Agenda item

that the report be noted.

4.1    Detective Chief Superintendent Lawry introduced a presentation – noting key crime statistics (particularly in relation to the impact of the pandemic) as well as highlighting areas of focus and concern; he also responded to the Committee’s requests for information about: serious violence reduction orders; stop and search; ongoing investigations into the Metropolitan Police Service; the London gangs database and ZEN city software.

4.2    DCS Lawry responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·      Figures for robbery in Lewisham were showing a reduction – this was opposite to the trend across London and in neighbouring boroughs, where there were significant increases.

·      The majority of knife crimes occurred during robberies.

·      The numbers of victims of crime corresponded to the figures reported in the presentation – but this did not provide insight about those who were repeat victims of crime.

·      A process was in place to identify repeat victims of some types of crime (including domestic abuse) to consider their level of risk.

·      The number of suspects was not recorded on an individual level. The numbers of those charged with crimes was.

·      Body worn cameras; dash cams; bus CCTV and Ring doorbell cameras were all being used to gather evidence.

·      Reports of cases of misconduct and poor practice would always be an issue in an organisation the size of the Metropolitan Police Service (with 44,000 officers).

·      Recent reports in the news highlighted cases of officers who should have been stopped much earlier.

·      In Lewisham there was an extremely capable professional standards unit – with which DCS Lawry worked very closely.

·      Trust and confidence in the police may decline as a result of recent news reports and high-profile cases of misconduct.

·      The police had the ability to prosecute its own officers and bring them to justice.

·      One of the things introduced in the borough’s force was ‘proactive scanning’ of complaints against officers against a range of metrics. This process had picked up officers who were the subject of repeated complaints (and resulted in their suspension).

·      Strip searches of people detained by the police required different levels of senior officer level authorisation. Strip searches of people who had been arrested were carried out by MET detention (which was a separate command from the borough police force). Officers from the detention service could be invited to a future meeting.

·      It was clear that there needed to be changes to the ways in which investigations against police officers were carried out. Some investigations took up to a year to complete. Additional resources were being put towards professional standards to bolster this process.

·      The positive outcome rate for stop and searches in Lewisham was higher than the London average – but approximately 70 percent of stops resulted in no further action.

·      Further consideration could be given to the ‘no further action’ figures – however- without stop and search the police would be likely to arrest more people – and take them in to custody, where they could use different powers to search them.

·      A strong message had been sent out to all officers about the importance of professional conduct. The channels for people to report impropriety had been strengthened and additional training (particularly on misogyny) had been provided for all officers in the South East London command.

·      All officers were trained on stop and search – which included: officers’ legal powers; unconscious bias and input from a member of the community who had experienced stop and search. Refresher training was provided as part of regular ‘officer safety’ training.

·      One of the issues DCS Lawry had been keen to address was about the number of officers carrying out searches. Officers were being asked to consider the minimum number of police needed to carry out a search effectively, in order to minimise distress to people being searched.

·      Public order offences did not relate to protests.

·      There was very little protest in the borough – it mostly took place in central London (or the M25). As with any new legislation – it would be tested in the courts and would find a level at which it would work in practice.

·      Further information could be provided about any cultural competency training provided for officers (which was not likely to be at the level described by members in their questions).

4.3    In Committee discussions the following key points were also noted:

·      Members were concerned about recently publicised cases of misconduct and criminality by police officers and emphasised the need for Lewisham’s community to feel it could be certain about the professional conduct of the police force.

·      There were concerns about the culture within the police force and the seeming acceptance of discriminatory language and behaviour.

·      It was recognised that there were many good officers in the police force but that there were also a number of ‘bad apples’.

4.4    Resolved: that the report be noted.