Stalking and Harassment

Stalking and Harassment Review of Police Information Notices (PIN) Specialist Crime Command Public Protection Policy, Audit and Review Team April 2014 V6 1

Contents 1. Introduction...3 2. Executive Summary...4 3. Terms of Reference...5 4. Methodology...5 5. Findings...6 5.1. Terms of Reference One - To ascertain whether the Sussex Police Policy Document 578/2013 is fit for purpose with regards to PINs and if this meets or exceeds the standards laid down in the ACPO guidance Practice on Investigating Stalking and Harassment 2009...6 5.2. Terms of Reference Two - To establish the forces current position on whether the use of PIN s across the organisation is efficient, effective and meets ACPO guidance. 10 5.3. Terms of Reference Three - To determine the level of knowledge by frontline officers on the correct application of PIN s and their views on the operational benefits. 12 5.4. Terms of Reference Four - To articulate the process in which PINs are stored and recorded within Sussex Police systems....14 5.5. Terms of Reference Five - To dip check a sample of investigations of Stalking and Harassment to determine whether the approach of issuing of a PIN contributes to the meeting of victim expectations....17 5.6. Terms of Reference Six - To establish the provision of training provided to officers and staff with regards to offences and investigative tools for Stalking and Harassment.20 6. Conclusions...23 7. Recommendations...23 8. Roles and Responsibilities...24 9. Recommendations for the College of Policing Review...24 APPENDIX TWO...27 APPENDIX THREE...29 2

1. Introduction Since the introduction of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, police forces across England and Wales have issued a variety of notices to potential offenders in an attempt to make it clear in any possible legal proceedings, that suspects were aware their future behaviour constituted harassment. Following the introduction of the new stalking offences in 2012, ACPO, in consultation with the Government, reviewed guidance to police forces on the issuing and wording of the harassment notices. These are known as Police Information Notices (PINs) and the revised ACPO guidance on their use and wording was issued. Assistant Chief Constable Smith commissioned a review into the use of PINs across Sussex Police. This report details the findings of the review. 3

2. Executive Summary This paper sets out the findings of the review, examining the background of the PIN Notice, its application in accordance with the ACPO Guidance Practice Advice on Investigating Stalking and Harassment 2009 and determines the level of training, knowledge and understanding amongst Sussex Police officers when issuing Police Information Notices. Police Information Notices, previously known as Harassment Warning Notices or Harassment Letters, are not provided for in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA) and do not in themselves constitute any kind of formal legal action. There is no formal police procedure that must be followed and there are no set time limits during which they have effect. PINs are not a statutory requirement, but can assist as an evidence base in later proceedings. PINs were developed following the identification of early loopholes after the enactment of the PHA when suspects claimed that they did not know that their behaviour (e.g. sending flowers, etc.) amounted to harassment. The signing of a PIN does not imply that the alleged harassment has taken place. The acknowledgement of a PIN does not mean that the recipient is guilty, merely that they have acknowledged receipt of the PIN. There is no right of appeal. If a person is unhappy that the notice has been issued the only recourse is to complain via the issuing force or the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The review found that Sussex Police adopted the ACPO model Police Information template in January 2013 and is fully compliant with ACPO guidance in this respect. The review also found that Sussex Police Policy 578/2013 lacks some of the clarity of the ACPO guidance document. In addition, Sussex Policy 578/2013 fails to reflect recent process changes within Sussex Police notably the utilisation of the Niche crime recording system and also predates changes relating to the retention of PINs and the Management of Police Information. Research has shown that other Force areas have PHA policy and guidance in place that is similar to Sussex Policy 578/2013 The review found that the use of PINs is generally well received by both officers and victims and that there does appear to be an element of success in terms of crime reduction and prevention. The review found that whilst Sussex Police appears to have a balanced approach to issuing PINs which in the main meets ACPO guidance, there are areas for improvement that need to be addressed. This is in order to ensure the use of PINs across the organisation is as efficient and effective as possible whilst meeting the requirements of ACPO guidance. 4

3. Terms of Reference The review has been conducted by the Policy, Audit and Review Team of the Public Protection Branch (previously the Protecting Vulnerable People Branch) to the following Terms of Reference (TOR), as agreed by ACC Smith. The full TOR has been attached as Appendix One. 1. To ascertain whether the Sussex Police Policy Document 578/2013 is fit for purpose with regards to PIN s and if this meets or exceeds the standards laid down in the ACPO guidance Practice on Investigating Stalking and Harassment 2009 2. To establish the forces current position on whether the use of PIN s across the organisation is efficient, effective and meets ACPO guidance. 3. To determine the level of knowledge by frontline officers on the correct application of PIN s and their views on the operational benefits. 4. To articulate the process in which PIN s are stored and recorded within Sussex Police systems. 5. To dip check a sample of investigations of Stalking and Harassment to determine whether the approach of issuing of a PIN contributes to the meeting of victim expectations. 6. To establish the provision of training provided to officers and staff with regards to offences and investigative tools for Stalking and Harassment. 7. To make recommendations where necessary. 4. Methodology 4.1. Consultation: Focus groups and one-to-one interviews were held across all divisions with members of staff within the following teams. A standard questionnaire was completed with each officer or group and has been included as Appendix Two. The sample size of 1 Sergeant and 2 or 3 Police Constables has been used from: NPT = Neighbourhood Policing Team NRT = Neighbourhood Response Team RIT = Response Investigation Team In addition, members from the Crime Management Unit (CMU) and Police Contact Centre (PCC) were consulted with during the course of the review. 4.2. Data Analysis: For TOR five, data from Niche has been obtained. Between 01/10/2013 and 31/12/2013 the records of all recorded Enhanced Crime Related Incidents of First Time Harassment were collated. For the purpose of the dip check, 30 (10 from each division) of these were considered for the audit. In addition, a dip check of five harassment offences ( Pursued a course of conduct which amounted to harassment ) and five stalking offences ( Stalking involving serious alarm/distress and Stalking involving a fear of violence ) were considered that were recorded between 01/01/2014 and 31/03/2014. 4.3. Documents/Sources: Sussex Police intranet Sussex Police Policy 578/2013 5

ACPO Practice Advice on Investigating Stalking and Harassment 2009 CPS Guidance on Police Information Notices to Suspects about Potential Offences under the PHA College of Policing Briefing Note for Amendments to the Protecting from Harassment Act 1997 22 nd January 2013 House of Commons Library standard note SN/HA/6411 Harassment Police Information Notices 04/09/2012 Devon and Cornwall Police Policy D281 Wiltshire Police Policy in relation to the PHA Surrey Police Guidance in relation to the PHA PNLD 5. Findings The terms of reference have been considered in turn and the findings are as follows. 5.1. Terms of Reference One - To ascertain whether the Sussex Police Policy Document 578/2013 is fit for purpose with regards to PINs and if this meets or exceeds the standards laid down in the ACPO guidance Practice on Investigating Stalking and Harassment 2009 5.1.1. Background Police Information Notices (PINs), previously known as Harassment Warning Notices or Harassment Letters, are not provided for in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA) and do not in themselves constitute any kind of formal legal action. There is no formal police procedure that must be followed and there are no set time limits during which they have effect. PINs are not a statutory requirement, but they can assist as an evidence base in later proceedings. They were developed following the identification of early loopholes after the enactment of the PHA when stalkers claimed that they did not know that their behaviour (such as sending flowers, cards etc.) amounted to harassment. The benefits of a PIN are: To ensure that members of the public are aware of the requirements of the law in relation to the PHA That they can contribute to preventing the escalation of disputes that may lead to behaviour amounting to harassment To assist in future prosecutions by proving that the offender knew that the conduct could amount to harassment under the PHA To provide a response when the complainant does not wish to support a prosecution The intention of a PIN is to ensure that the recipient is aware that their behaviour is causing distress. Having been made aware of this, should the behaviour continue, they cannot then later claim a defence of a reasonable person. The signing of a PIN does not imply that the alleged harassment has taken place. The acknowledgement of a PIN does not mean that the recipient is guilty, merely that they have acknowledged receipt of the PIN. There is no right of appeal. If a person is unhappy that the notice has been issued the only recourse is to complain via the issuing force for review or the Independent Police Complaints Commission. 6

Sussex Police Policy 578/2013 1 defines the offences of harassment and stalking and details the Force s approach to managing the risks associated with such offences. The policy, which was last reviewed by the Force Policy Board on 7 th March 2013 and came into use on 2 nd April 2013, encompasses the legislation incorporating the Protection from Harassment Act (PHA) 1997 as amended by The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Following amendments to the PHA, a briefing note was circulated in October 2012 to staff via briefing, Routine Orders and local meetings, advising of the legislative changes. In 2014 two intranet sites (the Public Contact Guide for the Police Contact Centre and the Crime Management Unit site) were updated to provide guidance in relation to the recording of PINs following the transition to the Niche crime recording system. PINs are still retained by the Crime Management Unit (CMU), however with the advent of Niche, recording practices have changed that are not reflected within Sussex Police Policy 578/2013 nor widely circulated. 5.1.2. ACPO Guidance Police Information Notices ACPO guidance 2 states that where there is sufficient evidence that an offence has been committed and the public interest test is met, the CPS will generally proceed with a prosecution. When the police investigation is complete, there may be circumstance in which a charge, caution or prosecution is not possible. For example there may not be sufficient evidence of a course of conduct, which breaches the PHA It is perhaps worthy of note that the ACPO guidance states that there are some circumstances in which it can be useful for the police to inform a suspect verbally and /or in writing that their alleged actions may constitute an offence under the PHA (described here as a Police information notice) 5.1.3. ACPO Guidance - Content of a Police Information Notice Sussex Police is following best practice and has adopted, in full, the model PIN template as provided by ACPO guidance. ACPO guidance states that a PIN, should be sufficient to advise the suspect of the following: I. That the police information notice is not a court order or any form of conviction or caution. II. The requirements and scope of the PHA III. That all allegations of harassment are taken seriously and investigated by the police IV. That harassment, alarm or distress has been caused or may have been caused to the victim by specified actions of the suspect (or that this may be caused should the conduct continue or be repeated) V. That any further, similar conduct could amount to a criminal offence under the PHA VI. The fact that the PIN has been received could be used as evidence in any future criminal investigation or prosecution, or civil proceedings taken by the victim. VII. That acknowledging receipt of the PIN does not mean that the suspect is admitting any wrong doing simply accepting information about the PHA and the police position on investigating allegations of harassment. The Sussex Police Information Notice (Appendix Three) complies in full. 1 Policy 578/2013 http://www.sussex.police.uk/policing-in-sussex/transparency/policies-andprocedures/force-policies/protection-from-harassment 2 ACPO Practice Advice on Investigating Stalking and Harassment http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2009/200908crisah01.pdf 7

5.1.4. ACPO Guidance issuing a PIN ACPO guidance makes it plain that the use of a PIN will generally not be appropriate when an investigation has established a course of conduct under the PHA Guidance is also explicit in detailing that individuals should not be issued with a notice relating to behaviour which would not constitute a breach of the PHA even if it were to be repeated and then form part of a course of conduct furthermore the guidance states that notices are not helpful in dealing with entrenched disputes, although they can be useful in the early stages to make parties aware that their actions may constitute breaches of the PHA if continued Sussex policy does not include this information. ACPO guidance states that any decision to issue a PIN should be authorised by a supervising officer. This is not apparent within the Police document 578/2013 and there does not appear to be a space within the PIN to include the name of the authorising officer. (However the ACPO PIN template does not allow for this). ACPO guidance also details actions in relation to the victim. These actions do not appear to be explicit within Sussex Police policy 578/2013. ACPO guidance suggests that clarity as to the suspect s identity should be sought in the event that the notice may be used in subsequent proceedings. Guidance also states that the recipient should be offered the opportunity to sign indicating that they have received the notice and their understanding. Guidance further suggests that it may be necessary to caution a suspect if they make relevant comments and to record those comments appropriately. The Sussex PIN includes these aspects although Policy 578/2013 does not make this explicit. ACPO guidance does allow for the use of personal delivery service or recorded delivery, but only in exceptional circumstances. 5.1.5. CPS Advice CPS advice in relation to the use of PINs reflects ACPO guidance, making note of the fact that a PIN is not required for a prosecution to commence under the PHA. 3 It also lists circumstances where it is useful to inform a suspect verbally/in writing that their alleged actions may constitute an offence under the Act. Examples include: The suspect may be genuinely unaware of the provisions of the PHA and that their actions may constitute a criminal offence, or they may try to use such ignorance as an excuse for their activity; There may only be evidence of a single act causing the victim harassment, alarm or distress meaning that the notifiable offence of harassment has not occurred (in that a course of conduct has not been proven); There is evidence of a course of conduct, but the victim is unwilling to support a prosecution and there are other elements of the case that mean that we have decided not to continue with the prosecution. 5.1.6. Use of the Police Information Notice in other Force Areas Devon and Cornwall Police reviewed their policy (D281) in relation to the PHA on 13 th February 2014. The policy is not now due to be reviewed again until 12th February 2015. Their policy D281 3 CPS Guidance - https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/ 8

is similar to Sussex Police Policy 578/2013. The only notable differences between the two policies are that Devon and Cornwall Police Policy includes consideration given to the use of Community Impact Assessments and the considerations relating to the recording and retention of data in accordance with case law relating to the PHA 1997 and the Management of Police Information (MoPI). Devon and Cornwall are similar to Sussex Police in that Niche is the crime recording mechanism. Wiltshire Police Force published a force policy in relation to the PHA in August 2011. This policy is due for review in August 2014. Again the policy has similar content to that of Sussex Police Policy 578/2013. Wiltshire Police use Niche as a crime recording mechanism. Interestingly Wiltshire policy uses terminology such as issuing a warning. ACPO guidance advises to avoid such terminology and it does not exist within Sussex Police policy. However, Wiltshire Police policy does make it clear that the HIN (PIN) must first be authorised by a supervisory officer or Evidence Review Officer on the Niche investigation log. Surrey Police have guidance document which advises officers to read the NPIA Manual Investigating Stalking and Harassment and the CPS advice on Stalking and Harassment. The ACPO PIN template is used. When comparing Sussex Police Policy 578/2013 it would be fair to say that policy 578/2013 is equitable to other similar policies. However it is apparent that there are deficiencies within policy 578/2013 that have become apparent as systems and processes have changed. 5.1.7. Recent Case Law In 2013 the Court of Appeal gave direction with regard to the retention of information recorded on a PIN: In a judgment handed down 13 th March 2013 4 the Court of Appeal found that, in retaining the warning notice (and the allegation on T s police record), the Metropolitan Police had unlawfully breached her right to respect for private life (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights). Giving judgment, Justice Moore-Bick commented that it would be difficult, in cases such as this, where harassment was alleged, to see how retention of more than a year or so at the most could possibly be of any assistance and that retention of information of this kind for more than a matter of months needs to be justified by evidence. Further, in relation to the decision to issue the warning notice, he commented that: in common fairness a person against whom an allegation of this kind is made should be invited to give his or her side of the story before police decide whether action of any kind is appropriate. Whilst recording practices in Sussex in relation to PINs take cognisance of the Court of Appeal judgement, in that data is retained for a year and a day, Sussex Police policy 578/2013 does not correctly reflect this. It also predates the Niche recording mechanism and therefore does not take cognisance of MoPI. 5.1.8. Conclusion of TOR One The use of a PIN is widely adopted as a means to reduce the amount of reports to police before a situation degenerates into full offences of harassment. The Sussex PIN is compliant with the ACPO PIN template. Sussex Police Policy 578/2013 is comparable to other Force areas and whilst it may benefit from a wider review it at least meets the standards set by ACPO Guidance Practice on Investigating Stalking and Harassment 2009 4 R (Catt) v Metropolitan Police - http://www.bindmans.com/documents/r_(catt)_v_metropolitan_police_commrapproved_judgment.doc 9

5.2. Terms of Reference Two - To establish the forces current position on whether the use of PIN s across the organisation is efficient, effective and meets ACPO guidance. TOR one laid out the directives of ACPO guidance for the use and issuance of PINs. Using this information, the response to TOR Two has been considered using officer comments during interviews and focus groups. These were held across the force (as detailed in the Methodology) where the following questions were asked: 1a. What is a PIN? 1b. In what circumstances would you issue a PIN? 1c. Tell me about a time when you have issued a PIN? 1d. Can you think of some examples where it is not appropriate to issue a PIN? 1e. How do you issue a PIN? 1f. Who should receive a copy of the PIN? 1g. Who can authorise the issuing of a PIN? 1h. Have you ever cancelled a PIN? 2b. How effective do you think PINs are in relation to crime prevention? 2c. Is it necessary to seek the views of a victim before issuing a PIN? 2d. What would you do if the victim didn t want a PIN to be issued? Questions 1a, 1b and 1c - All officers correctly stated PIN as Police Information Notice and either responded they were for first course of conduct harassment, low level harassment or both. One officer stated they are not just for harassment and can be issued even where a course of conduct exists. All except two officers were able to give examples and showed good knowledge of when they can be issued. Furthermore, exploration of their examples demonstrated that they were unable to recall further incidents following the issuance of the PIN, which does indicate a positive effect in preventing further harassment. However, some commented they may not be made aware of further incidents due to these being resourced elsewhere. The examples did elicit comments from officers who described that PINs are sometimes issued too quickly as an option to avoid investigating a full offence of harassment/stalking, perhaps in the interest of efficiency. It is not appropriate to issue a PIN where there is a reasonable explanation for the behaviour complained of, as explained in ACPO guidance. It is therefore vital that a full investigation takes place prior to the issuance of a PIN, both to ensure appropriate use of the PIN and to determine whether a full offence exists. Otherwise, this may result in the force under-recording harassment/stalking offences, which has been then considered as part of this review. Question 1d - A variety of reasons were given where it is not appropriate to issue a PIN and these could be placed into six categories. The instances where they were mentioned are displayed in the following chart: Inappropriate to issue PIN 9% 16% 16% 31% 3% Domestic Abuse Hate crime High level Vulnerable/young person Offence Neighbour/ongoing dispute 25% 10

Interestingly the most common response was Domestic Abuse, secondly if the situation displayed a high level of harassment. ACPO does comment in their guidance that notices are not helpful in dealing with entrenched disputes and the use of a PIN will generally not be appropriate when an investigation has established a course of conduct under the PHA Very few officers stated that where an offence was present or when dealing with neighbour/ongoing disputes it would be inappropriate to issue a PIN - these responses exclusively came from PC s working in either NPT or RIT. It would therefore be beneficial to remind officers, within a review of policy, of situations where it is not appropriate to issue a PIN. Question 1e - ACPO guidance states a PIN should be given personally and offered to the recipient to sign. It does allow for the use of personal delivery service or recorded delivery, but only in exceptional circumstances. When asked how they issue a PIN, most recognised this needed to be completed in person to the recipient and that it should be signed. There were however some instances where the issuing of a PIN would not meet ACPO guidance. This included officers who stated they read a PIN over the phone, send them by email or by post. These responses mainly came from RIT officers. NPT were the only officers to state that only recorded delivery post would be accepted. Question 1f - Almost all officers stated that the recipient of the PIN and police should receive a copy. However, none of the officers interviewed stated that the victim must be given a copy as per ACPO guidance. This advised that both the potential victim and suspect should be given a copy of the notice; the victim should receive this prior to it being issued. Question 1g - ACPO guidance states that any decision to issue a PIN should be authorised by a supervising officer. It has been recognised in TOR one that force policy does not provide this information. Therefore, it is unsurprising that very few officers stated a supervisor was needed to authorise the issuing of a PIN and believed that the PC could authorise their own PIN. Question 2b - Whether PINs are effective is also considered in TOR 5, where a dip check of investigations has been performed to determine if the decision to issue a PIN has prevented further contact. Generally officers spoke highly of the PIN and felt it not only met victim s expectations but were also effective because the behaviour usually stopped. Many officers specifically commented that for the average law-abiding citizen the wording of the PIN is sufficient to prevent the situation escalating or continuing. This in turn has an effect on police resourcing and therefore PINs are seen as an effective tool in crime prevention. Question 2c and 2d - ACPO guidance directs that the views of the victims should be sought and recorded. If there are circumstances where the victim does not wish the alleged offender to be issued with a PIN, this must be documented in the victim statement or officers PNB. The investigating officer should discuss the situation with their supervisor and document the decision whether to follow the victim s wishes or not, giving reasons for the decision. All officers recognised that it is necessary to seek the views of the victim. When asked what they would do if the victim didn t want a PIN to be issued this provided a split in responses. Officers mainly stated they would consider the circumstances and either respect their wishes or go ahead as appropriate. Some officers (from NRT and RIT) stated they would always respect the decision of the victim and would not issue the PIN. All officers did explain they would discuss the situation in full with the victim, detailing what other options were available and to discover their reasoning. Overall the response to this TOR has been considered and it can be seen from the evidence above (along with findings throughout this review) that Sussex Police appears to have a balanced approach to issuing PINs that mostly meets ACPO guidance. However, there are clear areas of improvement that need to be addressed, in order to ensure the use of PINs across the organisation is as efficient and effective as possible whilst meeting ACPO guidance. 11

Recommendation One: To undertake a comprehensive review of the Sussex Police Policy document 578/2013 prior to the planned review date of 02/04/2015, with a view to including: That all reports of stalking/harassment should be investigated in full prior to the decision to issue a PIN Explicit guidance in the use and application of the PIN o o o o o All officers should ensure that PINs are issued in person by the OIC or, in exceptional circumstances, by recorded delivery All officers should ensure that victims receive a copy of the PIN prior to it being issued All officers to seek the views of the victims and record the decision to follow their wishes or not, in full, on Niche. The retention period to be set at what is lawful, necessary and proportionate. A supervisory officer is to authorise the use of a PIN. Defined Niche recording practices of PINs The use of Community Impact Assessments where necessary Guidance on MoPI compliance 5.3. Terms of Reference Three - To determine the level of knowledge by frontline officers on the correct application of PIN s and their views on the operational benefits. 5.3.1. Officer Knowledge In order to establish knowledge amongst officers, interviews and focus groups were held across the force (as detailed in the Methodology) where the following questions were asked: 4a - Is a PIN required for a prosecution to commence under the Protection of Harassment Act 1997? 4b - What is the PIN retention period? 4f - What are the stalking and harassment offences? As described in TOR one, a PIN is not necessary for a prosecution under the PHA. Almost all officers correctly answered question 4a with only one PC in NPT stating that it was required. The PIN retention period is something that is incorrect in Sussex Police policy 578/2013 and to discover the correct period would require an officer to research a number of sources. (This is explained in TOR four). Therefore it could be expected that the majority of officers did not know the retention period when asked question 4b, but most guessed the period of one year. There was confusion amongst officers over whether a PIN is active for one year and stored within police systems for longer - information that is not explained in Sussex Police policy 578/2013 and not widely understood. Knowledge of the stalking and harassment offences was limited and most officers could only state the harassment offences at sec 2 and sec 4 of the PHA. Many knew there were new stalking offences but could not state what these were or how they differed to the harassment offences. Considering this knowledge of officers, a search was performed to determine the number of crimes recorded against the following offences: Section 2 Harassment A person must not pursue a course of conduct which they knew or ought to have known would cause alarm or distress. (HO 195/94) 12

Section 2A - Stalking (this also contains a power of entry exercisable by warrant to investigate stalking offences under Section 2B) (HO 195/12) Section 4 Putting people in fear of violence A person must not pursue a course of conduct which they knew or ought to have known would cause fear of violence. (HO 08/30) Section 4A - Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress. (HO 08/65 and HO 08/66) The results corroborated the findings of the interviews/focus groups in regards to officer knowledge and potential under-recording of such offences. As can be seen from the table below, 233 crimes were recorded in the time period relating to Harassment but only 6 for Stalking offences. Stalking and Harassment recorded crimes 01/01/14 to 31/03/14 by division HO Code 008/30 008/65 008/66 195/12 195/94 Offence PUTTING PEOPLE IN FEAR OF VIOLENCE STALKING INVOLVING FEAR OF VIOLENCE STALKING INVOLVING SERIOUS ALARM/DISTRESS Brighton and Hove East Sussex Gatwick Unknown West Sussex TOTAL 3 5 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 PURSUE COURSE OF CONDUCT IN BREACH OF SEC 1 ( 1 ) WHICH AMOUNTS TO STALKING 0 2 0 0 2 4 PURSUED A COURSE OF CONDUCT WHICH AMOUNTED TO 47 65 0 2 101 215 HARASSMENT TOTAL 50 72 0 2 115 239 TOR six considers the provision of training provided to officers and staff in relation to Stalking and Harassment, which can only be described as poor - particularly relative to the use of PINs. It is therefore hardly surprising that the level of knowledge amongst officers has been obtained by on the job training that is in some respects outdated or incorrect. This could be addressed using a dedicated force-wide training program. 5.3.2. Benefits Officers were asked for their views by responding to the question (2a) What are the benefits of issuing a PIN? and also (2e) Do you think PINs meet victim s expectations? The majority of officers felt that the use of a PIN is worthwhile; believing that for low level harassment the PIN could nip it in the bud. The most common benefits stated were that PINs; Prevent further incidents/occurrences and stop situations escalating Prevent criminalising offenders unnecessarily (particularly when the recipient of the PIN genuinely did not realise the effect they were having on the victim) Are victim focussed as they show police action (rather than just verbal words of advice) and that we take these matters seriously Records the incident to be considered as further evidence towards a full offence Safeguard the victim The negative responses were that PINs are worthless when issuing to a career criminal because they have no legal standing, which the recipient usually knows. Almost all officers felt that PINs met victim s expectations, but with the caveat that it is important to explain what it is, the limitations, what other options are available and what could be done next. In 13

some cases they felt it exceeded the expectations of the victim, for example some victims just wanting the incident recorded and thought nothing else would be done. During the interviews/focus groups, it was stated by some that they thought officers can be too quick to issue PINs with little or no investigations. Comments were received that PINs are being issued to easily dispose of the incident, rather than taking the time to discuss the victim s views and therefore better able to manage their expectations. These comments highlight that officers are aware of the benefits both operationally and to the victim. There are some areas of development, for example knowledge of offences and on the application of the PIN, which would increase victim satisfaction and ensure the best investigative tool is being used in each situation. 5.4. Terms of Reference Four - To articulate the process in which PINs are stored and recorded within Sussex Police systems. The PIN template is available to all officers and staff within the Force Forms Templates system, which was updated to the ACPO template on 14th January 2013. Force policy 578/2013 dictates that the following must occur after issuing a PIN: A signed copy to be sent to CMU for retention A history marker created on STORM on the victim s name and address to include details of the PIN served A Niche Intel log submitted in respect of the recipient of the PIN Officers were asked during the interviews/focus groups (see Methodology for details) how they record that a PIN has been issued (3a) and the large majority of officers said that they would record on Niche. Very few commented they would also or exclusively record in their PNB. ACPO guidance merely states to document the fact the PIN has been issued and there is no guidance within policy as to what procedure to follow. A standard method of recording on the Niche Occurrence Enquiry Log (OEL) and officers PNB would appear to be best practice and therefore policy should be updated to reflect this. 5.4.1. Crime Management Unit (CMU) retention and storage Force policy at sec 9.2 directs that A signed copy should be retained (with the STORM serial number added) and sent to the Crime Management Unit where the record will be stored for 12 months. This is the only guidance provided regarding the storage or retention of PINs and conflicts with section 9.3 of the policy which states that a history marker's time limit should "mirror the PINS retention period of a minimum of a year and 1 day". The CMU intranet page details that The original copies of these notices are held within the central CMU filing system at Haywards Heath police station, details of the notice is also held on the original CAD log prior to NICHE and on the person entity since NICHE. It also provides an update that following a ruling made by the Information Commissioner the retention period of these notices is one year and one day. Advice was sought from staff at the CMU as part of this review, who explained that since Niche went live the unit scan all PINs and upload them onto the person entity of which they were issued to. It was also confirmed that they still hold hard copies and have processes in place to ensure that PINs are not retained beyond the advised period (one year and one day). This process is that a search is performed on Niche by date range or through a manual check of the filing system. The Niche search, although not confirmed, has potential flaws. The PIN is not built into Niche as a standard form and therefore must be scanned in as an external document whereby its contents are not searchable. This means searches will be reliant on the date uploaded this is not the necessarily the same as the date issued by the officer. Considering that Niche has not yet been 14

live for one year since its introduction in May 2013, there is still a window of opportunity to ensure that Sussex Police adhere to the Information Commissioners directive by establishing an effective disposal process. Recommendation Two: CMU to establish a disposal process of PIN s that ensures Sussex Police meet the retention period as directed by the Information Commissioner. In terms of centrally storing hard copies, using findings from the audit (see TOR 5) and questionnaires for this review it has been established that not all officers are sending PINs to CMU. Sussex Police record Enhanced Crime Related Incidents (ECRI), these ensure that certain crime related information is recorded and to allow an auditable record of police activity. The audit findings showed that of the ECRI investigations reviewed where a PIN was issued (24), 50% had no details on the OEL detailing that the PIN was sent to CMU. During interview, officers were asked where they store PIN s (Q3b). Positively, out of the 16 officer interviews and focus groups (total of 28 officers) there were only two responses recorded where the officers did not state they would send a hard copy to CMU. Both of these results were obtained from West Sussex NPT officers (two PCs and one Sergeant). It appears that officers would benefit from central communication that hard copies of PINs must be sent to CMU and this action is to be logged on the OEL within Niche. This will support the central administration by CMU to ensure the correct retention and disposal process of PINs. 5.4.2. History Marker Force policy at sec 9.3 states A history marker should be created on STORM on the victim's name and address. This marker will also include details of the individual the PIN was served on and the linking storm serial number. It will be the responsibility of the reporting officer to contact the communication department to have these markers put in place. The time limits on these markers should mirror the PINS retention period of a minimum of a year and 1 day. It is the responsibility of the reporting officer to contact the Communications Department and request that the markers are applied. Unfortunately the audit and questionnaire findings show that compliance with policy in this respect is poor. During the audit, victim details were collated where a PIN was issued and sent to the STORM Update Administrator to ascertain whether history markers were present. Out of the 24 records, only one victim had a history marker on their address added as required by policy. This mirrors the findings from the questionnaire results, where officers were asked: 3d. Would you request that PCC add a history marker? (If yes, under whose address?) Out of the 16 interviews/focus groups only four (total of 7 officers) recognised the need to add a history marker. Three responses were from RIT and one from NRT. The majority of the results (10 interviews/focus groups, a total of 19 officers) showed that officers stated they would consider adding history marker only if it involved a higher risk, for example in domestic abuse cases. Many officers commented on the difficulty of adding markers because they had heard of a drive within the Communications Department to reduce the number of history markers. This is clearly at odds to the guidance within policy and the need to safeguard victims of stalking and harassment. A Deputy Manager of the Police Contact Centre (PCC) was spoken to in order to establish the validity of this rumour. When the force moved from the command and control system OIS to STORM in 2010, it was discovered that a considerable number of history markers were present for many circumstances. Often a weeding period had not been applied and there was little housekeeping. Due to the large number of history markers this diluted the effect and significance of them. On moving to STORM a conscious effort was made to reduce history markers but there does not seem to have been communication or guidance on this fact. The PCC guidance on history 15

markers has been viewed and this does not state that history markers will not be created or that there are too many. Therefore it appears officers are in receipt of information that is out of context and out of date. It is clear that history markers are not consistently added. This presents further difficulties in determining whether a PIN has been issued, reduces our ability to safeguard a victim, and we may not meet victim s expectations in terms of our future response. 5.4.3. Niche It has been established within this review that additional processes have been developed following the introduction of Niche, which have not been reflected in policy. Due to a lack of central guidance there is no standard practice and this has resulted in an inconsistent approach being used, which increases the risk that officers/staff potentially may not be able to establish whether a PIN has been issued and to whom. As previously described, PINs are uploaded to Niche as a scanned document by CMU. These are stored under the person entity of Niche but this practice is not replicated (or perhaps even known) by officers across the force. Using audit data and responses from the questionnaires it was found that officers are also uploading the PIN to Niche but under various locations. This shows a duplication of effort - although this is not necessary a hindrance given that it improves the likelihood of locating the PIN. The danger though, is that without a standard defined location to save PINs in Niche, an officer may look to one area and not find the PIN at all. The audit of 24 occurrences determined that 58% of the PINs issued were found under both the person entity and occurrence, 29% under the occurrence alone and 13% had no record of the PIN. The graph below demonstrates the findings by division: PIN Storage 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 Not on Niche Occurrence Occurrence and Nominal Brighton East West The results from the questionnaire reflect the confusion amongst officers. The officers who stated they would store the PIN on Niche (15 out of the 16 interviews/ focus groups) were then asked where in Niche they would do this. The results were as follows: 16

Location of PIN (Officer Response) 8 3 4 Not stated Occurrence Occurrence and Suspect Suspect 1 As can be seen from the above, 8 (50%) of the interviewed/groups of officers (total of 12 officers) stated they save the PIN to the suspect person entity. This does not correlate with either CMU practice or the audit findings. The findings are clear that Niche recording practices for where the PINs are stored must be defined. This data has been collated manually due to the fact that PINs are uploaded as a scanned form, which means there is no opportunity to search their contents or to determine how many PINs have been issued by the force. It would be beneficial to explore ways to resolve this, along with force communication on the storage of PINs in Niche. Recommendation Three: To explore methods to enable searching of PINs on Niche. 5.5. Terms of Reference Five - To dip check a sample of investigations of Stalking and Harassment to determine whether the approach of issuing of a PIN contributes to the meeting of victim expectations. A dip check looking at crime related incidents and crimes was undertaken to see how investigations into stalking and harassment were managed, and whether the issuing of a PIN contributed to meeting a victim s expectations. Further to this several cases studies have been documented to demonstrate the effectiveness and limitations of PINs. 5.5.1. Crime Related Incidents Sussex Police record Enhanced Crime Related Incidents (ECRI), these ensure that certain crime related information is recorded and allow an auditable record of police activity. The relevant ECRI to this audit is First Time Harassment, where incidents of first time harassment, which may later assist to demonstrate a course of conduct, are recorded. For example, if a victim complains of an episode of unwanted contact from an ex partner, a PIN could be issued and recorded as an ECRI for first time harassment. If this unwanted contact were to continue then the ECRI would be used to show a course of conduct towards the full offence of harassment. Between 01/10/2013 and 31/12/2013, Sussex Police recorded 505 ECRIs for first time harassment. For the purpose of the dip check, 30 (10 from each division) of these were considered for the following: Whether a PIN had been issued for a single incident of stalking or harassment, as per ACPO guidance and force policy. If there had been any subsequent incidents of stalking or harassment after a PIN had been issued. 17

The results were as follows: PINs Issued Of the 30 ECRIs considered, 24 (80%) had a PIN issued. Further analysis of the cases where PINs were issued was undertaken and it was established that in only six (25%) of these cases there was a single incident of stalking or harassment. Therefore, in 18 (75%) cases where a PIN was issued more than one incident of stalking or harassment was reported; demonstrating a clear course of conduct. This is demonstrated in the below pie chart. Single Incident or Course of Conduct 6, 25% 18, 75% Single Incident Course of Conduct The above results demonstrate that ACPO guidance is not being followed as PINs are being issued not solely for a single incident of stalking or harassment. However, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance states that PINs can be issued where: There is evidence of a course of conduct, but the victim is unwilling to support a prosecution and there are other elements of the case which mean that we have decided not to continue with the prosecution Examples of this may include where there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a course of conduct or the victim does not wish the suspect to receive a criminal record. This may provide one explanation as to why PINs were issued where there was a clear course of conduct. Of the 18 cases considered, several made reference to the victim agreeing with issuing a PIN or expressing a desire for the suspect not to receive a criminal record, however in no cases did it clearly state that there was a course of conduct but that a PIN was being issued due to the victims wishes. This supports the evidence from the questionnaires where officers felt that once the PIN process was explained to a victim they were generally supportive and felt that this was the best option. This suggests that victims are being advised of PINs and are generally choosing this over prosecution. Further incidents Of the 24 cases where a PIN was issued, there was further contact by the suspect in six (25%) cases. The amount and type of contact varied and not all were considered to be a breach of the PIN. However, in two cases the further reports led to a course of conduct being demonstrated and a crime of pursued a course of conduct which amount to harassment was recorded. The above conversion rate from PINs to recorded crimes of harassment suggests that PINs do meet victims expectations. However, the above demonstrates that PINs are being issued even when there is a clear course of conduct and consideration as to whether each victim is only being given the option of a PIN by the officer needs to be given. 18

5.5.2. Crimes of Stalking and Harassment A selection of recorded crimes of stalking and harassment were considered for the following and to ascertain whether the victim s expectations had been met: If a PIN had been issued to the offender for any previous stalking and harassment incidents towards the victim. If a PIN has been issued inappropriately as a resolution to the crime. For the purpose of this dip check five harassment and five stalking offences were considered that were recorded between 01/01/2014 and 31/03/2014. This included the following crimes: Pursued a course of conduct which amounted to harassment Stalking involving serious alarm/distress Stalking involving a fear of violence The results were as follows: 5.5.3. Stalking Previous PIN Of the five crimes considered, none of the offenders had previously had a PIN issued to them in relation to the victim. PIN Issued One of the five crimes considered had a PIN issued as the resolution although there was a clear course of conduct. Within this case the victim clearly states that they only want the offender spoken to about the matter and that they are happy with the use of a PIN. This indicates that a PIN was the most suitable option in this case as it supports the victim s wishes and follows CPS guidance. 5.5.4. Harassment Previous PIN Of the five crimes considered, none of the offenders had previously had a PIN issued to them in relation to the victim. However, one offender had previous Police involvement relating to unwanted contact towards the victim. This matter was dealt with as a non-crime domestic even though there was a clear course of conduct, and can be considered as contrary to ACPO guidance. PIN Issued Of the five crimes considered, no PINs were issued as a resolution to the crime. This is in accordance with ACPO guidance. The above analysis of crimes demonstrates that where appropriate offenders are being prosecuted for the crime rather than a PIN being issued. This indicates that officers know in which situations a PIN will work and will not, this is supported by the evidence that was gathered during the questionnaires. However, this approach can be considered as contrary to ACPO guidance as PINs are being issued where a clear course of conduct has been demonstrated. It appears that victim s expectations are being met in regards to PINs being issued. This is evidenced by only a few cases within the dip check where the suspect/recipient of the PIN goes on to commit the crime of stalking or harassment. Moreover, victims are often choosing the option of a PIN to ensure that the suspect avoids criminalisation. 5.5.5. Case Studies To further demonstrate the evidence for this TOR, a selection of case studies has been documented. The first two cases studies demonstrate how a PIN can be used effectively to deal with a situation. The remaining two document the limitations of a PIN and how the offender can continue to cause harassment. 19