Agenda item

Crime & Disorder Briefing - Rural Policing

To receive a briefing from the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk on the challenges of tackling rural crime in the district.

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) – Lorne Green, District Superintendent – Mike Britton, and the PCC’s Communications Officer – Dominic Chessum.

 

The PCC thanked the Committee for the invitation to speak and stated that he had recently held similar briefings across the county. He congratulated the district on the success of its good neighbour schemes, with ten in place and two more in the pipeline, and suggested that these were a great help to vulnerable people suffering from issues of rural isolation.

 

Domestic abuse was discussed, and the PCC stated that he was putting considerable effort and funding into tackling the issue, that resulted in up to sixty calls per day in Norfolk. He added that he had recently attended the launch event for a Leeway campaign to raise awareness amongst men and boys of their responsibility to understand the malign nature of domestic abuse and promote gender equality.

 

The PCC congratulated Members on living within what was statistically, the safest district in the Norfolk. He added that the district’s police force had also recently received  national recognition for being rated within the top three police forces in the country for efficiency. The county itself was also reported to be within the top ten safest in the country. Despite the positive statistics, the PCC did accept that there were still problems in the district, such as the previously mentioned cases of domestic abuse, which were exacerbated by the isolation and distance of the district. As a result, the PCC stated that all Norfolk residents deserved the same police service whether they lived in a city, town, village or hamlet. Therefore, the PCC stated that tough decisions had to be made to make the best use of the limited resources available, and this meant that public safety was often given priority over non-violent crimes.

 

The Superintendent informed Members that he had been appointed as District Commander for North Norfolk and Gt. Yarmouth on the 9th of September, and that this was his first public meeting since taking the position. Whilst he accepted that the change in structure had meant the loss of a dedicated Superintendent and Chief Inspector, he assured Members that no front-line police officers had been lost. It was reported that there had been a slight increase in the ranks of inspectors as a result of the change, and that this had allowed more community policing to take place. Visibility of police officers remained a key challenge for the force, as it now covered a much larger area, though at three months in, the Superintendent stated that he had met with  many of the local authorities in the area.

 

The Committee was informed that there were seven Safer Neighbourhood Teams in North Norfolk, each with their own dedicated beat manager, that were embedded in local communities. In addition, Members were reminded that the district also had an Operational Partnership Team, led by a dedicated inspector based in Cromer, that focused on early help via a partnership approach. On the Broads, specialist Broads Beat officers policed the water ways, and a dedicated Engagement Officer had been employed for North Norfolk to manage community surgeries and maintain the force’s online presence. It was reported that a number of officers were also specially trained to deal with wildlife issues, and two officers had been trained in advanced drone piloting to tackle marine and agricultural crime in remote areas. On volunteer policing, the Superintendent stated that there were currently ten community speed watch groups active in North Norfolk, with two further groups in the pipeline, whilst  special constables were reported to have contributed over thirty hours in October. He added that the force aimed to cover as many community and agricultural events as possible, as well as hosting its own rural crime engagement events in Hickling and Holkham.

 

The Superintendent raised performance monitoring, and stated that his statistics  covered up to the end of August 2019. It was reported that all crime had increased, and though this was a national trend, the majority of the increase was for violent crimes including domestic abuse. It was suggested that this could in-part be due to an increase in reporting of domestic abuse, with seventy-six recorded violent crimes in the past four weeks, of which a third were domestic abuse. Burglary statistics were had remained relatively static, at around twenty per month for businesses and residential properties. Theft figures were considered fairly high, but with no visible trends there was no particular cause for concern. Vehicle theft was reported to have remained relatively static, though high value thefts had become a national issue. On more recent events, Halloween and Bonfire Night were discussed as triggers for anti-social behaviour, though it was reported that both had gone smoothly.

 

On rural crime, the Superintendent informed Members that the Operation Randall task force had been set-up to tackle the issue, which was run centrally by the Citizen and Community Policing Teams. The service was linked to a fast SMS group with over sixty Members to enable the rapid exchange of information. Members were informed that a rural crime newsletter was circulated, and that the police also organised rural-crime action weeks. In addition to these efforts, operations such as Optroverse and Opspondent had been established to ensure fishing laws were being enforced and outboard motor theft was kept to a minimum. Work was also ongoing with churches and the Young Farmers Association to raise awareness of crime affecting these organisations in rural areas.

 

The Superintendent stated that overall the district was in a good position, and that he had not seen any significant changes since taking over in September. The PCC added that it was important to remember that the district could not enforce its way out of all problems, and that there must be a joint up approach to address wider issues in a more holistic way. He suggested for instance that there was little to be gained from criminalising young people for non-serious crimes, and that in some cases engagement and rehabilitation was a far better option.

 

Questions and Discussion

 

A number of questions were submitted in advance of the meeting for review by the PCC and accompanying officers. The questions are included below for reference, followed by the responses:

 

“The public often complain that they rarely see their local community police officer and have no knowledge how he carries out his/her duties. Would you be open to allowing a reporter from the local press to shadow a community police officer for the day and to report his findings in the press, subject to appropriate confidentiality and editorial safeguards? If agreeable could it be done on two separate days in 2 different locations,  say Hoveton and Cromer?” – The PCC replied that he welcomed the proposal and would also like to accompany the officers where appropriate. He added that community or parish noticeboards should identify the local beat officer and provide their contact details for local residents. The Superintendent added that open days were held at local police stations to improve community engagement, and that details of these could be found on the Norfolk Constabulary’s website and social media accounts. It was agreed that details of these events would be shared with Members.

 

“The main perceived difference between traditional beat policing and community policing is that prosecution is seen as a later option for dealing with offenders than the traditional methodology. The main problem that the public find is that prosecution policy with the community police in Norfolk means that it is rarely used even in the most extreme cases. Have things gone too far the other way?” – The Superintendent replied that community officers have the same powers to prosecute, but often looked for alternate methods to rehabilitate rather than criminalise individuals. He added that the police did not necessarily decide which cases made it to Court for prosecution, as this was determined by the Crown Prosecution Service via a threshold test. It was also suggested that prosecution could be victim led, in which case sometimes a simple apology was enough.

 

“In future can we please record all crimes each month? These data should include e.g. ‘white-collar’ crimes, assaults, violent crimes and any others which, with these, are currently excluded” – The Superintendent replied that crime figures were reported in a standard format against Home Office statistics, therefore issues like white collar crime would not be recorded as such, but could be covered by fraud, for example.

 

“In future can we please recognise that all crimes are not equal? Thus in our evaluation of data differing weightings should be given to the differing categories of crime.” – The PCC replied that new legislation had recently been passed to increase sentences for assaults on emergency workers, and a similar proposal was planned for animal cruelty. The Superintendent added that weighting for different crimes was set by legislation, although investigations could be tailored to the victim within the context of the crime.

 

“The changing crime and community safety threat environment, as well as pressure on resources, dictate evolution of Policing models; how do you see Norfolk Policing model changing and, in particular, how the public and partner agencies (like NNDC) need to relate and interact to add value and ensure best outcomes for the County?” – The PCC replied that policing had changed, and that the whilst loss of PCSOs was unfortunate,  the Constabulary had adapted to changes in the types of crime being committed. For example, cases of fraud continue to grow, which meant that more officers were needed behind computer screens, and not necessarily on the street as traditional beat officers. In addition, officers were now equipped with body cams for safety, used tablets for note-taking, and a roll-out of Tasers was underway for officer protection. Despite these changes, it was stated that victims still had to ensure that they reported crimes, and that everyone had a responsibility to police public decency.

 

The Chairman gave permission for a member of the public that had submitted questions to ask a supplementary question. The Member of the public clarified that by white collar crimes he had meant scams, that he suggested the police ought to be collecting data on. The Superintendent replied that in these cases, data was collected by Action Fraud, and as such, was not included in local crime statistics. The member of the public stated that the statistics also treated all crimes equally, and suggested that violent crimes such as domestic abuse should be given greater weighting in comparison to theft, for example. He added that he believed that crimes could be weighted successfully for better understanding at SNAP meetings. The Superintendent replied that the Safer Neighbourhood Action Plan meetings allowed communities to express their priorities and concerns to the Constabulary, and therefore if a community had any particular concerns, it should raise these prior to the meeting.

 

Cllr N Housden stated that he was pleased to hear that Norfolk was statistically a safe county, but raised concerns that stalking and harassment had risen 37% since 2008. He then asked if this data could be raised at SNAP meetings. The Chairman suggested that this data could help improve the perception that that prosecutions are not pursued. The PCC replied that 50% of domestic abuse victims didn’t press charges, and that many reports were historical, therefore it was difficult to find the strong evidence base required for prosecution, hence the rates remained relatively low.

 

Cllr T Adams stated that he was encouraged to hear of investment in drone technology, and asked whether funding had been obtained for thermal imaging cameras, whether mobile phone connectivity was an issue for the Constabulary, and what could be done to improve the prosecution rates for domestic abuse. The PCC replied that between £150k-£200k had been spent on drones, which included thermal imaging cameras, and a larger drone that could withstand severe weather conditions. On domestic abuse prosecutions, the PCC suggested that this was a complex issue, but noted that figures in Norfolk were good compared to the rest of the country. The Superintendent replied to the mobile connectivity question, and stated that whilst connectivity was always an issue in rural areas, officers did have the power to connect to local networks. Furthermore, any notes or work that was completed offline, was automatically uploaded once a connection was restored. On prosecutions, he added that the Constabulary could pursue victimless prosecutions if necessary, though these were reliant on discretion. 

 

In summary, the PCC stated that the local media would be invited to attend a beat, and that the times and dates of this would be communicated once known. He added that there was an open invitation for Members to see how the Constabulary worked on a day to day basis.

 

The Chairman thanked the PCC and officers for their attendance.