Minutes:
The DHR (Domestic Homicide Review) and Prevent update was provided by the Head of Trading Standards and Commercial Regulation as follows:
DHR 2 “NAJARA”
This report was received by the Head of Trading Standards and Commercial Regulation on 1st December 2021. The Board heard that the final duty of the DHR panel was to ensure they were satisfied that their information was fully and fairly represented in the reports and that they accurately reflected the review panel’s findings. They should also be satisfied that the reports were of a sufficiently high standard to be submitted to the Home Office. The reports were shared with the panel on 3rd December 2021 with a request they responded to the Head of Trading Standards and Commercial Regulation with any comments by 10th January 2022. During this period the Action Plan could be reviewed.
Once agreement from the panel was received, the final version of the Overview Report and Executive Summary would be handed over to the Safer Bromley Partnership.
Normally, the documents would be shared ahead of the meeting, then there would be a presentation on the key aspects of the report such as an overview of the recommendations. However, given this case’s confidentiality (and there was a recommendation that the report is not published), electronic sign off from statutory partners would be sought.
It was unlikely that the report would be changed in any way at this stage, but more the case that those partners involved in the response to Domestic Abuse were sighted on the report and its recommendations and agreed with the findings in general. The detailed analysis of the case was provided by the DHR Panel.
Once approved by the Panel and the Chair of the SBP and the Action Plan was agreed, the report would be submitted to the Home Office Quality Assurance Panel. There was currently a six month turnaround for these reviews. Recommendations from the action plan were already being addressed, with several completed.
DHR 3 “ALICE:
The Home Office feedback letter was received on 25th October 2021 which commented that the report demonstrated good family engagement, was straightforward and helped paint a picture who Diane was as a person in her life. The Panel commended the Chair/author for contacting the perpetrator in prison to allow him to offer his contribution to the report and for linking with Victim Support Homicide Service (VSHS) to engage with existing support and advocacy for the family which helped to ease family engagement. There were some recommendations for areas of final development, and these had been addressed and received on 15th November 2021. On the 25th November 2021 the report was sent to the Chair of the Safer Bromley Partnership and the panel members.
The next step would be to send a copy to MOPAC and arrange publication – this was likely to be in the New Year following discussions with the family. The action plan would be managed by the Domestic Abuse Strategic Lead.
A copy would also be sent to Nicole Jacobs-- the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. As per the new duty under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 – the duty stated that the report should be sent as soon as reasonably practicable after the report is completed.
Prevent Update:
The Board was reminded that ‘Prevent’ formed part of the Government’s wider counter-terrorism strategy, known as CONTEST. Prevent aimed to safeguard individuals from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.
It was noted that the terror threat level was raised from ‘substantial’ to ‘severe’ following the Liverpool incident last month on Remembrance Sunday. This followed the murder of Sir David Amess in October which was also being treated as terror related.
The Home Office released official statistics of individuals referred to and supported through the Prevent programme in England and Wales from April 2020 to March 2021.
It was explained that when an individual was referred to Prevent, there was an initial screening and assessment and if a risk of radicalisation existed a referral would be passed to the mutli-agency ‘Channel’ Panel. These panels were chaired by the local authority and sought to determine the extent of an individual’s vulnerability to radicalisation and whether a support package, which may include an intervention, was necessary and proportionate to address the vulnerabilities.
In the year ending 31st March 2021 there had been 4,915 referrals to Prevent, a decrease of 22% on the previous year and the lowest number of referrals since 2016. The decrease was likely to have been driven by the effects of public health restrictions that were in place throughout the year to control the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
Fifty one percent of referrals were for individuals with a mixed, unstable or unclear ideology. This category reflected instances where the ideology presented involved a combination of elements from multiple ideologies (mixed), shifts between different ideologies (unstable), or where the individual did not present a coherent ideology, yet could still pose a terrorism risk (unclear). This also included individuals that may be vulnerable out of a sense of duty, or a desire for belonging and those obsessed with massacre or extreme/mass violence without targeting a particular group.
Twenty five percent were due to concerns related to extreme right-wing radicalisation--itself a reduction from previous years, but for the first time more than Islamist referrals
Twenty two percent were due to concerns related to Islamist radicalisation.
Police made the highest number of referrals (1,770 i.e. 36%), followed by Education (1,221 i.e. 25%) and this was the lowest number of referrals from Education since 2016, again likely to be a result of the pandemic.
Most referrals were male, and the largest age group was 15 to 20.
Of the cases referred to Channel (1,333) a total of 688 were adopted by the panel as being significant risks to radicalisation. This was a reduction of 7% and 0.6% respectively.
Of the 688 cases adopted by the panels, the ideologies of concern were:
· Extreme Right-Wing radicalisation (317; 46%),
· Mixed, unstable or unclear ideology (205; 30%)
· Islamist radicalisation (154; 22%).
The Board heard that analysis was taking place around these figures because they seemed to be out of kilter with the terrorist picture. Of interest was the very low number of cases of mixed, unstable or unclear ideology which had been adopted by Channel – 8%, yet they formed the largest share of referrals.
The Board was informed that the Prevent Review was with the Government for Ministerial approval.
A Prevent consultation was taking place which would focus on security related considerations being undertaken at certain publicly accessible locations--but not private venues, such as places of employment. The duty was likely to require those responsible to take such steps as were reasonably practicable to ensure the security of members of the public. This was likely to apply to venue owners and operators and large organisations.
The Head of the YOS asked if there was an update specifically regarding the local picture. The Head of Trading Standards and Commercial Regulation answered and said that he would share this information at the Children’s Safeguarding Board the following week. It was noted that LBB was regarded as a low priority borough.
The Chairman asked the Head of Trading Standards and Commercial Regulation if he could share information from the Institute of Licensing with respect to aggregate spaces before the next Board meeting.
RESOLVED that the Prevent and DHR update be noted and that the Head of Trading Standards and Commercial Regulation share information from the Institute of Licensing with respect to ‘aggregate spaces’.