Agenda item

5.1    Geeta Subramaniam (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) introduced the item. A report was tabled at the meeting. The following key points were noted:

·      Funding for the implementation of the Safer Lewisham Plan was related to the Safer Lewisham Partnership working to implement the priorities of the Metropolitan Police Service (Met). The Plan would also contain priorities that are specific to Lewisham. The Safer Lewisham Plan was a three year plan for 2014-2017. It was updated annually.

·       A survey was conducted of Lewisham residents to which 249 people responded. It asked for their priorities in the area of crime reduction and safety. The main underreported crimes according to the survey were hate crime and burglary.

·      The first priority in the plan was to reduce the volume of crime according to the specific targets set by the Met. Lewisham borough has seen an increase in violence with injury, motor vehicle crime, criminal damage and domestic crime. There have been increases in the areas of domestic crime across the area covered by the Met. There has been a change to practice of recording which could explain the rise but it could also be that the number of incidents of the crimes themselves had increased. The number of reported incidents of domestic violence with injury had decreased in Lewisham.

·      The second priority was to reduce key violent crime in the borough. Incidents of serious youth violence rose by 14% in 2015, but remain at historically low levels.

·      Priority three was to anti-social behaviour. There has been a 10% reduction in reports of ASB to the police in 2015-16. The production and sale of illegal tobacco is being targeted as it tended to be linked to other criminal behaviour including organised crime.

·      The Safer Lewisham Partnership had a statutory responsibility to address PREVENT, the government’s anti-radicalisation strategy. One Council officer had been responsible for providing training to over 3000 staff including some employed in local schools regarding the PREVENT strategy.

·      Baroness Young had conducted a nation-wide review into the disproportionately negative outcomes experienced by Black and Muslim male offenders. A lewisham specific review had been conducted to assess what the outcomes of Baroness Young’s review meant for Black and Muslim male offenders in Lewisham. These men will often report feeling discriminated against in three different ways. 

·      The Council’s newly commissioned service for Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Athena had seen increased self-referrals.

·      The new priorities of the Met would not be known until the summer at least, as a new Mayor of London would be elected and a new police and crime commissioner would be appointed. The draft Safer Lewisham Plan 2016-17 would be incorporated the new Met priorities when they become available.

·      A national review had been conducted into youth justice, commissioned by the Secretary of State for Justice. The report had been published last month and was being reviewed by officers.

·      The Lewisham-specific priorities for the 2016-17 Safer Lewisham Plan were peer on peer abuse, VAWG and organised crime.

5.2    Geeta Subramaniam and Gary Connors (Strategic Community Safety Services Manager) answered questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·      There has been an increase in self-referrals to Athena, but not everyone who self-refers will report a crime to the police. There has been an increase in what’s called sanction detection, which is where the police can link a crime with a suspect. This would not necessarily mean that a case could also be taken to court. A third of cases was stopped because not enough evidence has been gathered to take the case to court. A victim could withdraw their statement for instance. Another third of cases was not taken to court because of procedural issues, and a final third of cases was taken to trial. The Athena service would support victims of VAWG crimes when through the journey of a case through the justice system.

·      The increase in motor vehicle crimes related mainly theft from a motor vehicle or theft of a moped, for instance from sheds and garages. If someone on a moped who did not wear a helmet was being chased by the police would fall, the police would be liable for the chase. Perpetrators, who were aware of this, would chose to drive a moped while leaving the scene of a crime and throw away their helmet if being chased by the police. The police was trying to use thrown-away helmets for forensic analysis.

·      The survey had been sent out through any agencies the Council works with as well as individuals.

·      Work done by the Council last year has led to the hypothesis that organised crime because directly related to a number of serious crimes: such as commercial robbery, drug dealing, serious youth violence and brothels.

·      The reported increase in noise nuisance consisted of the number of incidents reports in the Council’s case work system. It did not include the incidents reported to the police, or all enforcement orders.

·      The Council was doing a test where it was dimming street lighting in certain areas under its street lighting PFI contract, to see if that made people feel unsafe.

·      A number of businesses had organised into a forum where one of the areas they were working on was reducing incidents of shop lifting. They were committed to sharing information about persistent offenders in shop lifting with each other to prevent further crimes by banning offenders from entering their premises. MOPAC governs a London wide group of business that conducts similar activities. They had access to a radio link system to report incidents, and were supported by the CCTV images. Any businesses taking part had signed a confidentiality agreement. Many of these initiatives were funded by the Home Office.

5.3    The Committee made a number of comments. The following key points were noted:

·      The Council could do more to encourage residents to participate in the survey, for instance via social media and by alerting Councillors to the fact that the survey was taking place. 

·      The community pay back scheme could be promoted to the local community and to local assemblies, and that the Commmittee wanted to be kept informed about the progress of the community payback scheme.

5.4    RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report.