Rita Tucker

Slide1: 

PPAF Data Quality Assurance Audit of Sanction Detections Supt. Rita TUCKER HMIC

Purpose: 

Purpose Quality assurance programme is a key element of the overall PPAF programme. Ensuring consistency of how forces are recording data. Vital for judging performance and generating reliable and credible assessments.

Methodology: 

Methodology Focused set of data checks on all sanction disposal methods. Following the PSU self inspection guide. Delivered by the HMIC and AAU. Supports NCRS and HOCRs. Tests force’s ethical application of the rules. Identifies good practice and AFIs.

HMIC Rules of Engagement: 

HMIC Rules of Engagement Letter to chief officers in advance of audit. Early notification to force liaison officers. Early notification to FCRs. Force set up meeting with HMIC pre audit to discuss methodology and share concerns. Terms of reference shared and audit expectations defined.

DATA AUDIT (Notifiable Offence - HOCR): 

DATA AUDIT (Notifiable Offence - HOCR) Check 1 (sample size 100 crimes) Data review on management of sanction detections. Check 2 (sample size 30 crimes in each disposal area) Charges. Summons. Cautions/Reprimands/Final Warnings. TICs. PNDs. Cannabis Warnings.

AUDIT FINDINGS & LESSONSLEARNT: 

AUDIT FINDINGS & LESSONS LEARNT

SANCTION DETECTION(General Comments): 

SANCTION DETECTION (General Comments) Concerns Crime file location and retrieval for audit problematic. Conflict between manual and electronic records. Substantial commitment on FCRs or other identified staff to meet audit demands. Failure to consolidate information in one location on finalisation. Lack of integration between crime recording and criminal justice.

Observations: 

Observations Recording of victim notification poor throughout all disposal areas within CJU and crime records. Poor audit structures around detection, although validation/audit checks on NCRS compliance good. DDM structures and recording of decisions often poor. Audit also identified shortfalls in better performing forces. HOCR weaknesses identified, vague interpretations

Observations: 

Observations Strengths Forces have been very responsive in general to AFIs raised. Use of DDMs to authorise all force decided detections disposals before claimed creates consistency. Use of finalised case scrutinisers on CMUs who ensure no detections are missed and mandatory checks are completed. The use of finalised case compliance sheets which address both CJU and crime recording requirements.

Check 1 - Data review on management of sanction detections: 

Check 1 - Data review on management of sanction detections Recording of supervisory direction or advice on investigation poor. Screening out of crimes which may be minor but still detectable is often encountered. The appropriateness of screening-out frequently not verified. Poor recording of actions and investigations conducted. Forensic opportunities frequently not exploited or not documented in auditable format. Priority crime areas i.e. burglary dwelling on the whole had good processes in place.

Check 2 - Charges: 

Check 2 - Charges Lack of integration between CJU and crime recording units. Little risk due to QA process in submission. Some issues/inconsistencies with statutory charging dependent on CPS area staff and structure. Increased demand for full files by CPS. Evidence of CPS advice pre charge not fully actioned resulting in discontinuances.

Check 2 - Summons: 

Check 2 - Summons Lack of authorising officer rationale to justify detection (requirement of HOCRs). Poor evidential checks on files to support prosecution resulting in high discontinuance levels. Forces with clear authorisation forms which included rationale listing evidential support for the decisions made. Similar to an MG3. Minimal use in most forces reduces the risk.

Check 2 – TICs: 

Check 2 – TICs The administration of TIC files is generally poor and cannot justify the detection with papers held on file produced for auditors. Failure to record sufficient evidence to justify detection. Substantive offence TICd on admission to lesser offence (TWOC to being carried etc). Use of TIC to prisoners in custody that are never pursued due to public interest but linked to an original sentencing file. No minimum requirement guide exists with the file for checking policy is complied with. Business process to justify needs refreshing. Good practice use of DDM to authorise all TIC disposals and finalisation scrutinisers to ensure taken into consideration with a court sentence so appropriate OBTJ.

Check 2 – Caution/Reprimand/Final Warnings: 

Check 2 – Caution/Reprimand/Final Warnings Insufficient recorded evidence to justify detection. Rationale to support decision making process by authorising officer not documented. Aggravating factors, offending history, victims views omitted. Force caution forms do not generally require decision to caution rationale to be recorded. Good practice forces with inclusion of decision rationale on Caution form. Recording of reprimands and final warnings are generally better than adult caution as the rationale and decision process is frequently recorded.

Check 2 - PNDs: 

Check 2 - PNDs Main concern non compliance with process. Use of PNDs for S5 POA to detect inappropriate offences such as assault, harassment, D&D and other public order cases without the necessary evidence of S5. Use of PNDs for urinating in street (no public present) also converted to S5 POA Lack of QA on notices to ensure compliance with guidelines. Failure to record evidence sufficient to detect the offence. Lack of knowledge or skills in CTO units to apply compliance rules. Lack of supervisory checks in process .

Check 2 – Cannabis Warnings: 

Check 2 – Cannabis Warnings Recording as FWC with no evidence by way of proving offence – ID of drug – appropriate interview. Poor notification that detection will be recorded against individual. Lack of consistent format to record warning or interview required. No appreciation that aggravating factors are relevant for disposal decision. No supervision requirement in most forces. Good practice with use of designated forms.

Slide17: 

Current expectations to improve detection's performance cannot be met in a successful and sustained way by ‘Life on Mars’ initiatives. BUSINESS AS USUAL

NO SANCTION DETECTION=NO OBTJ: 

NO SANCTION DETECTION = NO OBTJ

DETECTIONS STRATEGYCritical Success Factors: 

DETECTIONS STRATEGY Critical Success Factors Identified Ownership/Leadership. Identified accountability. Process / Systems Performance targets. Supervision. Resources. Regular review.

QUICK WINS: 

QUICK WINS Minimum standards templates. Pro-active/intrusive supervision. Victim/witness care within CJUs. linked to crime recording. Documented decision making processes (auditable format). Rigorous audit regime.

Slide21: 

Supt. Rita TUCKER HMIC