Minutes:
Chief Inspector Craig Knight attended to provide the police update and commenced by highlighting the main points of the ‘Bromley ASB and Crime Performance & Analysis’ document that had been tabled at the meeting, and disseminated previously.
There had been an uplift in stop and search across the MET Police. Bromley was approximately mid-table in terms of its stop and search volumes across London. The legislation primarily relied upon in this regard was section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It was often the case that if a stop and search for lower level drugs was undertaken, this could then lead to the discovery of harder drugs and weapons. It was hoped that in the future, the current rate of arrests from stop and search would increase, as officers became more familiar with the process. The current rate of arrest from stop and search was in the region of 10%--12% which was better than the London average.
A discussion took place regarding the use of robust powers under ‘Section 60’. Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, allowed a police officer to stop and search a person ‘without suspicion’.
Section 60 stop and searches could take place in an area which had been authorised by a senior police officer on the basis of their reasonable belief that violence had, or was about to occur, and where it was expedient to prevent it; or search people for a weapon if one was involved in an incident. It was set for a limited time (normally less than 12 hours) and allowed police officers to stop and search people without reasonable grounds. Section 60 was normally applied to a defined geographical area, but it had occasionally been used borough wide.
A Member asked if there had been a rise in complaints against the police because of the increased use of stop and search. The answer to this was ‘no’ and part of the reason for this was the use of body worn video cameras.
A Member asked that her appreciation to be recorded for the excellent work undertaken by police officers in Orpington, but at the same time expressed shock at the current levels of crime there. She asked how often the allocation of police officers was reviewed. The Chief Inspector replied that this was looked at weekly by inspectors and cluster sergeants. On a monthly basis, the allocation of police officers and resources was monitored by the TTCG (Tactical Tasking and Co-ordination Group); this was a monthly meeting to discuss resource allocation and crime priorities and also acted as an internal police performance meeting. Additionally, Chief Inspector Knight (along with Superintendent Colin Carswell) had to answer to the BCU (Borough Command Unit) Commander at a meeting of SO6.
The Chief Inspector assured the Committee that he was fully sighted regarding ASB and burglary in Orpington. Members were informed that an anti-burglary operation in Orpington had commenced two days previously. This was ‘Operation Starfish’ and was being conducted jointly with Kent Police. In fact, three arrests had been made on the morning of the meeting, and the operation was proving very successful.
The data regarding personal robbery in Bromley had remained static over the last two months. The data showing thefts from motor vehicles was also static, but the Chief Inspector commented that this was still too high. The figures for non-residential burglary (which included shoplifting) had risen. This was compounded by the fact that some businesses could not afford security arrangements. The statistics for ‘Violence with Injury’ had fluctuated over the rolling 12 months, but averaged 179 incidents per month; the May 2019 figure was 201.
Members were briefed that some licensed premises had been closed for not complying with the terms of their licenses. The trend for criminal damage was downward and there was not a large number of harassment incidents.
The Chief Inspector commented that the volume of hate crimes in Bromley was relatively low; there had been a spike recorded in May 2019, but the reason for this was not known.
The Committee was briefed on the rate of sanctioned detections over the last 12 weeks. This stood at 7% which was approximately the MET average. The good news was that the murder detection rate stood at approximately 80%.
A Member queried how many CID officers there were in Bromley. The Chief Inspector was not aware of the figure on the night, but promised to report back with the information. It was the case that Bromley Police were short of detectives and detective constables and that there was no longer a dedicated burglary squad. A Member expressed the view that the direct entry mechanism for detectives was not appropriate. The Chief Inspector responded that improvement in recruitment was required across the MET and that a variety of different recruitment routes were being considered.
A Co-opted Member queried if recruitment work was undertaken in schools. The answer to this was yes, and the work was undertaken by Police Schools Officers. The Chief Inspector mentioned that there was currently a drive to professionalise the police service. This would be done by providing professionally recognised qualifications from the Royal Institute of British Policing. A Member expressed concern that police officers would now be required to obtain a degree or similar professional qualification. She was concerned that the desire to obtain professional qualifications could replace the requirement for common sense.
Members were informed that recruitment to the MET was now being opened up to people living in the Home Counties. Youth engagement policies were in the pipeline.
Victim Satisfaction had fallen. It was thought that this was due to changes in the way that victims were being updated about ongoing investigations. This was an area that the police needed to improve on. Bromley police were doing better in the Public Attitude Survey, and a new Bromley Facebook Forum was being developed. This concept had taken off well in Sutton, where 2700 had been routinely engaged.
The Vice Chairman commented that not many people were aware of how to contact ward officers and he asked if the contact details could be found on the MET website. The Chairman confirmed that this was the case, but they were still hard to get hold of.
The Chairman asked for an explanation of the police’s strategy for reducing serious crime, especially in the identified crime hotspots in the north of the borough. Chief Inspector Knight responded that the police had identified 9 high priority crime areas where there had been much police activity. The aim of the police was to identify and analyse crime hotspots and prioritise risks. The police would subsequently utilise their assets based on risk. District ward assets would be focused on areas based on risk, because drug dealing and violence were taking place across all wards and across boundaries. Mr Knight was confident that crime would now fall in the current 3 priority ward areas.
Sergeant Paul Brewer attended to provide the update relating to the day to day work of Neighbourhood Ward Officers. He said that the role of DWOs was to detect and tackle crime in crime hotspots. He expected his officers to possess a good working knowledge of the wards that they operated in, along with some knowledge of the neighbouring wards as well. They had to have a clear plan of what they were looking to achieve. They would be expected to know the suspects and vulnerable people in their wards. The DWOs would be supported by PCSOs who would be expected to focus on community engagement and social media interaction.
Sergeant Brewer discussed the use of stop and search powers by ward officers, which could be used to disrupt gang violence and other crime. He wanted to see knife carriers brought to justice; seized weapons were put on Twitter. He highlighted the need for pro-active police operations, and mentioned the joined up work that had been undertaken with BTP at train stations.
Mr Brewer stated that he expected his officers to show initiative, and to own and act upon intelligence themselves. Whenever possible, a search warrant should be obtained so that searches could be undertaken for drugs, weapons and dangerous dogs. He referred to operations that had been undertaken in Penge with wider BCU support, and the fact that when warrants were actioned they would be noted on Twitter feeds, as this instilled fear into criminals and assurance to the general public.
A Member asked Mr Brewer if the police were provided with information relating to large community events. This was because a large community event had taken place recently and there was no police presence. Chief Inspector Knight responded that in the London South BCU there were approximately 6500 community events each year, and the police did not have the resources to send officers to every event, unless there was specific intelligence available to suggest that a police presence was required.
The police would not normally consider providing a presence at an event unless the expected turn out for the event exceeded 30,000 people.
A Member enquired if motor vehicles were provided for DWOs. The answer was that there were currently 4 vehicles available which could be booked out in advance as required. Mr Knight encouraged his officers to walk and use public transport to provide assurances to the public. A bid had been submitted recently for more vehicles that could be used in plain clothes operations.
The Chairman felt that there was a problem with the reporting of ASB crime, although he did feel that the 101 service had improved slightly. He would welcome the reformation of the Police ASB Team if that was feasible.
It was noted that the next police update for the September meeting would focus on CID.