Agenda item

Resolved: to note the update.

This item was considered after item two.

6.1      Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) introduced the update on the 2014-15 plan; the following key points were noted:

·         The report provided an update on performance in the previous year.

·         A draft version of the 2015/16 plan was included with the report as an appendix.

·         Performance over the previous year had generally been good however, there had been an increase in incidents of violence with injury.

·         The increase in reporting was, in part, the result of changes in the recording of different crime types.

·         The Safer Lewisham Partnership had carried out a number of coordinated, intelligence led operations to target recognised problems; this included the work carried out as part of the Metropolitan Police Service’s (MET or MPS) Operation Equinox, which coordinated efforts across local authority services and the police to reduce violent offending.

·         Domestic violence continued to be a serious concern. Lewisham previously had the highest levels of recorded domestic violence in London. The volume of crimes had reduced over the past few years, but there were still a high number of incidents.

·         In the past year there had been a 19% increase in domestic violence.

·         In contrast, serious youth violence had reduced by 38% in the past year.

·         Five years previously, serious youth violence had been a problem in Lewisham.

·         Work had taken place to tackle knife and gun enabled crime and the reduction in violence was a positive development.

·         Work continued through the domestic violence multi-agency risk assessment conference (DVMARAC) and the youth multi-agency risk assessment conference (Youth MARAC) to tackle the most serious cases of domestic violence and youth violence.

·         Both MARACs demonstrated significant and sustained reductions in repeat offending.

·         The Committee had requested a breakdown of types of anti-social behaviour across wards (a chart providing details of cases reported to the Council was presented to Members at the meeting)

·         Work to develop the anti-social behaviour trigger (discussed previously at Committee) had been carried out and a process was now in place.

6.2      Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People), Gary Connors (Strategic Community Safety Service Manager) and Graham Price (Chief Superintendent, MPS Lewisham) responded to questions from the Committee; the following key points were noted:

·         There had been a change in the recording of incidents of violence with injury, which accounted for the increase in the figures. There hadn’t been any major changes in recording of crime types which would have resulted in improved performance figures.

·         There was nothing to indicate why there had been an increase in the level of domestic violence.

·         It was intended that the new VAWG (violence against women and girls) service would create a single streamlined approach to reducing domestic violence and supporting victims.

·         The central focus of the service would be on domestic violence, but it would address a range of issues, including violence against men and boys.

·         The new service would also provide a central point of information, advice and signposting to other services.

·         There had been a change in the law to include younger victims of domestic violence in the figures, but this did not in itself account for the recent increase.

·         A review of the Lewisham force’s crime recording procedures had been carried out by the Home Office.

·         Data from the MPS computer aided despatch system had been compared to records from the crime reporting information system (CRIS); this had helped the police service in Lewisham to improve the way in which different crimes were recorded.

·         Figures fluctuated for different reasons – and it was not straightforward to draw causal links between actions and data.

·         The anti-social behaviour (ASB) figures circulated to the Committee only included incidents reported directly to the Council

·         Where Members had specific concerns about anti-social behaviour they should bring them to the attention of the police.

·         The service described by Members as a ‘methadone prescription service’ in Catford, was in fact a drug rehabilitation centre commissioned by the Council.

·         Members should contact the police either in the case of an emergency involving ASB or via their neighbourhood inspector to report problems in their ward.

6.3      Members of the Committee questioned the reliability of the data presented by officers about anti-social behaviour. It was noted that individual Members of the Committee had personally reported more incidents of anti-social behaviour than were recorded in in the figures presented to Committee.

·         Officers committed to checking the figures.

6.4      Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) introduced draft 2015-16 plan; the following key points were noted:

·         The partnership was required to develop a strategic needs assessment and a crime reduction annual plan. It set priorities each year to deliver the plan.

·         The Partnership was required by the Mayors Officer for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) to focus on seven key crime types (the MOPAC 7):

o       Violence with injury

o       Robbery

o       Burglary

o       Theft of a motor vehicle

o       Theft from a motor vehicle

o       Theft from the person

o       Vandalism (criminal damage)

·         The Safer Lewisham Partnership incorporated the MOPAC priorities into priorities for the borough: reducing key violent crimes (including serious youth violence and violence against women and girls) and tackling issues of greatest concern to residents.

·         Work in the coming year would build on previous good practice in prevention, intervention and enforcement.

6.5      Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         The probation service was still in the process of developing its approach to community pack back operations following the reorganisation of the service.

·         Police cadets were also involved in supporting community activities in the borough.

·         Data about detections and convictions could be provided to the Committee.

·         Conviction rates did not fall within the responsibility of a single organisation or a single borough, which might make it difficult to track issues from beginning to end.

·         It was important to review conviction rates and policing confidence taking into account all parts of the criminal justice system.

·         Case failures were problematic for a range of reasons; failure in one part of the criminal justice system reduced confidence in the system as a whole.

·         Officers would bring the strategic action plan to a future meeting of the Committee.

·         Grooming of young people, in person or online, played a central role in all types of child exploitation.

·         In response to a specific request - further information would be provided to Members about parents’ right to know the location of their children if they were taken into protective custody.

Resolved: to note the update.