Agenda and draft minutes

None.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

None.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business.  Late items will be considered under the agenda items where they appear.  New items will be dealt with at item X below.

None.

To approve the draft scope and terms of reference for the review (attached).

It was noted that Joanne McCartney, the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) link member for Haringey, had suggested that the issue of quality be added to the terms of reference and agreed that this be incorporated.  It was noted that the Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) had overall responsibility for victims and witnesses.  A recent joint inspectorate report had shown an improvement in satisfaction with services but also made a number of recommendations including one that the LCJB take ownership of victim and witness issues.  It was currently unclear as to whether the London board or the local group for Haringey would be taking this forward. Other recommendations covered the need for front line police officers to better identify vulnerable witnesses, referrals to Victim Support, court waiting times and the safety of witnesses. 

It was noted that Victim Support and Hearthstone had both been invited to give evidence to the second meeting of the review, on 2 November.  It was agreed that Victim Support would be asked to provide a profile of victims that come to their attention, including the age range.

It was noted that there would be a need to obtain evidence from the Borough Commander in his role as Chair of the local group of the LCJB, the Court Service and the Crown Prosecution Service.  This would need to be done through an additional meeting being added into the programme.  The Court Service only covered the magistrates court so it would be necessary to investigate whether there was any local jurisdiction of what took place in the Crown Court.

It terms of obtaining the views of service users, it was noted that it was likely to be challenging for Victim Support to persuade victims to participate in a focus group.  However, it was felt more likely that volunteers working with victims would be willing to assist.  Victim Support agreed to explore both these options.   In addition, Members also felt that there might be some constituents who might wish to share their experiences and contribute.

It was noted that the witness satisfaction figures for Haringey, although above the London average, were marginally below the target figure for London and felt that this should be raised with relevant service providers and commissioners. 

It was agreed that Haringey CPCG would be invited provide a co-opted Member to the Panel.  It was noted that this did not preclude other CPCG members attending and participating in meetings if they so wished. 

AGREED

1. That Haringey CPCG be formally invited to nominate a representative to be co-opted onto the Panel.

2. That Victim Support be requested to provide a profile of victims of crime within the Borough that come to their attention, including information on the age range.

3. That the scope and terms of reference for the review, as amended, be recommended to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

To receive a presentation from the Community Safety Manager on the following:

·        A strategic overview of local services and how they are co-ordinated, funded and provided

·        Plans by Haringey LCJB to address such recommendations from the recent joint inspectorate report on support for victims and witnesses that require local action

Claire Kowalska, the Community Safety Manager, provided a strategic overview of local services and how they were co-ordinated, funded and provided. 

The scrutiny review on this issue was both welcome and timely.  It was known that;

·        Many victims missed out on services for a variety of reasons, including under reporting of crime and funding issues

·        Some residents were more likely to become victims than others.   Those living in the east of the Borough, who were also more likely to be from a black and minority ethnic community, were much more likely to become a victim.  Whilst there was a roughly equal split between male and female victims of burglary, men were more likely to be victims of robbery whilst women were more likely to be victims of domestic violence. 

·        Services were not always well co-ordinated despite there being a number of local strategic partnership groups and a board who had a role in this area, e.g. the ASB partnership board and its registered social landlord (RSL) sub group.  However, the Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) had overall responsibility for increasing the satisfaction levels of victims and witnesses therefore ought to be the most significant body locally.

Ms Kowlaska outlined the range of current provision.  Victim Support was a national charity and a key local partner that provided a range of services for victims and witnesses.  It received £72,000 per annum from area based grant, including £39,000 from the Children's and Young People's Service.  In addition, it received a certain amount of funding from its central organisation.  However, local funding was vulnerable and uncertain and a review was currently being undertaken by the central organisation.   It was very reliant on volunteers.  The bulk of its referrals came from the police, who were required to refer in all criminal cases.  However, there was currently no duty to do in sub criminal cases of anti social behaviour.  It was noted that the government had now stated its intention to address this issue. 

The Hearthstone Centre was currently seeing 1600 per year with demand expected to increase to 2,000 by the end of the year.  Most clients were female but there was an increasing number of male victims who tended to go to Victim Support instead. The service received funding from a wide range of sources including £50,000 from Supporting People plus contributions from the Council, GoL and Ministry of Justice.   There was now a specialist domestic violence court session with specially trained magistrates.

The Police were jointly responsible, with the CPS, for the witness care unit (WCU).  In addition, they also had a victim focus desk and provided support via the Youth Offending Service (YOS).  It was noted that there was a key national performance indicator relating to the satisfaction levels of local people with local efforts to deal with anti social behaviour.  In addition, there Police now had a single national performance target, which was increasing public confidence by 15% by 2012.  

The Anti Social Behaviour Action Team (ASBAT) dealt with persistent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.