remit. ‘Tackling Drugs Together – a strategy for England 1995-1998’ recommended that Forces, ***** S23, HMCE and ********** S23 set up systems of regular liaison, sharing of intelligence and planning of joint operations. Developments such as this, increased contact, co-ordination and co-operation between the separate agencies and helped to clarify which part of the service was best placed to undertake these drugs operations.
4.6.8 Unless their target was worthy of the consideration which would warrant the subject being flagged by ********** S23, a ‘lead’ was essential before any cross border investigation involving another Force commenced. Officers were of the opinion that very often, because the individual crimes were considered relatively minor, they would warrant neither attention by the **** S23 nor flagging on ***** S23 , and thus these series of crimes which occurred across Force boundaries would be missed.
4.6.9 ACPO concurred with this view, reporting a widespread perception amongst officers that a ‘void’ existed in the collation and dissemination of intelligence about less serious crimes and criminals. ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.6.10 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.7 National Developments
4.7.1 The PNC went live in 1974, initially as a stolen vehicle index then later as a conviction and driver record database which has developed over 35 years as the main database for holding conviction data, wanted / missing person details and as a
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 52 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT means to ‘flag’ persons of interest. The development of the PNC enabled police officers to immediately check and receive a response in the street or custody centre and be notified if a subject is for example wanted or of interest.
4.7.2 Between 1975 and 1980 Peter Sutcliffe committed a series of murders and violent assaults on women. He killed 13 women in those five years, but the significance for the police service was the manner of the investigation, because Sutcliffe murdered across Force borders and each separate Force investigated these offences in a different method and in isolation. This had a hindering effect upon the progress of catching Sutcliffe.
4.7.3 The establishment of HOLMES the major crime management system was designed to replace card indexes and was implemented in the 1980s following the Byford Inquiry which highlighted the lack of cross border cooperation in major investigations. This system became electronic in 1986 as IT was developed in the police service44.
4.7.4 Fax machines were in use from the mid 1980s as a form of communication. It allowed for reports of crime to be sent to neighbouring Forces when appropriate. This allowed for a faster passing of documentation between Forces, although there was initial nervousness about the use of such a means of communication.45
4.7.5 From the 1980s there began a series of IT and scientific developments, legislation and guidelines hastened the professionalisation of police information and intelligence management.
4.7.6 In the 1980s the basic details of crime was electronically recorded, but information was still recorded on card systems. By 1996 the Home Office recognised with the advent and growth of IT systems and increasing means of communication that it should develop a Government secure network for electronic communication exchange. This is known as the gsi network and was introduced to manage the passage of secure data across government agencies. Over the subsequent years the ppn and other criminal justice secure networks have been developed.
4.7.7 By 1995 the scientific benefits of DNA were widely accepted with numerous hits on crime scenes and the positive evidential use had become routine. The Home Office established the National DNA Database (NDNAD) to record DNA profiles from crime scenes with a view to providing a match against an offender.46.
4.7.8 In 1997, Public Protection Units (PPUs) were formed and this was followed by the development of the ViSOR, a UK wide database used to store and share information and intelligence on those individuals who have been identified as posing a risk of serious harm to the public.
4.7.9 This database was designed to facilitate the work of Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) by assisting co-operative working between the police, probation and prison services in their joint management of individuals posing a risk of serious harm.
44 Source: Sir Lawrence Byford Report 1981. 45 Source: Practitioner Interviews. 46 Source: Criminal Investigation, Peter Stelfox 2009.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 53 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 4.7.10 By 2005 ViSOR was rolled out across all Forces to assist in the national management of sex and violent offenders. Accessed by approved users, it allows public protection staff across the UK to access data about other sex and violent offenders and enables management of those persons47. In 2007 ACPO Criminal Records Office (ACRO) developed the management of UK nationals convicted outside of the UK and brought those offenders within the ViSOR system.
4.7.11 The DPA brought clarity about the use of personal data held on IT systems. The motivation of the Act was to protect data as there was concern over the use and storage of personal data. Section 29 (1) of the Act allows the sharing of data in the following (generally law enforcement) circumstances48:
The prevention or detection of crime. The apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature, are exempt from the first data protection principle.
4.7.12 In 2000 the NIM was launched as 'A Model for Policing' to ensure that information is fully researched, developed and analysed to provide intelligence which enables senior managers to provide strategic direction and make tactical resourcing decisions about operational policing and manage risk. The NIM was adopted by all Forces to commonly accepted standards by April 2004. This development saw the increase of intelligence based staff and the professionalisation of intelligence products.
4.7.13 The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 was introduced to regulate the powers of public bodies to carry out surveillance and investigation. It was partly introduced to take account of technological changes such as the growth of the internet and mobile telephones. This led to the development of Source Handling Units managing informants49.
4.7.14 The murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in August 2002 by Ian Huntley, and the subsequent inquiry by Sir Michael Bichard, had a profound and far-reaching effect on the way the police service gathered, managed, used and shared information. In July 2006, as a direct result of the Bichard Inquiry, the Home Secretary issued a statutory Code of Practice on the Management of Police Information. This encouraged the positive sharing of police information for public safety reasons and set key principles of information management to ensure a nationally consistent approach to the way police information is managed.
4.7.15 The process of recording, storing, reviewing, deleting and sharing information was managed under this Code. Police information refers to all information, including intelligence and personal data obtained and recorded for a policing purpose50.
MoPI defined policing purposes as:
Protecting life and property. Preserving order. Preventing the commission of offences.
47 Source: http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10510.htm. 48 Source: NPIA and the Data Protection Act 1998. 49 Source: NPIA and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. 50 Source: NPIA, Bichard Inquiry 2004 and MoPI Code of Practice.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 54 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Bringing offenders to justice. Any duty or responsibility arising from common or statute law.
4.7.16 IDENT1 was completed and rolled out across the UK in 2005, replacing NAFIS. This provided the UK police with a national fingerprint identification system, with the capability to search palm prints and marks. This system enabled the verification of identity in an efficient and timely manner. It also provided a mobile solution for identity checks to be carried out on the street with a small portable handheld device51.
4.7.17 By 2007 law enforcement and other agencies recognised the need to use data that can be shared under MoPI principals and in the interests of public safety and protection. The Government Agency Information Network is a good example of agencies who agree to share information that will assist in joint operational working. This began in the East Midlands area and now there are coordinators and meetings in each of the police regions52.
4.7.18 Public concern over convicted sex offenders living in the community, following the murder of Sarah Payne in 2000 in Sussex, by Roy Whiting, became an issue. Sarah’s mother, Sara led a media campaign and motivated the enactment of Section 140 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and the Child Sex Offenders Disclosure Scheme. This placed a responsibility for authorities to consider disclosing information about convictions of child sex offenders to the public if that offender is likely to pose a risk53.
4.7.19 The Bichard Inquiry 2004 following Huntley’s conviction also led the process to the development and delivery by NPIA of the PND, an intelligence database accessible by Forces across the UK. All Forces are now expected to deliver and share all material with the exception of secure information. This absorbs much of the Bichard recommendations about information exchange and allows for a national intelligence searching database which is diametrically opposite to the historical context this section of the report began with54.
4.7.20 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
**********
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********S23
51 Source: http://www.npia.police.uk/en/10504.htm. 52 Source: Government Agency Information Network. 53 Source: Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. 54 Source: Bichard Inquiry 2004.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 55 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.8 International Exchange: systems used for the transmission of intelligence and information to international organisations and partners
4.9 Introduction
Since 1960 there have been significant developments in the sharing of information and intelligence with foreign countries and organisations. However, the majority of these developments have occurred around the turn of the century.
International travel for pleasure was not commonplace in the mid 20th Century, but with the arrival and expansion of air travel, the introduction of the package holiday, easier emigration and the Freedom of Movement Directive in the EU, people quickly began to travel the world more freely and easily.
As a result, the exchange of police information and intelligence before the turn of the century was not required in any formal or regular manner. With an ever increasing global community, and in particular the creation and expansion of the EU, the importance of sharing police information and intelligence was quickly identified.
This section focuses on the systems used for the transmission of such data and how they have developed since the 1960s. It is clear to see that prior to the 1990s there were only a few methods for the exchange, whereas after the 1990s there was a push to develop and formalise exiting arrangements and simplify the processes of exchange.
4.10 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 56 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT INTERPOL functions as an administrative liaison between LEAs of the member countries by providing communications and database assistance. This removes language, cultural and bureaucratic boundaries and allows for better joint working to investigate cross border crime.
Notices are published by INTERPOL on the I-24/7 database at the request of a NCB:
Red Notices: To seek the location and arrest of wanted persons for extradition Yellow Notices: To help locate missing persons Blue Notices: To collect additional information on persons Black Notice: To seek information on unidentified bodies Green Notice: To provide warning or intelligence on repeat offenders Orange Notice: To warn of an event, object, or process representing a serious and imminent threat Purple Notice: To seek or provide additional information
In relation to wanted persons NCBs can issue ‘diffusions’ direct to other NCBs to request the arrest or location of an individual or additional information in relation to a police investigation. These are less formal than a Notice.
4.11 INTERPOL NCB: 1967 - 1992
4.11.1 Metropolitan Police Service, New Scotland Yard: 1967 - 1992
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23. Communications with other NCBs took place via Morse Code, mail and telex.
4.11.2 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.12 ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.12.1 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ******** S23
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 57 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.13 ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 58 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
4.14 EUROPOL: 1999 – Present Day
EUROPOL is the ‘European Police Office’ and is mandated to support Member States’ operational engagement in relation to organised crime, other forms of serious crime and terrorism affecting two or more Member States.
The EU Convention establishing EUROPOL was signed in July 1995 and entered into force on 1st October 1998. EUROPOL commenced its full activities on 1st July 1999.
All previous conventions and measures implementing EUROPOL were replaced by Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6th April 2009 establishing EUROPOL, which came into effect from 1st January 2010.
As above, EUROPOL's field of competence is the combating of crime and terrorism, but it has no coercive powers of its own but provides support to Member States and associated operational cooperation partners’ operations and investigations, through expert analysis, coordinating operational meetings and enabling secure intelligence exchanges. It is an instrument at the service of the Member States designed to help them deal with criminal phenomena.
In practical terms, EUROPOL's work consists of facilitating the flow of information between national units (or ‘contact points’ in third parties/countries) and providing expert intelligence analyses. EUROPOL is recognised as the EU’s central hub for intelligence exchange, development, analysis, cooperation and support in relation to the fight against international organised crime, other forms of serious crime and terrorism.
In accordance with the EUROPOL Council Decision, EUROPOL is mandated to support law enforcement activities of the Member States and associated third parties by:
facilitating the exchange of information between EUROPOL and EUROPOL Liaison Officers (ELOs), which provide a formal legal channel to facilitate cooperation. These ELOs operate through Liaison Bureaux hosted at EUROPOL Headquarters and comprise representatives from the Member States or third parties’ national law enforcement agencies, thus they are not under the command of EUROPOL as such. Furthermore, they act in accordance with their national law; providing intelligence analysis and support to Member States’ operations; providing expertise and technical support for investigations and operations carried out within the EU; and generating strategic reports (e.g. threat assessments) and crime analysis on the basis of information and intelligence supplied by Member States, cooperation partners and/or gathered from other sources in accordance with EUROPOL’s mandate.
All EU Member States are members and a number of non-EU countries have bi- lateral cooperation agreements enabling strategic or operational cooperation with EUROPOL, including: Australia, Canada, Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland , the USA, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Former Yugoslav Republic of
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 59 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Macedonia, Moldova, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey.
EUROPOL also has a number of agreements with key third party organisations, such as Interpol. Third country / party agreements with EUROPOL are endorsed at Ministerial level through the EU’s Justice & Home Affairs Council.
4.15 EUROPOL Computer Systems and Databases
The EUROPOL Council Decision states that EUROPOL shall establish and maintain a computerised system to allow the input, access and analysis of data. The Council Decision also provides the legal framework for the management of these systems, in particular data protection, confidentiality and external supervision. EUROPOL is permitted to process information and intelligence, including personal data, for the purpose of carrying out its tasks – preventing and combating crime. As such, as mandated under the Council Decision, the EUROPOL Information System (EIS) and Analysis Work Files (AWFs) were established.
4.15.1 EUROPOL Information System (EIS)
EIS was put into operational use in October 2005. Data entered into EIS may concern persons who either have committed or are suspected of planning or being involved in or associated with a criminal offence. Data attributes may include, for example, a person’s name, nationality, social security number and must include the associated offence.
Member States and EUROPOL use the EIS to detect matches and connections between investigations in difference Member States. National units, liaison officers and EUROPOL staff may input and cross check data directly from the system. The main method of data insertion is through automated data loading systems.
The designated competent authorities of Member States may only search the system to ascertain that the data which they are requesting is available.
EIS was made available to law enforcement agencies in the Member States in October 2005 for searching only. In 2010 a new version of EIS was deployed with automated enforcement of handling codes meaning more sensitive data could be shared with additional protection. In 2012 Member States were encouraged to make EIS accessible to all relevant law enforcement authorities and provide guidance for uploading and searching data.
4.15.2 Analysis Work Files / Focal Points
Within the two core AWFs ‘Serious Organised Crime’ and ‘Counter Terrorism’, focal point files may be opened by EUROPOL to assemble and analyse data in support of Member States’ criminal investigations and operations. Through the AWFs, EUROPOL can identify connections between criminal activities and groups and provide operational and strategic analysis for Member States. In addition to the data on persons who have committed or are suspected of committing an offence, the files may contain data on witnesses, victims as well as contacts and associates of the offender, objects utilised (e.g. vehicles and firearms), commodities seized (e.g. drugs).
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 60 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 4.15.3 Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA)
In July 2009 a new generation communication tool, SIENA was released. It enables swift, secure and user-friendly communication and exchange of operational and strategic crime-related information and intelligence between EUROPOL, EUROPOL National Units, the Liaison Bureaux in EUROPOL55 and Cooperation Agreement partners.
Each Member State feeds intelligence and information into the EUROPOL Systems via their EUROPOL Liaison Officers (ELOs) in the Liaison Bureaux. The UK contributes high quality data relating to serious and organised crimes. Any data shared is managed using handling codes stipulated by the owning Member States, ensuring it is shared and handled appropriately.
4.15.4 ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
********* ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********
4.15.5 ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********S23
4.15.6 Joint Investigation Teams (JITs): 2002 - Present Day
JITs are provided for in the 2000 Mutual Legal Assistance Convention and the later 13th June 2002 EU Framework Decision on Joint Investigation Teams, which Member States were required to implement by 1st January 2003. The Framework Decision will cease to have effect once the Convention has entered into force in all Member States.
A JIT is an investigation team set up on the basis of an agreement between two or more Member States and/or other parties, for a specific purpose and limited duration. The aim of a JIT is to coordinate specific investigations where there are identified cross overs between Member States. It is not designed to establish a generically competent task force for a certain type of crime, nor a permanent operational team.
55 In the UK, SIENA access is currently through ************************************* S23
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 61 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Subject to the terms of the JIT agreement, members can share information directly without the need for formal requests; request investigative measures directly without a Letter Rogatory; allow members to be present at various points in all jurisdictions; co-ordinate efforts on the spot; build mutual trust and decide on strategies together; obtain direct support from EUROPOL and Eurojust; and obtain funding.
4.16 Schengen Agreement
This agreement was originally signed in 1985 by five countries to establish freedom of movement and goods. In 1990 it became a Convention and ten new countries joined with a further nine in 2007.
The agreement abolished checks at the internal borders of the signatory states and created a single external border where immigration checks for the Schengen area are carried out in accordance with identical procedures. This reduction of interior border checks meant a reduction in national security, therefore compensatory measures were implemented. The main compensatory measure was the creation of a common information system, Schengen Information System (SIS). The UK opted out of the Schengen Agreement as they had no intention to remove border controls; however, they did opt back into the areas on Police Security and Judicial Cooperation and will use the Schengen Information System for law enforcement purposes.
4.17 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.18 ********** ********** ********** ********** **********S23
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********S23
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 62 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 4.19 Criminal Record Exchange across the EU
4.19.1 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959: 1991 - Present Day
The Convention was designed to allow the contracting parties to afford each other the widest measure of mutual assistance in proceedings in respect of offences, the punishment of which falls into the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities of the requesting parties. The UK signed up to the Convention on 21st June 1991 and it entered into force on 27th November 1991.
The Convention covers Letters Rogatory which means a mandate given by a judicial authority of one country to a foreign judicial authority to perform in its place one or more specified actions. This can be procuring evidence (i.e. the hearing of witnesses, experts or accused persons, serving of writs, summonses or searches and seizures).
In relation to the transmission of information Articles 13 and 22 allow for the exchange of information from judicial records. Article 13 allows a judicial authority to request information held in the judicial records of another contracting party when in connection with a criminal matter. Article 22 introduces the rule of automatic communication once a year of information from judicial records.
In practice the implementation of the system of exchanging this information was patchy across Europe. This was recognised by the EU, all of whose Member States were contracting parties to the Convention. In particular the case of Michel Fourniret56 highlighted the shortcomings of the exchange and contributed to the decision to create the EU Council Decision 2005/876/JHA on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record. This Council Decision did not replace the 1959 Convention but instead supplemented and facilitated the implementation of Articles 13 and 22.
In addition to EU Member States, there are 23 non-EU countries who signed up to the convention at various times. For a full list of non-EU countries signatory to the Convention, and the date their involvement entered into force, please see Appendix_F.
4.19.2 The EU Central Authority Network: 2006 - 2012
The EU Council Framework Decision 2005/876/JHA of 21st November 2005 on the exchange of criminal record information required EU Member States to designate a central authority responsible for the exchange of criminal record notifications and requests. This Decision did not replace the 1959 Convention but instead supplemented and facilitated the implementation of Articles 13 and 2257.
With regards to conviction notifications, the Decision requires Member States to inform each other of those criminal convictions and subsequent measures handed down against nationals of another Member State which are then entered into the criminal register of the relevant Member State. The Decision also allows Member
56 In 2008 Michel Fourniret, a French national, was convicted for the kidnap, rape and murder of seven girls in Belgium and France over a span of 20 years. This case highlighted a problem between the new freedom of movement across Member States for EU nationals and the lack of criminal information exchanged between Member States. 57 Source: Council Decision 2005/876/JHA.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 63 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT States to request criminal record information from each other for both criminal proceedings and other purposes.
The UK Central Authority was set up on 21st May 2006 in the ACRO and is titled the UK Central Authority for the Exchange of Criminal Records (UKCA-ECR).
Conviction notifications received by the UKCA-ECR are updated onto the PNC when the offence has an equivalent, recordable offence in England and Wales. Where the conviction notification relates to an individual from Scotland or Northern Ireland the respective criminal records systems of these jurisdictions are also updated. In addition, when conviction data of EU nationals is received as the result of a request the UKCA-ECR also updates the PNC with serious offences.
The ACRO performs additional functions not required by the 2005 Decision. This includes the referring of UK nationals convicted of sexual offences in the EU to a ViSOR Analyst within the Intelligence Unit for further management and investigation. The ViSOR Analyst performs a number a searches to determine the location of the person and if they are located in the UK they transfer ownership of the record to the local police force. If not, a marker is placed on the Home Office Warnings Index in order to alert staff at the border to capture particular information from the returning person. In addition, since 2010 ACRO actively disseminates any relevant intelligence emanating from criminal record exchange in the EU to police forces across the UK by means of intelligence logs to PPUs or FIBs.
4.19.3 Electronic Criminal Record Exchange: 2008 - 2012
In 2003 Germany and France agreed to establish a more intense cooperation between Central Authorities regarding the exchange of conviction information and aimed to interconnect their criminal registers. This became know as the Network of Judicial Registers (NJR). Spain and Belgium joined the working group before the end of 2004 and by 2008 the pilot project consisted of 14 Member States including the UK58.
Council Decision 2009/316/JHA of 6th April 2009 on the establishment of the European Criminal Record Information System (ECRIS, replacing the NJR) in application of Article 11 of the Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA introduced a decentralised IT system based on the criminal record databases in each Member State’s ECRIS59.
The purpose is to enable an electronic exchange of information on criminal convictions between the network of Central Authorities in a uniform and easily computer transferable manner60.
The UKCA-ECR has implemented ECRIS and is connected to 13 countries through this channel (correct as of 30th November 2012). Messages which were previously
58 Source: ‘Towards the Creation of a European Criminal Record’ – Francoise-Xavier Roux-Demare (2012). 59 Source: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/judicial_cooperation_in_criminal_mat ters/jl0023_en.htm. 60 Source: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/judicial_cooperation_in_criminal_mat ters/jl0023_en.htm.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 64 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT sent via post, fax and email are now sent through ECRIS using common fields, formats and codes. All Member States will be connected through ECRIS by 2013.
4.19.4 EU Criminal Record Exchange: Differences in Approach
Across the EU criminal records are managed in varying ways, and by various organisations or agencies. At Appendix E there is a table of the responses given by each EU Member State to a questionnaire issued by the ECRIS Support Programme (ESP). This details how criminal records are currently managed and stored and who has access.
In the UK the police own criminal conviction information and store it on the Home Office owned PNC. As such any convictions that are handed down to UK nationals in the EU are sent to the police in the UK. ACRO then update the PNC where there is an equivalent offence in England and Wales. Since Scotland and Northern Ireland also have their own criminal registers, these convictions are forwarded to those jurisdictions if the subject has a link through either place of birth or address.
The police in the UK have full access to the entire contents of a person’s criminal record held on the PNC. When this information is provided to other authorised authorities such as the courts, prosecutors or defence the contents can vary slightly depending on what can legitimately be disclosed to them. The Police are responsible for investigating crime in the UK and therefore require access to full information.
Within the EU it is only in the UK, Sweden and Malta where the police manage and have full access to criminal records, intelligence and forensic information databases. In all other Member States criminal record information is managed and stored within either the Ministry of Justice or Ministry of Interior of the respective Member State. In these Member States there is no automatic access to this information by the police. Therefore, it is only in those countries where the Central Authority is managed by the police and in all other countries the Central Authorities are managed by a government central administration unit.
For example, in France only judicial authorities have full access to the records61 meaning that when the UK sends a conviction notification for a French national to the Central Authority in France, the Police will not be aware of this unless they have been notified via another route such as INTERPOL. This is most concerning in cases of convictions for sexual offences.
Other countries in the EU also have differences in their retention period of criminal records. These vary depending on the nature of the offence; the sentences passed; and repeat offending after the fact. For example, in Portugal the weeding rules are extremely strict, meaning that the longest a murder conviction will be retained for is ten years after the expiry of the imposed sanction, providing there was no other conviction for another crime62.
The Framework Decision that covers the exchange of criminal records remains silent on how long exchanged conviction information should be retained for, meaning that Member States can apply their own retention rules. Many Member States update conviction notifications once a conviction has been deleted in their
61 Source: ESP Documentation: Questionnaire to EU Member States, 2012. 62 Source: ESP Documentation: EU Member States National Procedures Regarding the Retention of Criminal Record Information, 2012.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 65 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT criminal record, this means that although the conviction can still be used in the country which holds it, it cannot be retransmitted when a request is made from a different Member State63.
4.20 Intelligence Exchange
4.20.1 ********** ********** ********** ********** **********S23
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.20.2 Travelling Sex Offenders
Sex Offenders who are subject to a UK Notification Order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 are legally required to advise UK Police if they intend to travel abroad. Officers must make an assessment on the risk posed by the offender and decide whether a notification to the destination country is required due to a possible risk to the public. The assessment must consider the subject’s offending history and possible opportunities for re-offending in the destination country. Some countries are deemed more vulnerable such as Thailand and Sri Lanka.
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********S23
4.20.3 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **********
63 Source: Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 66 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.21 Additional Systems of Exchange
4.21.1 Notifications to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
UK nationals are encouraged to contact the British Embassy, High Commission or Consulate if they have been arrested overseas. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) can provide consular assistance to the person and monitor their welfare whilst in detention abroad. As a result of this the FCO holds information on the allegations, offences or convictions concerning the particular UK national. Whilst the consulate would not normally pass on information about a case to third parties without the subject’s consent, if they have been arrested for certain serious offences, such as child sex abuse or drugs crimes, they will inform other relevant UK authorities64.
********** ********** ********** ********** S23, but since the spring of 2012 these have been received by the ACRO. It is not known how long the practice of notifications to the FCO has been running.
64 Source: FCO Publication: In Prison Abroad, September 2012.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 67 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
4.21.2 Swedish Initiative: 2008 - Present Day
Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18th December 2006 on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union.
LEAs in Member States now have the ability to make a request to another Member State for the purpose of detection, prevention or investigation of an offence and where there are factual reasons to believe that relevant information is available in the requested Member State. Member States must state the factual reason, explain the purpose and detail the connection between the subject and the purpose.
The following UK LEAs have the authority to make requests under the initiative:
All Police Forces in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland ********** S23 HMRC UKBA Serious Fraud Office SCDEA
4.21.3 Prüm Decision
Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23rd June 2008 on stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime.
The provisions in this Decision mainly concern the automated exchange of information with regard to major events and for the purpose of fighting terrorism, as well as regarding other forms of cross-border police cooperation.
In particular the Decision allows for automated searches of national DNA databases, Fingerprint Databases and Vehicle Databases. It establishes a process whereby a request is sent to a Member State with details of a DNA profile, fingerprint(s) (or dactyloscopic data) or a vehicle chassis or registration. Searches are conducted automatically and responses returned on a hit/no hit basis. The requesting Member State can then obtain further information using existing channels of communication such as the Swedish Initiative.
The UK has yet to implement the specifics of this Decision but work is ongoing.
4.21.4 Crime (International Cooperation) Act 2003
This Act makes provision for furthering cooperation with other countries in respect of criminal proceedings and investigations, to extend jurisdiction to deal with terrorist acts or threats outside the UK. Section 7 makes provisions for the UK to submit an International Letter of Request (ILOR) or commission rogatoire, which is a written request from one judicial authority to another. It is used to obtain evidential material from other jurisdictions and to request enquiries which cannot be made on a police to police basis.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 68 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT In countries using the Napoleonic Code65 of justice, national letters of request are exchanged between prosecutors and examining magistrates seeking enquiries outside their own area of jurisdiction. ILORs are also received by the UK authorities to assist with criminal investigations abroad66.
An ILOR may only be issued by a designated authority, a full list of authorities that have been designated can be found at Appendix G67.
ILORs made to the UK from other countries will be directed to the UKCA-Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (UKCA-MLA) unless they are urgent in which case they will be directed ********** S23 and forwarded to the UKCA-MLA for action.
A list of Multi-lateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties that the UK is party to can be found at Appendix H; and a list of countries and territories the UK has bi-lateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties with can be found at Appendix I.
4.21.5 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties that allow for the Exchange of Official Records
Whilst exchange of information is a natural and unavoidable by-product of MLATs, some treaties explicitly permit an exchange of official records or documents and this could include criminal record information. Information is provided on a discretionary basis, often in accordance with the country’s domestic law. The following bi-lateral treaties explicitly allow this exchange.
Country Article for exchange of official records Algeria Article 11 Brazil Article 11 Canada (DT) Article 15 USA Article 9 China Article 13 Libya Article 11 Malaysia Article 10 Philippines Article 11 Thailand Article 9 UAE Article 10 Vietnam Article 13 (DT) refers to a drug trafficking MLA Treaty
4.22 Extradition Warrants
4.22.1 Extradition Act 1989
65 The Napoleonic Code was established in France in 1804 under the rule of Napoleon. It was adopted in a number of countries that were occupied by France during the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) and continues to influence the legal systems of Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Spain. 66 Source: Council Act of 29th May 2000: 2000/C 197/01. 67 Source: Home Office Guidelines: Requests for Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters 10th Edition 2012.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 69 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT The Extradition Act 1989 consolidated the extradition regimes previously contained in the Extradition Acts 1870 to 1935 and the Fugitives Offender Act 1967, all of which were repealed.
The aim was firstly to provide a uniform procedure for extradition to foreign states and Commonwealth countries which had previously been the subject of two distinct statutory regimes; and secondly to facilitate adherence by the UK to the European Convention on Extradition.
4.22.2 European Convention on Extradition 1959: 1991 - Present Day
The convention was intended to simplify extradition procedures between countries in Western Europe and was ratified by the UK in 1991. The objective was acceptance by the parties of uniform rules with regards to extradition, with the aim of achieving greater unity between member states of the Council of Europe.
Article 1 contains an obligation to extradite with extraditable offences defined in Article 2, those punishable in both states by a custodial sentence for a maximum period of at least 1 year and in conviction cases where a custodial sentence of at least four months has been passed.
Whilst the rules concerning extradition between EU Member States was replaced with Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, this Convention still applies to those signatory countries from outside of the EU and is now covered by the Extradition Act 2003 under part 2 Requests.
The UK has a number of bilateral extradition treaties in place with individual countries which are not covered by any of the multilateral agreements.
4.22.3 Extradition Act 2003
Part 1 Requests – European Arrest Warrants: 2004 - Present Day
The EAW and surrender procedures are provided for in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13th June 2002. See Appendix J for a full list of Category 1 territories under Part 1 of the Act. The Framework defines the EAW as any judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest or surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purpose of:
conducting a criminal prosecution; executing a custodial sentence; executing a detention order.
It requires member States to recognise, ipso facto, and with minimum of formalities, requests for the surrender of a person made by a judicial authority.
An EAW only applies where a final sentence has been passed of imprisonment or detention for a period of at least 4 months or for offences which are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment or detention for a period of at least one year.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 70 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT EAWs contain, inter alia, information regarding the identity of the individual, the decision on which the warrant is based, indications on the length of sentence, details of the offence(s) and the judicial authority issuing the warrant.
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.22.4 Part 2 Requests
The Extradition Act contains simplified procedures for extraditions between the UK and category 2 territories. See Appendix K for a full list of Category 2 territories under Part 2 of the Act. These territories are either members of the European Convention on Extradition, the London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth or have bilateral agreements with the UK.
Requests for extradition from category 2 countries are made to the Secretary of State who will, if the request is valid, issue a certificate and send the request to the court. Information provided generally includes the particulars of the person, the offence(s) of which they are accused or were convicted, an authenticated copy of an arrest warrant or conviction certificate (including sentence) and evidence or information justifying the issue of an arrest warrant in the UK.
The Home Office Judicial Cooperation unit coordinates part 2 requests and the Extradition Unit in the Metropolitan Police Service executes the warrant.
4.22.5 Part 3 Requests
UK forces seeking fugitives abroad must liaise with the CPS in order to make an application to an appropriate judge for a Part 3 warrant. A domestic warrant must already be in place for the person, the offence must be an extradition offence and either the person has been sentenced to at least 4 months detention or the prosecution believe there is a realist prospect of conviction base don the evidence available and it is in the public interest to prosecute.
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** **** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.22.6 Repatriation of Prisoners in the EU: 2011 - Present
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 71 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT The Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27th November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgement in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the EU.
This Framework sets out the rules whereby judgements that impose custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty delivered in one Member State are to be recognised and enforced in another Member State68.
This Framework permits the transmission of conviction and sentence information between EU Member States, this information should also be transmitted via the previously discussed Council Framework 2009/315/JHA.
4.23 Foreign Representatives in the UK
Across the UK and posted in various different agencies there are Foreign Liaison Officers. Normally officers seconded in from similar organisations in their own countries, they are posted in the UK to improve relations, share or learn best practice or provide direct connections where there may be a particular requirement.
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.24 Repatriation of Prisoners
UK prisoners overseas can also apply to be repatriated to the UK to serve the remainder of their custodial sentence. Part of the process involves the transfer of conviction details to the UK. Currently the details are received by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) of the Ministry of Justice and are passed to ACRO for updating on the PNC. ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
4.25 Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons 1983
The UK also signed up to the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons in 1983 and it entered into force in 1985. This is a multi-lateral agreement with 62 other countries, including the current 26 other EU Member States69. A full list of the countries that have ratified the European Convention can be found at Appendix L. There is also the Scheme for the Transfer of Convicted Offenders within the commonwealth which the UK is party to.
In the reverse when a foreign prisoner is transferred out of the UK the details of their offending is usually sent with them to the country they are returning to.
4.26 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code C, Annex F: 2003 - Present Day
Under Code C, Annex F of PACE a list of countries is provided for which the UK has bilateral consular conventions or agreements with that require the notification of arrests and detentions of one of their nationals.
68 Source: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/judicial_cooperation_in_criminal_mat ters/jl0016_en.htm. 69 Source: Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. Strasbourg, 21.III.1983.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 72 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
This involves a notification to the relevant embassy but in practice it is not fully conformed to. A full list of these countries can be found in Appendix N.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 73 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
5 Child Abuse Investigations
Terms of Reference: Question 4
Provide a summary of the development of child abuse investigations and processes.
5.1 Introduction
Since the improvements in the way that victims and witnesses are supported by authorities, reports to the police of sexual assault have more than doubled over the last 20 years.
Research statistics on the prevalence of child sexual abuse have identified that nearly a quarter of young adults (24.1%) experienced sexual abuse in 2010/11 (including contact and non-contact), by an adult or by a peer during childhood. One in six children aged 11-17 (16.5%) have experienced sexual abuse70.
Crime statistics on sex offences have identified that 17,727 sexual crimes against children under 16 were recorded in England and Wales in 2010/11. A total of 32% of all sexual crimes (54,982 sexual crimes in total) recorded in England and Wales in 2010/11 were sexual crimes against children under 16.
The number of people convicted of sex offences on children aged under 16 in England and Wales has increased by nearly 60% in six years. This rise has been attributed to better detection and raised awareness.71
5.2 Child Protection and Safeguarding the Early Years
5.2.1 After the First World War, the first paid women officers were employed by the Metropolitan Police, with Home Office approval, in special Women Police Patrols. Small numbers of police women continued to be employed at the discretion of local police authorities, mainly in separate departments and primarily undertook duties concerning women and children. By 1971 the proportion of women within the police service was still less than four per cent of the total number of police officers and women were largely confined to duties involving female offenders, child neglect and other family matters72.
5.2.2 During this time the role of the criminal investigator had traditionally been viewed as a ‘craft’, which was passed down from practitioner to practitioner. Whilst it was acknowledged that investigators required knowledge and skill, there existed local variations in the practical application of this. A lack of investigator training, accreditation or evaluation, prevented the standardisation of good investigatory practice and the evaluation of performance. The resourcing of the CID as we know today was limited, due to the adoption of the principle of the ‘omni-competent’ constable, in which it was perceived that each officer could undertake an investigation using the skill of ‘common sense’.73
70 Source: NSPCC: Crime in England and Wales 2010 / 11, findings from the British Crime Survey and Police Recorded Crime. 71 Source: A BBC Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Justice. 72 Source: Policing Sexual Assault by Jeanne Gregory and Sue Lees 1999. 73 Source: Stelfox, 2009. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 74 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 5.2.3 During the 1960s and up to the early 1980s sexual offences throughout the UK were significantly under reported as they are today. Child sexual abuse was considered to be a rare phenomenon. It was associated in most people’s minds with families which were grossly deprived and of low intelligence, often living in isolated communities and was further impacted by the public culture of the time which saw the lack of public education and police training regarding child protection and abuse74.
5.2.4 While such behaviour was illegal and seen as unacceptable, little attention was paid to its impact on the child or young person and a view prevailed at the time that it was probably best left alone. In the 1980s the definition of abuse had broadened to incorporate all sexual activities between adults and children80.
5.2.5 Research conducted in 1983 found that often the police failed to take the reporting of rape and sexual offences seriously. The police reportedly regularly ignored and failed to record reports of rape. Embarrassed and traumatised victims were put through intrusive questioning and medical examinations and it was often alleged that victims were making false allegations.75
5.2.6 This behaviour was highlighted in a TV documentary produced by Roger Graef on ITV in 1983 that carried out a fly-on-the-wall observation of the practices of the Thames Valley Police. One of the cases observed was the insensitive way a male police officer interviewed a young woman rape victim. Public reaction to the programme was one of considerable outrage and prompted a rethink of the way in which rape victims should be treated by investigating authorities80.
5.2.7 At this time prior to the introduction of new investigation techniques in the 1990s (importantly forensic examination), in addition to victim testimony, the police relied heavily on the existence of corroborative evidence from witnesses. This often presented the challenge that the weight of evidence was not substantial enough to pursue a charge against the alleged offender.
5.2.8 In the mid 1980s, the Metropolitan Police Service, in conjunction with Bexley Social Services Department, carried out a piece of action research pioneering joint investigations of child abuse allegations which acted as something of a blueprint for such investigations (particularly after Cleveland)80.
5.2.9 Two major public inquiries at Cleveland and the Orkneys took place largely as a result of public disquiet and uncertainty about the investigation of child sexual abuse cases80.
5.2.10 Cleveland Inquiry 1987
“In Cleveland there was a clash between professionals who were at different stages in thinking about child sexual abuse. The health and social work professionals were at the ‘informed’, heightened awareness end of the continuum, while the police and police surgeons were at the other end.
The Cleveland Report maintained a degree of neutrality between the progressives and the traditionalists by criticising both sets of professionals equally, particularly for their failure to come to some form of compromise and work together.
74 Source: Managing Child Sexual Abuse Cases by Brian Corby 1998. 75 Source: Chambers and Miller, 1983. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 75 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT The medical tests were seen as unreliable on their own; the interventive practices of social workers (which entailed a series of lengthy interview sessions with children to enable them to disclose abuse) were seen as oppressive; and there was criticism of the practice of automatically removing children suspected of being abused into emergency care.” 82
5.2.11 What Cleveland specifically recommended was that there should be joint training for police and social workers for carrying out investigations, and that in future most investigations should be carried out jointly. Also recommended is the need for more focused and less protected interviewing of children and the need to find alternatives to removing from home, children suspected of being sexually abused unless absolutely necessary. It emphasised the need to consult with both children and parents about courses of action. The overall message from Cleveland was that there was a need for a more careful, controlled and coordinated approach to the issue of child sexual abuse.76
5.2.12 Events in Cleveland also ensured government intervention and a more concerted effort to develop a top-led strategy in respect of child sexual abuse and the need to make sexual abuse an official category for child protection registration although it was clearly grounds for care proceedings (Children and Young Persons Act 1969) 82.
5.2.13 Although what happened in Cleveland and the publication of the ensuing report were key events in shaping child sexual abuse interventions in the late 1980s and early 1990s, other developments also contributed, two of which are particularly worthy of mention. First, new child care legislation had been in the offing since the findings of the Short Report in 1984 (House of Commons 1984), the final outcome of which was the Children Act 1989. This legislation emphasised children’s rights and parental responsibilities, reflecting some of the concerns raised in the Cleveland Report. Another important strand of development was work promoted by the Home Office with regard to the criminal law, the prosecution of sexual abuse offenders and the status of the evidence of children82.
5.2.14 In the period after Cleveland, the following key developments in relation to the investigation and management of child sexual abuse allegations took place82.
In 1988 ‘Working Together’ guidelines published by the Department of Health and Social Security were circulated. The main features of these guidelines were:
o that sexual abuse should be a separate registration category; o that parents (and children, where age appropriate) should be invited to attend child protection conferences, either in part or throughout; o that there should be joint interviews (by police and social workers) of children about whom there were serious child protection concerns; and o that medical examinations should be subject to the child’s consent where she / he was considered of sufficient age and understanding, and that they should be carried out jointly by child physicians and forensic doctors.
With regard to police / social worker joint interviewing, a 1988 Home Office circular advised Chief Officers to discuss joint training initiatives with directors of social services (Home Office 1988) 82.
76 Source: Managing Child Sexual Abuse Cases by Brian Corby 1998. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 76 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT The Criminal Justice Act 1988 made it possible for children to be cross- examined in court by video-link rather than have to face the accused directly. It also made changes to the corroboration rules, enabling a child’s testimony to be legally acceptable without corroborating evidence (i.e. to have the same weight as that of an adult). However, trial judges were required to warn juries that it would be dangerous to convict on the evidence of the complainant alone. The need for such a warning was not finally removed until the passing of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act77.
In 1991 Working Together guidelines, issued by the Department of Health, were issued to accompany the implementation of the Children Act 1989. These further emphasised the need to listen to children and involve parents. Local authorities were encouraged to find (and enabled to defray the expenses of) accommodation for alleged interfamilial abusers. Police were also encouraged to use new powers under the 1991 Criminal Justice Act to impose bail conditions on alleged abusers to keep them away from their alleged victims. The intention of both these measures was, in the wake of Cleveland and later inquires (see below), to protect abused children with the minimum possible disruption to their lives83.
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 made it lawful to use investigative videos as evidence-in-chief in criminal trials of alleged child sex abusers. In 1992 the Memorandum of Good Practice was issued by the Home Office, detailing the conduct and content of such videos in order to meet the requirements of the courts (Home Office 1992). The main features of this Memorandum are the demands for high technical standards of videoing and stringent rules about acceptable forms of questioning and about the length and number of interviews. The Advisory Group on Video Evidence, chaired by Justice Pigot and set up by the Home Office (Home Office 1989), had recommended that ways be found to avoid full cross-examination of children in court about the evidence given on video. Their proposals were rejected on the grounds that they impinged too heavily on the rights of defendants83.
5.2.15 In the early 1990s there were further significant child abuse investigations into cases where organised or ritual abuse was suspected in Rochdale, Manchester, Nottingham and the Orkneys. The concerns in all these cases were not about a lack of inter-agency cooperation, as was true in Cleveland. Rather, the issue was the precipitateness of the action taken by child protection professionals without properly informing parents of concerns and without due consideration of the needs and wishes of the children involved83.
5.2.16 Orkney Inquiry78 In 1991 the removal of children from families following allegations of child abuse in Orkney and the subsequent inquiry significantly shaped child abuse investigations. On the 27th February 1991 nine children from four families living on the island of South Ronaldsay were removed on Place of Safety Orders following allegations of child abuse. The children denied that any abuse had occurred, and medical examinations did not reveal any evidence of abuse.
77 Source: Managing Child Sexual Abuse Cases by Brian Corby 1998. 78 Source: Inquiry into the Removal of Children from Orkney in February 1991 (1992). Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 77 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 5.2.17 The children were returned home on 4th April 1991 when the Sheriff Court ruled that the proceedings were incompetent, a ruling which was overturned on appeal but, by this time, the public outcry had been such that the government had set up the Orkney Inquiry into the removal of the children79.
Key points of the Orkney Inquiry were85:
Staff had acted in good faith. Children of the W family living on South Ronaldsay, among which there was a history of abuse, had been removed to the mainland where they were interviewed by the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (RSSPCC). In February 1991 allegations of abuse involving children in other families, which were later retracted, were made by the W children. On 14th February the Police and Social Work Department agreed to a joint operation to remove the children from the other families on 27th February and the Director of Social Work sought the help of other social work departments. At the final briefings it became clear that the Police did not regard the evidence as sufficient to arrest any of the parents and the mainland social workers brought in for the operation expressed strong reservations about it before eventually agreeing to go along with it. The Children’s Panel failed to carry out its obligations to inform the parents and the children about the Hearings and the child abuse case conference was held without inviting the parents. No support was provided to the parents and mail for the children was not passed on. There were significant flaws in the procedural steps to taking out the Place of Safety Orders. Planning for the removal had been generally good but there had been failures in almost all other aspects of the operation which were compounded by communication failures and failures to recognise and use the expertise of the mainland social workers. The Social Work Department, the Northern Constabulary and the Acting Reporter all failed to carry out their legal obligations and there was bad practice by the Children’s Panel. There were numerous breaches of the rights of the children and of their parents. The management of the placements by Highland Social Work Department had been efficient and effective but the management of the placements by Strathclyde Social Work Department had not been. The management of the interviews by the RSSPCC and the Northern Constabulary had been unsatisfactory, not least because there had been no joint approach, interviewers had not kept an open mind and the interviewers lacked training in evidential standards and in dealing with denials and retractions. The return of the children had been too precipitate. Some of the behaviour of the parents had been unreasonable.
79 Source: Inquiry into the Removal of Children from Orkney in February 1991 (1992). Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 78 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Greater care in the use of labels, in maintaining the balance between unnecessary intervention and failing to intervene, in keeping an open mind and in co-operating with parents and other agencies is needed. Local and national guidelines need to be revised to take account of the issues raised by the inquiry. Removal of a child should only take place after all other options have been explored and found to be inadequate. A new Interim Protection Order should be introduced to cover situations where further investigation is needed but it is not necessary to remove the child. As far as possible siblings should not be separated and parents should have access or the means to communicate with their children. The criticism was directed at the social workers even though this was a joint police / social work operation.
5.3 Improvements in Child Protection and Safeguarding: 2000 to 2012
5.3.1 Since 2000 there has been significant stakeholder engagement to improve the way that all relevant authorities manage child protection investigations. This has resulted in the publication of a number of reports and guidance including:
2002 and 2006 Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and HMIC published a joint review of the investigation and prosecution of rape offences. 2002 Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. 2004 the CPS published a Policy for Prosecuting Cases of Rape. 2005 Centrex and ACPO issued guidance on Investigating Serious Sexual Offences. 2005 Centrex and ACPO published guidance on Investigating Child Abuse and Safeguarding Children 2006 the Home Secretary issued The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (the victim’ code). 2007 HMIC report Without Consent. 2007 the second edition of Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. 2009 the second edition of Investigating Child Abuse and Safeguarding Children 2010 Working Together to Safeguard Children. 2011 the third edition of Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings.
5.3.2 The publication of the Every Child Matters Green Paper in 2003 alongside the formal response to the Inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié, and followed by the Children Act 2004, set out ‘being safe’ as one of five important outcomes for children and young people.
In this context, three key provisions were80:
the creation of Children’s Trusts under the duty to co-operate; the setting up of Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs); and
80 Source: Children Act 2004. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 79 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT the duty on all agencies to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
5.3.3 The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a number of new offences and penalties to deal with those who abuse and exploit children (up to age 18) through prostitution. These new offences include: causing or inciting child prostitution; controlling a child prostitute; arrange or facilitating child prostitution; and paying for the sexual services of a child. The police service now regard children and young adults who put themselves into prostitution as victims rather than individuals who have committed an offence81.
5.4 Introduction of Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs)
5.4.1 Change in the way police deal with rape and sexual assault over the last two decades (1990 -2012) may have contributed to the dramatic increase in reported cases. Victims are treated now in a more caring manner by police officers, who are specially trained in how to sensitively interview and gain information from victims of rape and child sexual abuse. The environment for victim disclosure has also improved with the establishment of Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs).
5.4.2 SARCs are regarded as 'best practice' for dealing with victim care following sexual assaults. The fundamental purpose of the SARC is to ensure the best possible care of the victim to minimise the risk of physical, psychological or emotional problems and to promote recovery. SARCs are also used for medical / forensic examinations so that evidence can be collected for use in the investigation of crimes82.
5.5 Public Protection Departments or Child Protection Units
5.5.1 Sexual assault by strangers is usually dealt with by CID, whereas sexual assault within the home by parents and relatives or partners and ex-partners is first investigated by police Child Protection Units (CPUs) or Domestic Violence Units (DVUs), respectively. In some police forces, the domestic violence units are part of Community Safety Units which also tackle racist and hate crime. In other police forces, they are housed with CPU to form Family Protection Units87.
5.5.2 It is commonly accepted that child sexual abuse is a complex problem that requires the efforts and coordination of multiple agencies and disciplines. Within this context, police officers interact with a variety of professionals and agencies during the investigation process87.
5.5.3 Allegations involving an adult victim are always investigated when the victim discloses, to the police, details of a sexual assault or rape. But it is at the discretion of the police to make enquiries following a third party allegation, if the victim is not cooperative. In cases of child sexual abuse, social services and the police have a statutory duty to jointly investigate all allegations, regardless of a testimony from the child87.
5.5.4 Corroboration of the victim’s statement can be helped by descriptions and documentation from a variety of sources87.
81 Source: Assessment and Treatment of Sex Offenders by Anthony R Beech, Leam A Craig and Kevin D Browne 2009. 82 Source: Hampshire Constabulary PPD. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 80 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT The victim’s patterns of behaviour, especially symptoms as a consequence of child sexual abuse. The offender’s patterns of behaviour. Statements by other victims and adult witnesses and suspects. Medical and physical evidence. The presence of child pornography and erotic material relating to children, that serves a sexual purpose for a given individual, which may sometimes be found in scrapbooks of magazine cuttings and photographs or on computers and videotapes.
5.5.5 Where there is a probability that a child may suffer ‘significant harm’, the provisions of the Children Act (1989-2004) allow the police, health and social services to remove a child (a person under 18 years of age) to a place of safety for their protection and well-being. In addition, the police and social services have a duty to investigate in all cases where a violent or sex crime involving a child is suspected83.
5.5.6 The first edition of ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’ published in 1999 set out in detailed guidance how all agencies and professionals should work together to promote children’s welfare and protect them from abuse and neglect. This guidance placed responsibility for the first time on agencies and professionals to notify the police as soon as possible where a criminal offence has been committed, or is suspected of having been committed, against a child. Prior to 1999 there was no such responsibility on agencies or other professionals to report criminal offences to the police84.
5.5.7 The police or social services may be the first statutory agency to receive the referral but information is then shared between them. The division of responsibility is that social services are ultimately responsible for child-care decisions whilst the police are responsible for criminal issues and proceedings89.
5.5.8 Under the auspices of LSCBs (formally Area Child Protection Committees), who lay down multi-disciplinary procedures at a local level, Child Protection Case Conferences are held. These conferences aim to make informed decisions about what actions are needed to safeguard the child in question and to promote his or her welfare. Those representatives attending the Case Conference, who may be social workers, heath professionals, teachers, police officers, local authority lawyers, parents and substitute carers, formulate proposals for a Care Plan and whether the child should be placed on the Child Protection Register. In doing so they may ask a court to issue a Child Assessment Order or an Exclusion Order (for the alleged offender)89.
5.6 Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) 200089
5.6.1 MAPPA’s have been set up across 42 areas of England and Wales in line with the police services, following the implementation of measures contained in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 to protect the public from harm. Three categories of offender fall under MAPPA:
83 Source: Assessment and Treatment of Sex Offenders by Anthony R Beech, Leam A Craig and Kevin D Browne 2009. 84 Source: dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4075824.p df Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 81 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Those who have committed violent and sexual offences; those offenders who are listed on the Sex Offenders Register; and other subjects considered by the police and probation services to pose a serious risk to the public and others.
5.6.2 For the most dangerous offenders, other measures were included such as new sentences to prevent their release from secure environments if they remain a risk of harming others or themselves (Crime Sentences Act 1998).
5.6.3 The core of the MAPPA is the Joint Public Protection Unit run by the probation and police service in each area. This ‘responsible authority’ coordinates information and intelligence gathering activities to ensure the effective monitoring and supervision of high risk violent and / or sexual offenders, who were approximately 6% of those convicted of violent and sexual crimes throughout England and Wales (‘the critical few’). Furthermore, the public protection unit has a ‘duty to cooperate’ with a wide range of organisations and agencies associated with education, health, housing, job centres, prisons, social services and youth offending teams to ensure that high-risk offenders are managed appropriately in the community. In order to facilitate this, Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels meet on a regular basis with a broad range of representatives from the cooperating agencies with specific management tasks.
5.6.4 Risk assessments by police and probation services can direct decisions about the management of offenders and those who should be prioritised for tracking, surveillance or supervision.
5.6.5 Guidelines for the implementation of The Sex Offender Act 1997 from the Home Office (HOC 39/1997) recommended that a number of risk factors be considered for offenders reviewed by inter-agency meetings and developed a risk assessment approach to the targeting of known sex offenders. The UK National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has standardised the Offender Assessment System for adult offenders.
5.6.6 Multi-Agency Public Protection Panels are chaired by a senior member of the police service and provide a forum for risk assessment of offenders who have been put on probation and/or just released from prison, and for agencies to share information in order to assess and manage the risk posed by registered sex offenders and other offenders who are considered to be potentially dangerous85.
5.7 Child Sex Offenders Disclosure Scheme 200886
5.7.1 Started in 2008, the child sex offender disclosure scheme was developed in consultation with Sara Payne, the former victim’s champion, along with the police and children’s charities.
5.7.2 The Scheme enables parents, guardians and third parties to enquire whether a person who has access to a child, is a registered sex offender, or poses a risk to that child. Consideration will also be given to disclosing information about a person who poses a risk to a vulnerable adult(s).
85 Source: Assessment and Treatment of Sex Offenders by Anthony R Beech, Leam A Craig and Kevin D Browne. 86 Source: Hampshire Constabulary Intranet – The Child Sex Offenders Disclosure Scheme, 25th July 2012. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 82 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 5.7.3 The Child Sex Offenders Disclosure Scheme originates from the Child Sex Offenders Disclosure Pilot, which was introduced by the Home Office in September 2008. The scheme was rolled out across all Forces in 2011.
5.8 Lord Laming’s Progress Report87
5.8.1 Lord Laming’s progress report, The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report, made 58 recommendations relating to:
leadership and accountability; support for children; inter-agency working; children’s workforce; improvement and challenge; organisation and finance; and the legal framework.
The Government’s detailed response to Lord Laming’s recommendations was published in May 2009. A total of 23 of these recommendations have been addressed by the revised guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’.
5.9 Charity Involvement in Child Safeguarding in 2012
5.9.1 There are a number of child sexual abuse prevention campaigns which aim to increase public awareness of how to prevent abuse and reach people concerned about their own thoughts or behaviour or those of someone they know. Some of these campaigns are charity based and some led by Governments Departments. They draw on expert knowledge about child sexual abuse and offer a broad range of services for children, professionals and members of the public. There are now over 400 UK-based organisations concerned with child protection88.
5.10 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23
5.11 Inter-Agency Working to Safeguard Children93
5.11.1 Working Together to Safeguard Children 2010 is the current guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
5.11.2 The guidance sets out how organisations and individuals working in child protection should work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people in accordance with the Children Act 1989 and the Children Act 2004. This guidance highlights the importance that all practitioners working to safeguard
87 Source: HM Government – Working Together to Safeguard Children, March 2010. 88 Source: www.charitychoice.co.uk Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 83 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT children and young people understand fully their responsibilities and duties as set out in primary legislation and associated regulations and guidance.
The guidance is set out in 12 chapters:
Chapter 1 – Introduction: working together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and families; Chapter 2 – Roles and responsibilities; Chapter 3 – Local Safeguarding Children Boards; Chapter 4 – Training, development and supervision for inter-agency working; Chapter 5 – Managing individual cases where there are concerns about a child’s safety and welfare; Chapter 6 – Supplementary guidance on safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children; Chapter 7 – Child death review processes; Chapter 8 – Serious case reviews; Chapter 9 – Lessons from research; Chapter 10 – Implementing the principles on working with children and their families; Chapter 11 – Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children who may be particularly vulnerable; and Chapter 12 – Managing individuals who pose a risk of harm to children.
5.11.3 The guidance highlights that the police have a key role in safeguarding children. They recognise the fundamental importance of inter-agency working in combating child abuse, as illustrated by well established arrangements for joint training involving police and social work colleagues. All Forces have child abuse investigation units and while they normally take responsibility for investigating such cases, safeguarding children is a fundamental part of the duties of all police officers.
5.11.4 The scope of the LSCB (introduced in the Working Together to Safeguard Children 2010) role falls into three categories:
Firstly, they engage in activities that safeguard all children and aim to identify and prevent maltreatment, or impairment of health or development, and to ensure that children are growing up in circumstances consistent with safe and effective care; Secondly, they lead and co-ordinate proactive work that aims to target particular groups; and Thirdly, they lead and co-ordinate arrangements for responsive work to protect children who are suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm.
5.12 Police Training89
5.12.1 PIP was developed in 2000 and is jointly sponsored by ACPO / NPIA, designed to, 'Improve the professional competence of all police officers and staff who are tasked with conducting investigations'.
89 Source: Assessment and Treatment of Sex Offenders by Anthony R Beech, Leam A Craig and Kevin D Browne 2009. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 84 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 5.12.2 PIP is aimed at police officers and staff whose role involves them conducting or managing investigations, conducting interviews with victims and witnesses, and interviewing suspects.
5.12.3 The development and maintenance of investigative skills is at the heart of the programme.
‘PIP enhances the capability of staff to conduct professional investigations at all levels within the Police Service and in other sectors or [sic] Law Enforcement. It is not just about delivering training to staff who are about to enter the service or start in a new investigative role. It will encompass investigators of all ranks ensuring that they remain competent to practice throughout their service through registration of their skills and competency at both National and local levels and ensure continued professional development through PDR’.90
5.12.4 The aim of PIP is to develop professional investigators at 4 levels, who will be able to conduct investigations to a national standard based on recognised good practice.
5.12.5 Levels of investigation have been identified based on investigative activities. The following PIP training courses are specifically tailored to the investigation of sexual offences and child abuse.
5.12.6 PIP Level 1 Specialist Sexual Offences - Specially Trained Officer Development Programme.
5.12.7 This programme sets out the performance related outcomes for practitioners selected to:
Provide an initial response in serious sexual offence allegations. Co-ordinate forensic retrieval from the medical examination. Conduct interviews with sexual offences complainants; and Co-ordinate support for sexual offence complainants.
5.12.8 PIP Level 2 Specialist Child Abuse Investigator Development Programme (SCAIDP) (introduced in 2007 and now accompanied by accreditation and registration by the College of Policing as a ‘Child Abuse Investigator’)
5.12.9 The aim of the programme is to achieve, develop and maintain professional competence and registration as a child abuse investigator.
Students will be able to:
Plan and conduct allocated child abuse investigations. Demonstrate co-operative working practice with other agencies, partnerships and communities within safeguarding children procedures. Plan, conduct and evaluate interviews of child victims and witnesses in accordance with tier 3 of the ACPO National Investigative Interviewing Strategy. Plan, conduct and evaluate investigative into serious or complex allegations of child abuse. Supervise referrals of child abuse, child abuse investigations and child abuse investigation staff (Supervisors Only).
90 Source: NPIA Professionalising Investigation Programme Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 85 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
5.12.10 Since 2011 the NPIA have held a national register of Professional Child Abuse Investigators who are available to provide guidance to staff conducting child abuse investigations.
5.12.11 Each Force has a training programme for their staff involved in child abuse, domestic violence and vulnerable adult investigations. This training programme is role and rank based. The courses are delivered by the College of Policing, which was introduced in December 2012, Hampshire Constabulary and by the Hampshire Safeguarding Children’s Board which trains staff in partnership working.
5.13 Force Overview: Public Protection Departments / Units (PPD / PPU)91
5.13.1 Since the early 2000s Forces PPDs have had strategic overview of child abuse as one of its business strands and they work in partnership with other agencies concerned with the safeguarding of children. Managers from PPDs represent Forces on LSCBs and their respective sub-committees. The LSCBs are inter-agency bodies consisting of the main agencies and professionals responsible for helping to protect children from abuse and neglect. The roles and responsibilities of LSCBs are contained within the Children Act 2004 and the associated guidance document ‘Working together to Safeguard Children 2010’ and ‘Investigating Child Abuse and Safeguarding Children 2009’.
5.13.2 Within Forces the PPD may be made up of Child Abuse Investigation Teams (CAITs), the Central Referral Unit (CRU), the Paedophile Online Investigation Team (POLIT) and the POLIT Development Unit (POLIDU). PPD’s are normally headed by a Detective Superintendent. The Detective Superintendent is normally supported by Detective Chief Inspectors and Detective Inspectors. A nominated Detective Chief Inspector is the Deputy Head of the Department.
5.13.3 Each team / Unit within a PPD is normally headed by a Detective Inspector and is supported by Detective Sergeants and a mixture of Detective Constable and Police Constables investigators trained to conduct interviews as laid down in the guidance contained within Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) in Criminal Proceedings. Staff are trained to conduct investigations in accordance with Working Together to Safeguard Children 2010 and Centrex guidance Investigating Child Abuse and Safeguarding Children (2005). See Appendix A for the grading criteria for child protection and Appendix B for details of an interview with a Senior Child Abuse Investigator.
5.14 Crime Statistics of Serious Sexual Assaults92
5.14.1 Since the improvements in the way that victims and witnesses are supported by authorities, reports to the police of sexual assault have more than doubled over the last 20 years. Most serious sexual offences accounted for 82 per cent of total sexual offences and one per cent of all police recorded crime in 2010/11. There were 45,326 most serious sexual offences recorded in 2010/11, a four per cent increase compared with the 43,439 recorded in 2009/10. These offences include rape, sexual assault, and sexual activity with children.
91 Source: Hampshire Constabulary Intranet: 01900 Policy - Child Abuse Investigation. 92 Sources: NSPCC online: Statistics on Child Sexual Abuse, June 2012; BBC News Online: Article ‘Convictions for sex offences on children up 60% in six years’, 2nd September 2011. Information within the article was sourced from an FOI request that was made to the Ministry of Justice; and Home Office Statistical Bulletin - Crime in England and Wales 2010/11- Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime (2nd edition), July 2011. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 86 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 5.14.2 Police recorded rapes (2010/11) of a female increased by five per cent to 14,624 offences and sexual assaults on a female increased by four per cent to 20,659 offences.
5.14.3 Rapes of a male (2010/11) increased by 12 per cent to 1,310 offences and sexual assaults on a male increased by seven per cent to 2,412 offences.
5.14.4 The police recorded 9,656 other sexual offences in 2010/11, a 12 per cent decrease compared with 2009/10. The police recorded crime category of other sexual offences covers unlawful sexual activity, some of which involves consenting adults. It also includes exploitation of prostitution and soliciting, but not prostitution itself. Figures for these offences are particularly influenced by local police activity, rather than reporting by victims.
5.14.5 Research statistics on the prevalence of child sexual abuse has identified that nearly a quarter of young adults (24.1%) experienced sexual abuse in 2010/11 (including contact and non-contact), by an adult or by a peer during childhood. One in six children aged 11-17 (16.5%) have experienced sexual abuse.
5.14.6 Almost one in ten children aged 11-17 (9.4%) have experienced sexual abuse in the past year. Teenage girls aged between 15 and 17 years reported the highest past year rates of sexual abuse.
5.14.7 One in nine young adults (11.3%) experienced contact sexual abuse during childhood.
5.14.8 One in 20 children aged 11-17 (4.8%) have experienced contact sexual abuse. Two thirds (65.9%) of contact sexual abuse experienced by children aged 0 -17 was perpetrated by someone aged under 18. More than one in three children aged 11-17 (34%) who experienced contact sexual abuse by an adult did not tell anyone else about it. Four out of five children aged 11-17 (82.7%) who experienced contact sexual abuse from a peer did not tell anyone else about it.
5.14.9 Child protection register statistics have identified that there were 3,142 children in the UK on child protection registers or the subject of child protection plans under a category that included sexual abuse on 31st March 2011 (or 31st July 2011 in Scotland).
5.14.10 A total of 6% of all the children on child protection registers or who are subject of child protection plans in the UK were under a category that included sexual abuse on 31st March 2011 (or 31st July 2011 in Scotland).
5.14.11 Crime statistics on sex offences have identified that 17,727 sexual crimes against children under 16 were recorded in England and Wales in 2010/11. A total of 32% of all sexual crimes (54,982 sexual crimes in total) recorded in England and Wales in 2010/11 were sexual crimes against children under 16.
In 2010/11 the Police in England and Wales recorded:
5,115 offences of rape of a female child under 16 918 offences of rape of a male child under 16 4,301 offences of sexual assault on a female child under 13 1,125 offences of sexual assault on a male child under 13 5,806 offences of sexual activity involving a child under 16 Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 87 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 152 offences of abuse of children through prostitution and pornography 310 offences of sexual grooming.
5.14.12 In 2010/11 the police in England and Wales also recorded 146 offences of abuse of a position of trust involving a child under 18. More than one third (38%) of all rapes recorded by the police in England and Wales in 2010/11 were committed against children under 16 years of age.
5.14.13 The number of people convicted of sex offences on children aged under 16 in England and Wales has increased by nearly 60% in six years. 1,363 people were convicted while in 2010, it was 2,135. The rise has been attributed to better detection and raised awareness.
5.14.14 In 2010/11police in England and Wales were notified of more than 23,000 offences and that recent research by the NSPCC suggested one in 20 secondary school children had been sexually assaulted.
5.14.15 Child sex offences convictions
2005: 1,363 2006: 1,675 2007: 1,747 2008: 1,888 2009: 1,916 2010: 2,135
5.14.16 Separately, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation highlighted calls by internet offenders to its helpline quadrupled since January 2005, from 124 calls to 493 in 2010.
5.14.17 Convictions for sexual grooming
2005: 25 2006: 36 2007: 51 2008: 48 2009: 49 2010: 69
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 88 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
6 Practitioner Interviews
6.1 Introduction
In order to demonstrate the evolution of policing practices regarding information management and child abuse investigations, the ACRO research team undertook 15 interviews with police practitioners. The composition of the group includes retired Chief Officers whose detective and uniform careers commenced in the police force as early as the 1950s, retired women detectives and police constables who joined as officers between the 1950s and 1970s, major crime cold case review teams based within two police forces, serving police Intelligence Analysts operating within the child protection arena, a senior police Child Abuse Investigator and consultant experts in the fields of child protection and interviewing.
Each respondent was interviewed in accordance to a structured data collection sheet (Interview Data Collection Sheet available for reference at Appendix D), which was composed of the following question areas:
The evolution of police and public cultures, Investigation; the reporting, recording and retention of crimes (minor crime, serious crime, adult sexual offences and child sexual offences), and The retention and exchange of information and intelligence (within Force, cross- county borders, nationally and internationally).
Key themes have been identified from the contributions of the practitioner interview group and are summarised below. It must be noted however that due to the limited timescale of this research, respondents were sourced from two Force areas only. Therefore, the below findings do not denote common operational practice across all Force areas. It should also be noted that the following section presents a summary of the individual opinions of those interviewed and does not represent the view of ACPO or ACRO.
6.2 Key Findings
6.2.1 Police Culture
Prior to the establishment of police CPUs in the mid 1980s, Women Police Constables (WPCs) were responsible for dealing with all matters that related to children and women, including the initial response to allegations of abuse. Specialist training for WPCs existed as early as 1950, in which women only training schools taught women officers how to take statements from children. In the 1950s, it was common place for children to undergo a medical examination by a police surgeon if they were suspected of being ‘interfered with’. In the 1950s WPCs were required to leave the Force if they got married, resulting in the high rate of knowledge and skill loss from the Force. The nature of child abuse made it challenging for corroboration to be made of child statements (reported by officers operational from 1950s - 1990s). The introduction of Unit Beat Policing and ‘panda cars’ in 1968 were reported to cause a ‘separation’ between the police and public - reducing direct crime reporting and negatively impacting upon public confidence (less visible).
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 89 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT A positive impact however of Unit Beat Policing was the parallel introduction of LIOs. In the mid 1970s women officers continued to attend women only training courses. It was reported that these courses provided core guidance on the initial response to sexual offences, but focused on the legal aspect of crimes (i.e. definitions of offences) as opposed to providing advice on appropriate interviewing techniques with children. It was perceived that core skills would be alternatively ‘learnt on the job’. The 1970s saw the emergence of specialist squads in Forces (to include drugs, vice and specialist investigation squads). In 1976 the Sex Discrimination Act saw the integration of women officers on regular police patrol shifts. It was reported that subsequent to the Act, male officers continued to be given preference in all training courses. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and aligned introduction of the CPS reportedly had a significant impact on police investigations. For ‘first scheduled offences’, case files were required to be submitted to the DPP for approval for progression to prosecution. On occasions, the files would be sent back with a request to acquire further evidence or re-interview witnesses. The introduction of PPUs and central FIBs during the 1990s introduced a professionalised and focused response to child protection and the analysis of offending behaviour.
6.3 General Culture of Era
It was reported that in the 1950s and 1960s there was a good relationship of trust and respect between members of the public and the police and there was ‘a lot of discretion’ applied to conversations. This was seen as an advantage because ‘not everything was recorded’ therefore people felt more confident to confide in officers. It was stated that during the 1950s and 1960s crime was localised, which aided the identification of suspects and detention of offenders. It was said that during the 1960s people in the media spotlight were given high status. The public perception of TV, film and music was very positive. The 1960s and 1970s, referred to as the ‘hippy culture’ saw widespread permissive sex and drug taking within society, in which people had more relaxed attitudes to such behaviour. Officers operational in the 1970s reported that in incest cases, mothers would be very ashamed if their daughters reported cases of incest within the family as this would bring shame on the family name and would be likely to result in the loss of family income (if the father went to prison for example). Officers dealing with child abuse cases in the 1970s reported that the under reporting of sexual abuse by children was partly attributed to the child in question not understanding what was normal and inappropriate behaviour (most common if the abuse was committed by a family member).
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 90 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 6.4 Reporting of Crime
6.4.1 Minor crime
Prior to 1968 and the introduction of Unit Beat Policing, offences were commonly reported to police officers on foot patrol. Following this year, respondents reported that minor crime was most frequently reported by the aggrieved through either attending the police station direct or by telephoning the station (reported by officers operational from 1950 - 1980). Minor crime, such as theft and non-dwelling criminal damage were also commonly reported by shopkeepers or store detectives by calling the police station. Regarding ‘meter theft’ offences, which were referred to as being very common practice (between the 1950s - 1980s), reports were often received direct from electricity or gas service providers. The duty Sergeant had to sign off all crime reports and approve all actions taken by the officer on the case.
6.4.2 Serious crime
Respondents operational between the 1950s and 1980s reported that the majority of serious crimes were reported almost exclusively via the 999 emergency call system (either by the aggrieved or witness to the crime) and referred to the CID for investigation. Other officers who were operational in the 1970s and 1980s stated that serious crimes would also commonly ‘be picked up by CID and relevant specialist units’ (such as the fraud squad or crime squad). For this time period, respondents stated that reports would either be made direct from the aggrieved, by informants or through an ongoing investigation involving covert observations.
6.4.3 Adult sexual offences
Officers that were operational between the 1950s and 1980s stated that such offences were most commonly reported by the aggrieved. In less common circumstances, reports would be made by a close relative of the aggrieved. In the 1950 - 60s allegations of rape were quite rare. They were more commonly reported in the 1970 - 80s. Reports would be made either in person direct to the police station or via the 999 emergency call system, depending on the severity and nature of the crime. For example, in the situation of a stranger attack, reports would typically be received via 999. In the 1950s to 1980s allegations were treated with a level of scepticism, as allegations were frequently retracted by the female aggrieved. For the same time period, the female aggrieved would be dealt with by a WPC (with interviews often held in conjunction with an experienced male detective). It was not uncommon that reports would result in direct challenges by the police officers, in order to verify that the allegation was valid.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 91 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 6.4.4 Child sexual offences
An interviewed WPC who responded to allegations of child abuse from the 1950-1960s stated that reports were made by either the child’s mother or teacher and it was common for questioning to result from missing child cases. It was however very rare for allegations to be received direct from the child. In the 1950s if it was deemed that a valid report of child abuse had been made, a medical examination of the child by a police surgeon would take place. In the 1950s if the alleged offender of child abuse was a prominent person (such as a Head Teacher or celebrity) a report would have to be submitted direct to the DPP via the duty Detective Sergeant (DS) or Detective Inspector for evaluation. It was reported that reports of child abuse in the 1950 - 60s, that were deemed valid, received a high rate of conviction. The practice of reporting had not altered by the 1970s and 1980s, in which a retired women police officer confirmed that reports of child sex abuse continued to be made principally by the victim’s teacher, friend or mother of friend. It was less common that a report or allegation came direct from the victim’s mother (particularly in cases of incest, where there was a clear reluctance to report). A senior retired police officer also confirmed that during his operational career between 1950 and 1980 reports of child abuse were most commonly received from a child’s parent, relative, family doctor, hospital practitioner, teacher or other educationalist. This officer reported that during her career, only two allegations of sexual abuse were received direct from a child/young person - on both of these occasions reports were only made to the police because the subjects suspected that they were pregnant. All respondents stated that it was extremely rare that the child themselves report the crime. A retired officer who worked within a Force CPU stated that it was rare for a child to report an offence as they were ‘often made to feel like it was their own fault’. This officer also reported that: o False allegations were often made by young children in conflicting parental relationships (child custody battles). One partner would get the child to speak out against the other partner in a vindictive action, in which the children were used as pawns; and o Mothers were often reluctant to report intra-family offending (normally committed by grandfather), as they were scared that their children would be taken away by Social Services. A retired police officer who worked within a Force CPU stated that following a report of abuse, the procedure for dealing with complaints depended on the division investigating the report: “Each division operated individually and there was no shared system. For example Eastern Unit saw complaint right through from start to finish - would take lead and interview child with a recorded video tape and commence investigation. North and West took complaint video and handed package to CID”. A current member of police staff working in the intelligence arena who started his career in 1989 stated that reports of child abuse did then and continue to be made by children from deprived backgrounds and those that have ‘grown up in the care system’. Such children are frequently reported as missing and may be involved in alcohol abuse. Therefore, it is challenging to corroborate their allegations. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 92 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT The above issue was referred to as a ‘vicious cycle’ - in which paedophiles commonly target roles that have contact with children from deprived backgrounds and those involved in the social care system. It is however, these children that the police continue to take their allegations less seriously.
6.5 Recording of Crime
6.5.1 Minor crime
Historic practice was that each station enquiry desk maintained a ledger book, which detailed reports of crime. This book was maintained by the duty desk officer. There was no routine audit of the content. In the 1950s formal crime reports were introduced, which were completed for crime event by the officer in charge of the case. It was remarked that during the 1960s, prisoners appeared at Court the following morning and almost without exception for a street offence pleaded guilty to extract a simple fine. In addition to the crime report (which detailed key information regarding the offence and line of enquiry), supplementary forms would be attached to the main report. The type of supplementary form was relative to the type of crime. Prior to the introduction of computers, typewriters were utilised to prepare court files and crime reports. Prior to the amalgamation of the Hampshire Forces in 1967, crime reports were sent to the Portsmouth City Police ‘C4’ department. The C4 department collated all records of crimes and convictions on behalf of the city Force, which retained a manual alphabetical card index system of all crimes committed within the Force area. The index system could be cross-referenced between the subject’s name and offence type. This was reported to be an effective system. In turn, the crime reports were sent to NSY, which was at the time the national central crime recording office. When the amalgamation took place in 1967, there was a new practice introduced. All crime reports and records from across the Force were sent to the SouCRO at police headquarters for central indexed storage (and dissemination upon request). From 1967 onwards, crime reports ceased to be sent to NSY. SouCRO would send a daily circulation of persons ‘wanted’ within the Force, details of crimes and subjects arrested. In the late 1960s, these circulations were sent via Telex tele-printers to stations across the Force. In the late 1960s LIOs were introduced (serving police officers). The role of the LIO was to run the Collator’s Office, receiving, indexing and disseminating intelligence upon request. Officers operational from 1970 reported the following practice: o Statement taken from witness or aggrieved and a crime report would be completed. The crime report consisted of three pages and included key information regarding the subject and crime. Three copies of the report would be made, one would be sent to the admin office, one would be placed on the case file and one would be sent to the regional CRO for crime recording and the collation of crime statistics.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 93 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT o The officer in the case would also send the subject’s fingerprints to the CRO. o If the subject was resident of a different Force area, criminal record information would also be sent to the relevant CRO of that region. o The case files would include details of the offence, a summary of the investigation, case statements and details of witnesses.
The following account was provided by an operational Intelligence Analyst who joined the police in the 1980s. The report refers to operational issues that existed between the 1980s and 1990s regarding the recording of crimes and subsequent challenges for Intelligence Officers:
“Crime Reports were written in triplicate, with the yellow sheet (that was retained by the Collator’s Office and sent to CIU for higher crimes) being barely legible. The alphabetical system retained by the Collator’s Office was not effective as the index cards were often filed in the wrong slot and miss-filed. This resulted in ‘missing’ data or the duplication of nominal cards. There was a high degree of human error in the accurate filing of records. There was only one Local Intelligence Officer (LIO) per Collator Office. Each office was very busy with a high degree of pressure. The Collators had shifting priorities to monitor typically acquisitive crime and violent offences, which were the most common crimes and had the highest impact on the community”.
6.5.2 Serious crime
The same process for recording would be adhered to as detailed above. Serious crime would involve investigations undertaken by the CID or a specialist squad. Due to the serious nature of the crimes the major incident room would have to record and store information and documents in a meticulous manner, for their subsequent evidential value and reference. For such crimes, the recording of information did not just relate to statements and written documentary evidence - recorded or manually indexed information also related to forensic material (for example photographic evidence or material extracted from the scene of the crime). The introduction of the PACE Act 1984 introduced increased accountability in the recording of interviews.
6.5.3 Adult sexual offences
Officers who were operational between 1950 and 1980 reported that:
Following an allegation of rape, for example, a statement would be taken from the aggrieved by a WPC normally in conjunction with an experienced detective. In order to gain appropriate evidence, the allegation would be ‘tested’. This would on occasion result in the retraction of the statement. In such events, no ‘official crime’ would be recorded. If the aggrieved pursued their allegation, the statement would be formally signed and would be ‘crimed’ and subsequently investigated. The crime recording process was the same as that previously mentioned for other crimes (crime report sent to CRO and intelligence sent to the Collators office).
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 94 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT If a report was received of a stranger attack for example (i.e. rape or attempted rape), even if the suspect was unable to be identified, an intelligence report was sent to the LIO (detailing for example offender characteristic and crime MO). In cases of adult sexual offences, victims were commonly seen by a police surgeon and the recording of information extended beyond written statements and interview notes. Photographic evidence would be taken of physical injuries and forensic evidence would be taken and recorded from the scene of the crime (if appropriate). Forensic evidence, to include bedding or clothing, would also be bagged up. At this time, forensic material would be sent to the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory for forensic examination. Particular reference was made to the recording practice in the 1960s regarding sexual offences, in which it was stated that attempted rape was commonly ‘crimed’ as assault.
6.5.4 Child sexual offences
Commonly, the same process would be adhered to as that detailed for adult sex offences. Recorded information would relate to the victim statement, witness statements, interview notes, and forensic evidence (medical examination notes, photographic evidence, fingerprints and clothing).
6.6 Retention of Information and Intelligence
6.6.1 All crimes
Pre 1967- Portsmouth City Police ‘C4’ criminal record department retained all crime and conviction data on behalf of the city. Prior to the amalgamation of police forces, local crime records were also sent to NSY for central recording. In 1967 (amalgamation) all Force criminal record information was sent to SouCRO at Police Headquarters. Here, a manual index of criminal records and convictions were stored. Records were kept until the subject died (evidence required) or reached 100 years of age. It was reported the amalgamation process marked the destruction and loss of information – ‘they got rid of a lot of old records’. Local Intelligence or Collators Offices (located in each station/borough) maintained a manual index system. Requests for information (i.e. antecedents / MO) could be made to either SouCRO or the LIO, similarly to other Force areas if a subject was known to have resided / offender outside of the Force area. In addition to the retention of crime intelligence, the Collators Office would keep records of allegations made against a subject, which could be used as intelligence in an inquiry. Information regarding ‘at risk subjects’ - children or vulnerable adults - would also be sent to, and retained by Social Services. Defined retention policies were introduced following the Criminal Procedure Investigations Act 1996.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 95 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT A retired Detective Superintendent who now manages a Force Cold Case Review team remarked that the review of historic cases often identifies poor standards of crime recording and the storage of crime exhibits (including storage in garage units and lofts).
6.6.2 Child sexual offences
A retired police officer who was attached to a CPU in the 1980s reported that ‘No children protection unit files were destroyed. They were kept on division then taken to Headquarters. These included hundreds of video tapes’. However, “Not much historical intelligence was retained prior to establishment of CPU”.
6.7 Police Systems used for the Recording and Retention of Police Information
6.7.1 1970-2001
During the 1970s all record keeping systems were manual. Specialist admin units retained small filing systems (typically on-going crime files / court files). However, Force information was retained by either SouCRO or the Force Collator’s Office, who maintained a paper based card indexed record system. This was cross-referenced by subject name and offences. In the 1970s and 1980s information was retained under collator card systems. The following developments were reported by currently operational Intelligence Analysts, who joined Hampshire Constabulary at the beginning of the 1980s; In the 1990s intelligence systems became computerised. In 1991 the Hampshire Constabulary Crime Desk for the recording of crime was established (however this was originally a manual system). 1994 saw the introduction of Criminal Intelligence System (CIS) - transference of paper records onto new electronic record system. This was the first step to centrally collate Force intelligence. Local indexing systems were generally back record converted onto CIS. An issue was not all local information was back record converted on CIS, resulting in the loss of a substantial amount of data. Later introduction of Niche RMS Legacy and recently RMS for intelligence recording. Overall between 1990 and 2001 the response to intelligence gathering and recording became far more professionalised, with reports of abuse taken more seriously.
The following account was provided by an operational Intelligence Analyst who joined the police in the 1980s. The report refers to the process for retaining and analysing information regarding serious crimes (to include child sex offending) in the early 1990s:
“In 1990 Hampshire Constabulary had a central Criminal Intelligence Unit (CIU) based at HQ. Four Analysts (inc. one police officer) worked in the CIU with the remit of providing analytical support for high level crime investigation (to include murder, sex offenders and robbery). The core function of the team was to identify key trends in criminal activity, identify persistent offenders and respond to force crime issues (for example peaks in criminal activity). The CIU would work with paper crime reports that were sent up from local Collators Offices (yellow pages), which detailed Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 96 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT the key details of the crime. Each station or borough across the force had a Collators Office. Records were maintained in a paper alphabetical indexing system (by nominal and crime). The Collator’s Office would retain all crime reports for crimes committed by residents of the local area, with a separate section for crimes committed by local residents in other areas of the force. The CIU retained hard copy files (3-4 lever arch files) of sex offenders within the force area (prior to the establishment of Public Protection Units) and would undertake liaison with partner agencies according (i.e. Prison Liaison Officers when high-risk offenders were being released from prison)”.
6.7.2 Current
The Criminal Intelligence Unit (CIU) now have access to a system called I- BASE, which inter-links with RMS. I-BASE interrogates RMS every night in order to identify key trends in activity. For example, CIU routinely work with the CPU, providing analytical support to identify persistent offenders and children at risk. A recent piece of work has identified that repeat victims of child abuse are also persistent missing persons. This can inform a Force response to work with partner agencies to reduce the risk of harm to these victims. Reported that victim’s now have more confidence in reporting crime. Recording practices and the sharing of information have greatly improved since 1990.
6.8 Sharing of Police Information and Intelligence
6.8.1 Within Force
In the 1950s circulations of information were made by telephone from the Force operations room, which detailed serious crimes / crime reports that required urgent police responses. Each day, crime information sheets were circulated by the local criminal record office to borough stations. Lists of stolen property were also disseminated to officers, for wider circulation to second-hand dealers and pawn shops. Prior to the amalgamation of Forces in 1967, local criminal record offices would disseminate crime information to officers upon request. At this time, information sheets were routinely sent between city Forces detailing key local crime information. Better systems were implemented following amalgamation. In 1967 SouCRO took over central collation for all criminal records within Hampshire Constabulary LIOs managed intelligence card indexing. SouCRO produced a weekly publication (ceased in 2000) called ‘Crime Intelligence’, with special editions printed when a serious crime was committed (such as a murder, rape or armed robbery). Individual requests could be made to SouCRO and of LIOs, for information on subjects or crimes. The 1970s saw the introduction of the Telex teleprinter system, which saw the more efficient and timely circulation of information throughout the Force. In the mid 1980s, fax machines were introduced as a means of communication.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 97 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT There was no automatic link-up between LIO offices (for example identifying key trends in offending behaviour). Exchanges of information were undertaken upon the proactive request / dissemination by LIOs. An operational Intelligence Officer who commenced their career in the 1980s reported that during the 1980s LIOs had a very parochial attitude towards crime and were only focused on ‘what happened in their neighbourhood’ as opposed to a strategic overview of criminality throughout the Force. There was a ‘not on my patch’ philosophy, which influenced LIO’s interest in seeking information from other Boroughs.
The following account was provided by an operational Intelligence Analyst who joined the police in the 1980s. The report refers to operational issues that existed between the 1980s and 1990s regarding the sharing of information between LIOs;
“Crime reports and allegations (across boroughs) would only be linked if the LIO was proactive in requesting information from other Collator’s Offices across the force. LIOs often did not have the time to undertake this kind of activity. This would not be routine and would rely upon the proactive request and communication of the LIO. Often this did not occur, so loop-holes would exist in the linking of behaviour. The LIO would have been expected to link crimes together, in the way the complex and intelligent computer systems do today. There was a lack of communication between boroughs, let alone across force borders”.
6.8.2 Cross County Borders
It was reported that in 1950s - 1960s exchanges of communication outside of the Force were very rare. Prior to 1968 NSY acted as the Central Collator’s office for the country. All Forces would send criminal record information up to London. Post amalgamation Forces established their own criminal record offices. Exchanges of information would take place when an arresting Force sent criminal record or intelligence data to a subject’s home Force. Requests could be made of a subject’s home Force, or to a Force where it was suspected that criminal activity had taken place, if such information was required during an investigation. There was closer operational liaison between Forces at stations adjoining Force boundaries. An officer who was operational in the 1970s and 1980s stated that there was no formal procedure for exchanging information across Force borders. They would just chat to find out any reactive information e.g. ‘Did anything turn up during the night’, or ‘We had this happen - did you have anything that could be linked from your end?’ (person stop / check forms were filled out on night shifts).
6.8.3 Nationally
In the 1950s it was common practice for specialist squads / detectives from the Metropolitan Police (NSY) to join other Forces to assist them in the investigation of serious crimes. Pre 1968 NSY circulated the Police Gazette of ‘wanted persons’ to Forces. The national exchange of information improved with the establishment of the **** S23 in the 1960s. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 98 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT It was reported that in the 1990s Forces started to share information nationally. This was influenced by the changing profile of child sex offenders (more geographically mobile). ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23 S23
The NIM, when introduced in 2000 brought a professional approach to the gathering and dissemination of information.
6.8.4 Internationally
Officers that were operational in the 1950s – 1980s reported that it was very rare for international requests for information to be made, despite there being large criminal migrant populations residing in the Force area. Importantly, such requests had to be authorised by senior ranking officers. It was reported that in the 1990s specialist units started to become more involved in international data exchange and investigations. Reference was made to Special Branch investigations regarding illegal immigrant activity and investigations undertaken by the CPU linking to parts of the EU (target offending areas in France and Spain).
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 99 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
7 Appendix A - Grading Criteria for Child Protection93
Forces generally have a centralised unit or CRU which is responsible for allocating incidents to police and non-police units for attention and action and also to provide a degree of clarity within their Force for the terms of reference for the PPD.
However, no such terms of reference can be all encompassing and cater for every scenario. Any procedure within Forces does not, therefore, remove the obligation for discussion between and reasoned decision making by Managers, based on individual circumstances of an incident and other variable factors.
Child abuse should be taken in the context of what the general public would expect the term ‘child abuse’ to mean and not solely based on offence type and definition. Therefore a child victim of crime does NOT necessarily mean that the victim is the subject of Child Abuse.
The following is a sample of the type and style of gradings Forces will have.
7.1.1 GRADE A (Allocated to appropriate CAIT)
The investigations of such referrals are likely to require officers with specialist child investigation skills and training held within the PPD and necessarily requires a partnership approach. Unless otherwise stated, the relevant age of children for grading is under 18 years at the time of reporting.
Examples of these would be:
7.1.2 Serious Child Abuse
Rape / assault by penetration – victim 13 years to 18 years where the offender is in a position of trust. Interfamilial sexual abuse. Rape / assault by penetration – victim under 13 years (except stranger rape / stranger assault by penetration or in circumstances which involve children of a similar age where the sexual activity was consensual, in which case these may be suitable for single agency CSD). Section 20 (and above) Offences Against the Person Act 186194. Section 47 offences meeting charging standards where child is under 13. Sudden and unexpected deaths of children under 18. Unexplained injuries or suspicious injuries to a child under 4. Fabricated or induced illness / injury. Female genital mutilation. Complex or serious investigations into alleged or sexual abuse or grooming of children where there are multiple victims and / or offenders. Wilful neglect of a child.
93 Source: Hampshire Constabulary PPD CRU Policy and Procedures, Manual of Guidance, Version 3.0, 21st August 2012. 94 (Where the suspect is in a position of trust or responsibility in relation to the child, which includes family members, baby sitters and youth workers). Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 100 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Possession or distribution of significant numbers of indecent images of children under 16 years, such as would not be appropriately investigated on area. Repeat offenders/perpetrators who abuse children. Abuse against a child who is the subject of a Child Protection Plan.
7.1.3 Critical / Serious Incident
In addition to child abuse referrals the following will be regarded as Category A referrals (upgraded from below):
Abuse that takes place within an institutional care or NHS setting (current). Allegations against a paid worker or care volunteer. Cases involving multiple vulnerable victims and or suspects. Death or serious injury of a child subject to ongoing safeguarding. Incidents involving children that are likely to be referred to a Serious Case Review Panel. High profile media cases involving children.
7.1.4 GRADE B (Allocated to district CID)
All referrals requiring a criminal investigation involving children that have not been graded as Category A. Note: This will not preclude the allocated investigation team from seeking support from the PPD to assist with aspects of the investigation i.e. specialist victim interviewers (Tier 3).
7.1.5 GRADE C (Allocated to appropriate Safeguarding Team and may be passed from there to local policing team depending on level of risk)
Referrals that are, on the information known at the time, considered not to require a criminal investigation but do require a police response in ensuring the safeguarding of a child or children or where a care home has been indentified as a repeat premise / location.
7.1.6 GRADE D (Allocated to appropriate partner agency)
Referrals that are considered to not require police action but may require action from partner agencies or third party organisations.
Incidents may include:
Sexualised behaviour of children. Children involved in underage sexual activity. Minor assault with no previous history. Minor neglect.
7.1.7 GRADE E
Referrals where investigative assistance will be provided to external police and services in relation to child abuse cases. This may include evidence gathering and conducting ABE interviews.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 101 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT This grading will reflect two scenarios:
a) Where an out of Force crime is reported to another Force and that report is transferred to the relevant force. b) Where an external Force requests that another Force investigates a child abuse case on their behalf.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 102 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
8 Appendix B - Interview with a Senior Child Abuse Investigator
Date of interview: Thursday 29th November 2012 Location: Havant Police Station
The HMG ‘working together to safeguard children 2010’ is seen as the most up to date manual for child abuse investigators and other professionals working in the safeguarding arena and is seen as the document that outlines the statutory framework.
First published in 2003 the manual contains a further six annexes to provide detailed guidance on a full range of safeguarding and investigation methods.
Key to safeguarding is partnership working. Each unitary authority will have a Children and Family Service (CFS) or Child Services Department (CSD) managed by social services.
All referrals are reported to the CFS / CSD to a reception / notification / action centre which operates 24/7.
S17 Children Act 1989 deals with children in need. These referrals are mainly dealt with by social services without any intervention of the police unless a prosecution is thought appropriate.
S47 Children Act 1989 provides a duty on the local authority to investigate the referral as the local authority have a reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives or is found in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer from significant harm. This duty is used by local authorities to refer criminal investigation to the police.
All S47 referrals are normally submitted to a police CRU dealing with child protection who review and grade the referral and then allocate the case for investigation to the most suitable police resource.
All referrals for complex child abuse including sexual offences, death of a child or actual bodily harm or more serious assaults are graded as Category A and are dealt with by CAITs.
Safeguarding
S46 Children Act 1989 – Police Protection Order.
Emergency Protection Orders are dealt with by CFS / CSD and the case is heard by a Family Division Judge. Other orders dealt with CFS / CSD are:
Interim Case Order. Full Case Order. Adoption Order.
Police support the above orders by providing corroborative evidence.
S20 Children Act 1989 – Voluntary agreement with parents, social services and third party (normally family / foster carer) to place child in family / foster care whilst the allegations are investigated. Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 103 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Investigation Process (Summary) S47 referral to police
Locate child and place in a place of safety
Police and social services to agree: Joint investigation or Single Agency Investigation
Joint Investigation: Single Agency Investigation: response by trained social worker Police trained officer and trained police officer
Initial visit with child (if child too young to interview wait for medical corroborative evidence from police investigation)
Child discloses criminal offence – visit immediately stopped
Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) interview assessment
Non disclosure of criminal Disclosure of criminal offence or child too young offence by child to interview
At the same time Social Full investigation by police Full review of evidence Services producing including multiple written including medical safeguarding plan for the strategies covering arrest, examinations for corroboration child suspect interviews, forensic of known facts
recovery
Statutory meetings with Arrest suspect, evidence stakeholders within gathering process statutory time limits
NFA CPS: Evidence / pre-charge review
Back to CSD / CSF for Charge / court process Safeguarding plan
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 104 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Child Abuse Senior Investigators view of Investigations Today
As part of the review the team interviewed an experienced child abuse senior investigator, Detective Inspector John Geden MSc (Crim), covering any improvements which could be made to child abuse investigations today.
The term ‘neglect’ within child abuse investigations does provide difficulties when dealing with the CPS. Legislation requires that ‘neglect’ involves a wilful act of commission and not a wilful act of omission. This is seen as a significant issue and one which may require further discussion at a senior level with the CPS to resolve as a large number of police prosecutions fail on this point alone.
The other area of concern the interviewee identified was with the disclosure of unused material which may undermine the prosecution or assist the defence under the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996.
It is accepted that those who offend against children do so as they are vulnerable and considerable time is spent by some grooming children as part of the abuse process.
Children from disadvantaged backgrounds may have already interacted with the police and social services through safeguarding planning and family intervention.
These interventions are likely to involve contact by police and social workers who record opinions of that child on case files and child referral reports, on the character or behaviour of that child often after traumatic events. These comments are then disclosed and undermine the prosecution case.
It is right and proper that any undermining material is disclosed. However, the interviewee believes that cases should be prosecuted on the strength of evidence of that particular case and not on previous safeguarding plans or interventions.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 105 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
9 Appendix C – Interview with former Detective Superintendent, SIO and Head of Public Protection, Hampshire Constabulary
Date of interview: Thursday 13th December 2012 Location: ACRO
Child Protection / Child Abuse Investigation from 1960 to present day
John Fox MSc, PhD, is a former Detective Superintendent, SIO and Head of Public Protection and is now employed as an associate tutor by the College of Policing to train senior homicide detectives on the SIO Development Programme and Childhood Death Investigation course, and is also a tutor for Multi Agency Strategic Leaders training. He is currently a member of the ACPO Childhood Death Working Group, and has represented the ACPO on various government working parties and committees concerning child abuse and related issues.
General discussion took place around the early years of police investigation around child abuse and it was identified that there was certainly no specialism, specialist training or partnership working pre Cleveland and it was not until the 1970’s when Children’s Services was formed at LGA level and the foundation of Social Services following the Seebohm Report in 1968.
Following the 1987 Cleveland Inquiry by Dame Butler-Sloss working together and sharing of information was given a formal footing. The Children Act 1989 and the 1st edition of Working Together to Safeguard Children were seen as a watershed for safeguarding, joint working and the sharing of information between agencies.
The 1991 Bexley Social Services pilot with the Metropolitan Police Service for joint child abuse investigations was another significant development in joint working and investigation.
1991 to 1995 saw the development of Child Protection Teams across England and Wales dedicated to interviewing young children with Social Services. This provided the right mechanism for the sharing of information and intelligence across agencies.
An area of concern in the 1990’s was guidance given to agencies involved with child protection was the 1993 ‘messages from research’ document which provided agencies a reason not to report allegations to the police if it concerned low level violence or under age sexual intercourse. This was dealt with in the 2nd edition of Working together to Safeguard Children where all criminal allegations had to be referred to the police.
The 2003 Climbié Report was again another watershed for safeguarding children Lord Laming recommended national training (which is how SCAIDP was introduced) and national police guidance for child abuse investigation (which led to the ACPO Investigating Child Abuse and Safeguarding Children professional practice document). Furthermore, Recommendation 17 of Lord Laming’s report identified the need for more information sharing across multiple agencies providing professional support and services to children.
This led to what became known as the ContactPoint System managed by the Department for Children Schools and Families. An area of concern is that unlike police information and intelligence now available to child abuse investigations through the PND, since ContactPoint has been decommissioned there is no national database of heath, social or education professionals which identifies if a child has already has an interaction with support services for whatever reason. This is seen as a potential danger point for child safeguarding and child abuse.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 106 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
This provided more emphasis on professionalisation of child abuse investigations. Post Climbié Report ACPO ICIPD training of Detectives in child abuse investigations and since 2010 all staff involved in child abuse investigations must be accredited.
The changes in the rules of evidence for child witnesses was another watershed moment for safeguarding. The Children Act 1998 provided protection levels and allowed the admission of uncorroborated evidence from children. This followed the Pigot Report in 1998 and led to the ‘Memorandum of Good Practice’ which was replaced by Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) guidance for child abuse investigations.
The Memorandum of Good Practice was again seen as a watershed moment with police investigators now believing that child abuse investigations were worth fully investigating as uncorroborated witness evidence of child victims could be admissible in court and allowed investigators a reasonable chance of a prosecution and conviction.
Discussion took place on areas of concern for present day child abuse investigations. It was felt that sufficient safeguards were now in place (other than point above concerning ContactPoint Database) that provided agencies involved in child protection make referrals to the police and victims report offences to the police that the child safeguarding processes are now mature enough to ensure that a proper investigation (joint where appropriate) would take place and if a celebrity was identified they would be investigated fully by the police.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 107 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
10 Appendix D – Interview Data Collection Sheet
Date of Interview:
POLICE SERVICE SUMMARY
Date of Joining: Date of Leaving:
Career Summary:
Note: Obtain overview for every 10 years of service to identify any significant changes / challenges
Police culture:
Note: Obtain overview for every 10 years of service to identify any significant changes / challenges
General culture of the era:
INVESTIGATION
Overview of how crime was reported:
Minor Crime
Serious Crime
Overview of how crime was reported:
Adult Sexual Offences
Child Sexual Offences
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 108 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Overview of how crime was recorded:
Minor Crime
Serious Crime
Overview of how crime was recorded:
Adult Sexual Offences
Child Sexual Offences
Overview of the retention of information and intelligence:
Minor Crime
Serious Crime
Overview of the retention of information and intelligence:
Adult Sexual Offences
Child Sexual Offences
During your career what police systems were in place for the recording and retention of crime information and intelligence? (record overview for every 10 years of service)
When did police systems become electronic and what were they used for?
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 109 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT During your career what processes were in place for the sharing of information / intelligence (record overview for every 10 years of service):
Within Force
Cross County Borders
Nationally
Internationally
Do you have any experience or knowledge of international crime investigation or the exchange of information / intelligence internationally?
Victims / Witnesses / Offenders / Suspects
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 110 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
11 Appendix E fully withheld – S27.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 111 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Appendix E fully withheld – S27.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 112 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Appendix E fully withheld – S27.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 113 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Appendix E fully withheld – S27.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 114 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Appendix E fully withheld – S27.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 115 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Appendix E fully withheld – S27.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 116 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Appendix E fully withheld – S27.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 117 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Appendix E fully withheld – S27.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 118 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Appendix E fully withheld – S27.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 119 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Appendix F – Non-EU Countries – Signatories to 1959 Council of Europe Convention
Non-EU Countries – Signatories to 1959 Council of Europe Convention Albania 03/07/2000 Norway 12/06/1962 Andorra 25/09/2005 Russia 09/03/2000 Armenia 25/04/2002 San Marino 16/06/2009 Azerbaijan 02/10/2003 Serbia 29/12/2002 Bosnia & Herzegovina 24/07/2005 Switzerland 20/03/1967 Croatia 05/08/1999 The Former Yugoslav 26/10/1999 Republic of Macedonia Georgia 11/01/2000 Turkey 22/09/1969 Iceland 18/09/1984 Ukraine 09/06/1998 Liechtenstein 26/01/1970 Moldova 05/05/1998 Chile 28/08/2011 Monaco 17/06/2007 Israel 26/12/1967 Montenegro 06/06/2006 Korea 29/12/2011
12 Appendix G – Designated Authorities / International Letters of Request
A list of designated authorities who can send International Letters of Request:
Magistrates' Courts, the Crown Court and the High Court. The Attorney General for England and Wales. The Director of Public Prosecutions and any Crown Prosecutor. The Director and any designated member of the Serious Fraud Office. The Environment Agency. Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills in respect of his function of investigating and prosecuting offences. Secretary of State for Health. Secretary of State for Transport. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. District Courts and Sheriff Courts and the High Court of Justiciary. The Lord Advocate of Scotland. Any Procurator Fiscal. The Attorney General for Northern Ireland. The Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions. The Financial Services Authority.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 120 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
13 Appendix H – Multi-Lateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties the UK is Party To
1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. 1978 Additional Protocol to European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (‘Vienna Convention’). 1990 European Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime. 2000 United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (‘UNTOC’). 2000 Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union (‘MLAC’) & Protocol – Implementation. 2001 Second Additional Protocol to European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. 2003 United Nationals Convention against Corruption (‘UNCAC’). Commonwealth Scheme Relating to Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (‘Harare Scheme’).
14 Appendix I – Bi-Lateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties the UK is Party To
Bi-Lateral Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties the UK is Party To Algeria Guyana* Panama* Antigua and Barbuda* Hong Kong SAR Paraguay* Argentina* Iceland (EU) Philippines Australia* India Romania* Bahamas* Ireland Saudi Arabia* Bahrain* Italy* Spain* Barbados* Japan (EU) Sweden* Brazil Libya Thailand Canada Malaysia Ukraine* Chile* Mexico* United Arab Emirates Colombia Netherlands* Uruguay* Ecuador* Nigeria* USA (EU) Grenada* Norway (EU) Vietnam * Indicates Restraint and Confiscation or Drug Trafficking MLA treaty EU Indicates EU MLA treaty or EU led bilateral instrument that UK is party to
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 121 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
15 Appendix J – Category 1 Territories under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003
Category 1 Territories under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Gibraltar Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta The Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden
16 Appendix K - Category 2 Territories under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003
Category 2 Territories under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 Albania Guatemala Paraguay Algeria Guyana Peru Andorra Hong Kong SAR Russian Federation Antigua and Barbuda Haiti St Christopher and Nevis Argentina Iceland St Lucia Armenia India St Vincent & the Grenadines Australia Iraq San Marino Azerbaijan Israel Serbia The Bahamas Jamaica Seychelles Bangladesh Kenya Sierra Leone Barbados Kiribati Singapore Belize Lesotho Solomon Islands Bolivia Liberia South Africa Bosnia and Libya Sri Lanka Herzegovina Botswana Liechtenstein Swaziland Brazil Macedonia (FYR) Switzerland Brunei Malawi Tanzania Canada Malaysia Thailand Chile Maldives Tonga Colombia Mauritius Trinidad and Tobago
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 122 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
Category 2 Territories under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 Cook Islands Mexico Turkey Croatia Moldova Tuvalu Cuba Monaco Uganda Dominica Montenegro Ukraine Ecuador Nauru UAE El Salvador New Zealand USA Fiji Nicaragua Uruguay The Gambia Nigeria Vanuatu Georgia Norway Western Samoa Ghana Panama Zambia Grenada Papua New Guinea Zimbabwe
17 Appendix L – Countries the UK has Bi-Lateral Transfer of Sentenced Person Treaties
Countries the UK has Bi-lateral Transfer of Sentenced Person Treaties Antigua & Barbuda 23/06/2003 Nicaragua 06/09/2005 Barbados 03/04/2002 Pakistan 24/08/2007 Brazil 28/08/1998 Peru 07/03/2003 Cuba 13/06/2002 Rwanda 11/02/2010 Dominica 02/05/2006 Saint Lucia 27/04/2006 Egypt 29/11/1993 Saudi Arabia 02/01/2012 Ghana 17/07/2008 Sri Lanka 06/02/2003 Guyana 05/04/2002 Suriname 29/06/2002 Hong Kong 05/11/1997 Thailand 22/01/1990 India 18/02/2005 Uganda
Laos 07/08/2009 Venezuela 12/06/2002 Libya 17/11/2008 Vietnam 12/09/2008 Morocco 21/01/2002
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 123 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
18 Appendix M – Signatories to 1983 Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons
Signatories to 1983 Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and date entered into force Albania 1/8/2000 Romania 1/12/1996 Andorra 1/11/2000 San Marino 1/10/2004 Armenia 1/9/2001 Serbia 1/8/2002 Austria 1/1/1987 Slovakia 1/1/1993 Azerbaijan 1/5/2001 Slovenia 1/1/1994 Belgium 1/12/1990 Spain 1/7/1985 Bosnia & Herzegovina 1/8/2005 Sweden 1/7/1985 Bulgaria 1/10/1994 Switzerland 1/5/1988 Croatia 1/5/1995 The Former Yugoslav 1/11/1999 Republic of Macedonia Cyprus 1/8/1986 Turkey 1/1/1988 Czech Republic 1/1/1993 Ukraine 1/1/1996 Denmark 1/5/1987 United Kingdom 1/8/1985 Estonia 1/8/1997 Finland 1/5/1987 France 1/7/1985 Georgia 1/2/1998 Germany 1/2/1992 Non-Member States Greece 1/4/1988 Australia 1/1/2003 Hungary 1/11/1993 Bahamas 1/3/1992 Iceland 1/12/1993 Bolivia 1/6/2004 Ireland 1/11/1995 Canada 1/9/1985 Italy 1/10/1989 Chile 1/11/1998 Latvia 1/9/1997 Costa Rica 1/8/1998 Liechtenstein 1/5/1998 Ecuador 1/11/2005 Lithuania 1/9/1996 Israel 1/1/1998 Luxembourg 1/2/1988 Japan 1/6/2003 Malta 1/7/1991 Korea 1/11/2005 Moldova 1/9/2004 Mauritius 1/10/2004 Montenegro 6/6/2006 Panama 1/11/1999 Netherlands 1/1/1988 Tonga 1/11/2000 Norway 1/4/1993 Trinidad and Tobago 1/7/1994 Poland 1/3/1995 USA 1/7/1985 Portugal 1/10/1993 Venezuela 1/10/2003
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 124 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT 19 Appendix N - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 – Code C
Annex F - Countries with which bi-lateral consular conventions or agreements requiring notification of the arrest and detention of their nationals are in force as at 1st April 2003
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 – Code C, Annex F Armenia Kazakhstan Austria Macedonia Azerbaijan Mexico Belarus Moldova Belgium Mongolia Bosnia-Herzegovina Norway Bulgaria Poland China* Romania Croatia Russia Cuba Slovak Republic Czech Republic Slovenia Denmark Spain Egypt Sweden France Tajikistan Georgia Turkmenistan German Federal Republic Ukraine Greece USA Hungary Uzbekistan Italy Yugoslavia Japan
* Police are required to inform Chinese officials of arrest / detention in the Manchester consular district only. This comprises Derbyshire, Durham, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Merseyside, North South and West Yorkshire, and Tyne and Wear.
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 125 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
20 Appendix O - Glossary of Terms
Abbreviation Meaning ABE Achieving Best Evidence ACPO Association of Chief Police Officers ACRO ACPO Criminal Records Office CAIT Child Abuse Investigation Team CATCHEM Centralised Analytical Team Collating Homicide Expertise and Management CENTREX National Centre for Policing Excellence ********** S23 ********** ********** ********** ********** ********** S23 CID Criminal Investigation Department CIS Criminal Intelligence System CIU Criminal Intelligence Unit CPS Crown Prosecution Service CPU Child Protection Units CRB Criminal Records Bureau CRU Central Referral Unit CSD Child Services Department DBS Disclosure and Barring Service DPA Data Protection Act DPP Director of Public Prosecutions DVLA Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency EAW European Arrest Warrant ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECRIS European Criminal Record Information System ECtHR European Court of Human Rights EIS Europol Information System ELO Europol Liaison Officers ESP ECRIS Support Programme EU European Union FCO Foreign and Commonwealth Office FIB Force Intelligence Bureau GPMS Government Protective Marking Scheme HMIC Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary HMRC Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs HOCR Home Office Counting Rules HOLMES Home Office Large Major Enquiry System ICIS INTERPOL Criminal Information System ICO Information Commissioners Office ICPC International Criminal Police Commission IDENT1 National Fingerprint Database ILOR International Letter of Request INI IMPACT Nominal Index INTERPOL International Criminal Police Organisation ISA Independent Safeguarding Authority IT Information Technology JIT Joint Investigation Teams LBUK UK Liaison Bureau LEA Law Enforcement Agency LIO Local Intelligence Officer LSCB Local Safeguarding Children Board LVLO Local Vehicle Licensing Office Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 126 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT Abbreviation Meaning MAPPA Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements MIR Major Incident Room MIRSAP Major Incident Room Standard Administrative Procedures MIT Major Investigation Team MLAT Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty MO Modus Operandi MoPI Management of Police Information NAFIS National Automated Fingerprint Identification System ********** S23 ********** S23 NCB National Central Bureau ********** S23 ********** S23 NCRS National Crime Recording Standards ********** S23 ********** S23 NDNAD National DNA Database NIB National Identification Bureau NIM National Intelligence Model NIS National Identification Service NJR Network of Judicial Registers NOMS National Offender Management Service NPIA National Policing Improvement Agency NSIR National Standards for Incident Recording NSY New Scotland Yard PACE Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 PIP Professionalising Investigation Programme PNC Police National Computer PND Police National Database PNN Police National Network PPD Public Protection Department PPN Public Protection Network QUEST Query Using Enhanced Search Techniques **** ************************* S23 RMS Records Management System RSSPCC Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children SARC Sexual Assault Referral Centre SCAIDP Specialist Child Abuse Investigator Development Programme SCAS Serious Crime Analysis Section SCDEA Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency SIENA Secure Information Exchange Network Application SIO Senior Investigating Officer SIRENE Supplementary Information Requests at the National Entry SIS Schengen Information System ********** S23 ********** S23 ********** S23 ********** S23 SOCPA Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 UKBA UK Border Agency UKCA-ECR UK Central Authority for the Exchange of Criminal Records UKCA-MLA UK Central Authority for Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters ViSOR Violent and Sexual Offenders Register
Overview of Police Information Management and Child Abuse Investigations 1960 to 2012 – Final v1.0
Page 127 of 131 PROTECT PROTECT
PROTECT PROTECT
ACPO Criminal Records Office PO Box 481 Fareham PO14 9FS
PROTECT