Agenda item

The Borough Commander introduced the report.

The Panel learned that:

-       There had been successes in reduction in crime in the Borough– especially in the violent crimes and knife crime category. However there had been significant increases in the category of ’crimes against the person’.

-       The Met Police had formally exited ‘special measures’ brought about last year.

-       There had been a focus on strengthening public protection in policing. This included child abuse, exploitation, violence against women and girls, domestic abuse and more. 

-       There had been growth in terms of posts and  investment in neighbourhood crime fighting.

-       The Police had engaged with the public to help prioritise issues of impact on a ward-by-ward basis and in line with their harm profile.

-       The strengthening of public trust was continuing however the Borough Commander emphasised that the speed of the roll out of projects  was dependent on funding. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) and Home Office funding had been reduced. 

-       ‘Clear Hold Build’ was seen by many  as a success story  in the  Finsbury Park and Northumberland Park areas. They had delivered a reduction in crime.

-       Following the Baroness Casey report on the Met Police , there had been significant work done on the internal culture of the police force – especially with regards to delivering on higher standards and ensuring that only the right officers were in place in the Force.

A Youth Panel Member Representative asked further about the focus on highly gentrified areas such as Finsbury Park and Tottenham Hale. She enquired as to why gentrified areas also had high levels of violence. The Borough Commander highlighted that the crime rates had reduced due to enforcement action, however specific reasons for violence may include criminal access to transport hubs, and geography . It was emphasised that work was being done in partnership with the British Transport Police and TfL to target certain individuals. The Detective Superintendent stated that the nature of crimes in these areas were predominantly thefts from the person. He clarified that there were many reasons why certain areas were more susceptible to crime - such as pavement access for ebikes, schools in the area and travellers into and out of the area. The Detective Superintendent highlighted that commuter campaigns would raise awareness of the possibility of thefts. The Borough Commander added that they were reviewing crime hotspots in the area and considering street lighting, street furniture and more to deter crime. The Chair enquired further as to the solid measures that were taking place to ensure that commuters and residents were safe. The Borough Commander responded that work was targeting knife crime using partnerships with the British Transport Police. Further work was also carried out using passive drugs dogs. There had been recent successes at Wood Green and Seven Sisters Tube Stations. The Police also used behavioural detection officers – who watch the movements of potential criminals. Intelligence was also shared with the Transport Hub. The Police were bidding for resources for more plain clothes officers, road policing units and passive drugs dogs work across London.  The Detective Superintendent also offered to circulate some further reports to the Panel at a later date. ACTION (DSI Ian Martin)

It was pointed out that it would be useful for the Panel to know whether crime hotspots could be presented in the ward-by-ward figures in future. This was to get a clarification as to whether crime statistics were evenly spread throughout the borough or concentrated in certain areas. This would help the Panel understand how resourcing was being affected by highly concentrated areas. The Borough Commander suggested to bring these reports to the Ward Panel meetings, as these could help inform priorities in neighbourhood wards in addition to highest harm and volume according to resourcing. She acknowledged that there was some room for improvement with regards to the frequency of Ward Panel meetings. ACTION. (B.C. Caroline Haines).

Cllr Dunstall commented that in light of the sometimes-geographic nature of crime, numbers rather than percentages would be useful in the ward-by-ward presentation of figures. ACTION. (DSI Ian Martin).  He then requested more clarification of the actual times allocated to  the Safer Neighbourhood Teams on a ward basis – and how many police officers were available to ward residents at any one time. The Non- Voting Co-optee added that daily abstractions (or the removal of officers from their role in their neighbourhood to address other concerns in other localities) were at 2.94% as a whole - or 21 officers a day. He expressed concern that these figures underestimated the impact on the resourcing of Safer Neighbourhood Teams. He pointed out that large sections of officers were on response and protected from abstractions, however the roles that were left could still be abstracted to other parts of the team or outside of the neighbourhood and this left little police resources available to ward residents.  He pointed out that exact figures on this would be useful. He stated that anecdotal evidence had raised that sometimes abstractions occurred for what he thought was relatively trivial concerns such as crowd control at a wrestling match at Wembley.

The Borough Commander pointed out abstractions mainly affected uniformed officers; however, she assured the Panel that more robust processes for requesting abstractions were now in place and the number of abstractions needed had fallen as a result. Resourcing for London wide events (such as demonstrations) where possible were resourced from non front-line staff. She pointed out there was a broader issue of the availability of ‘fully fit’ officers in place.  There had been significant work with Professional Standards to ensure that the public were not dealing with officers who were not ‘fit for duty’ due to health or violations of professional standards. This meant that the post was still there but not being occupied by a fully fit officer. She also emphasised that currently, Borough Commands across London were operating without a fully fit police force. Once this wider issue was dealt with then the impact of abstractions would be minor. The Detective Superintendent was unable to give statistics for the types of abstractions that were needed over the past year, during the meeting but offered to circulate these to the Panel once they had been collated. (DSI Ian Martin).  

Another Youth Panel Member Representative enquired about the alternatives to enforcement when deterring youth crime. Views had been gathered by other members of the Youth Council and the representative had personal experience of this. He emphasised that he thought that ‘Clear, Hold, Build’ was positive however more emphasis on the prevention of youth crime in neighbourhoods such as West Green, Noel Park and more would ensure that the Police would not be seen as a dominant negative force but as a community resource. The Representative mentioned longer term youth-led programmes in conjunction with the Police. He suggested more working together with Haringey’s Youth Council would be welcome to improve relations between young people and the Police. The Borough Commander thanked the Representative. She emphasised that ‘ Clear, Hold, Build’ did have a phase for building relations with the community, but for now she emphasised that there was a role for enforcement. The Cabinet Member for Communities also emphasised that the ‘Hold’ phase would work with partners to develop relations. In areas where ‘Clear, Hold, Build’ was in force – such as Northumberland Park,  partners have worked with youth projects to increase the availability of education, training and employment opportunities for young people. And consideration was to be given on how this could be replicated across the borough.

The Youth Representative replied that he was concerned that youth resources were not being utilised. He emphasised that the view of the Police amongst young people was very negative. He highlighted that enforcement had to be seen in conjunction with  prevention projects in order to prevent criminality in young people in other areas. The Cabinet Member for Communities talked about the projects that the Youth Justice Team were rolling out to young people in schools. She stated that she would be more than happy to discuss further ways to engage young people outside of the meeting. ACTION. (Cllr Adja Ovat)

The Assistant Director for Children’s Services stated that her portfolio covered these areas. Her team  was working on a Young People’s Strategy which was looking at just these sorts of issues. She suggested that  her team work with representatives of the Youth Council to consider the impact that this would have on the young population and whether resources were getting to areas that needed it the most. ACTION. (A.D. Jackie DiFolco). 

In addition, the Borough Commander stated that although significant work was being done with young people, more discussions should be held with the Youth Council or representatives to determine whether the levels of prevention were appropriate or if more intensive work was needed in certain locations. ACTION (B.C. Caroline Haines).

Cllr Carroll highlighted that in the report, there was mentioned ‘tough choices in terms of funding and service delivery’. He requested more detail as to what this meant. The Borough Commander emphasised that it was still being discussed at the highest level. She mentioned there had been a paper published by the Commissioner setting these out and areas that would be compromised if levels of funding weren’t sufficient. She assured the Panel that front line services were not mentioned.

Cllr Carroll also commented that amongst those statistics that had seen an increase in the borough, the increase in sexual offences was notable. He also expressed concerns as sexual offences are known to be under reported. The Borough Commander emphasised that sexual offences were primarily crimes against women and girls. She stated that there may be a few factors working together that led to a rise in figures. Differences in how crime was recorded may be a factor, and also the effects of work the Police have done to encourage reporting of sexual offences. However, she also stated there was work being done to make public spaces safer and to target the right areas and people with resource. Cllr Carroll asked whether risks of sexual offences were concentrated in certain areas. The Borough Commander responded that the areas of risk were high footfall areas and town centres. She emphasised that there was some positive tactics to prevent and deter and make effective use of resources to tackle pattern of crimes in these areas.

Cllr Dunstall referred to the Monthly Tracker by Offence Type chart on Page 18 of the report. He enquired whether it was possible for the Police to produce results for 2023, as the Panel could then compare trends especially where offences have increased. ACTION (D.S.I Ian Martin)

Cllr Dunstall then enquired  about the Stop and Search data. He pointed out that this had a 34% criminality detection rate. However, he pointed out that this meant that 66% of people had been searched who had not carried out any criminal activities. This led to a negative view of the Police. He enquired how this figure compared with the rest of London and nationally. He also enquired as to the steps the Police were taking to reduce the number of Stop and Search through prevention work and improved relations with communities. However also ensuring that Stop and Search was being carried out in situations where officers were more than one third sure that criminality was taking place.  The Borough Commander highlighted that the tactic was an incredibly useful tool for removing weapons from circulation. However, she admitted that fine tuning needed to occur whereby officers who were conducting searches were being led by intelligence and were surer as to whether criminality was occurring. She emphasised that the Met’s Stop and Search Charter had been published recently. There had been extensive consultation on aspects of Stop and Search and ensuring that the process was fair and equal, as well as greater scrutiny and precision through Community Monitoring Groups. The Borough Commander and Haringey’s Director of Children’s Services Ann Graham had worked around training for a trauma informed approach to Stop and Search. There was more awareness around over searching and now greater scrutiny and transparency through the Community Monitoring Groups.

The Detective Superintendent then offered figures as to the trends in data and clarified that the 2024 had seen an increase in detection rate – going from 30% in 2023 to 34% in 2024. This was in line with the rest of London who had a positive detection rate of 33.9%. The Detective Superintendent also emphasised that the volumes of Stop and Search had decreased by 28% in 2024 compared to 2023. This he stated was evidence that a more data driven approach was successful. In contrast London had seen a 13% reduction in Stop and Search from 2023 to 2024. 

The Youth Representative, then asked whether in-depth demographic data was available to the public of those being stopped and searched. The Borough Commander responded that the Stop and Search Charter was new and the mechanisms for communicating information to the public about data was not worked out yet. However, the Community Monitoring Group was scrutinising all the issues of Stop and Search in the meantime.

Cllr Cawley Harrison commented that although the data showed there had been a decrease in crime and Anti-Social Behaviour -  his experience as a ward representative was very different. He stated that residents were perceiving that there was a big increase in ‘low level’ or ‘volume’ crime and his concern was it was being underreported, as it was not being prioritised by the Police. This, he stated was skewing data and altering residents’ experience. Under reporting could contribute to an escalation of low-level crime into Anti-Social Behaviour which needed the intervention of more services. He emphasised that many residents felt that there was no point in reporting some crimes as they would not be investigated. He enquired whether the Police had seen a difference in crime reporting and enquired further as to how many cases were being investigated. Where community measures had worked, he enquired whether crime rates were actually increasing in other areas nearby.

The Borough Commander responded that work had been done with businesses in the area to ensure that crime was being reported, and they had seen an increase in reporting in certain areas. However, there was still an issue with under reporting. She stated that crimes were reviewed by solvability and 40-45% of crimes were not able to be investigated. However, improvements could be made in communicating with the victims of crime early on in the reporting process. She stated that demand outstripped supply, and her team focused efforts on areas of the highest harm as well as preventative work. More improvements could be made on identifying persons behind crime patterns; however, she stated that the Police were fully aware of the impacts of measures across wards. Local teams were now focusing on ‘volume’ crimes and at the categories at most risk for particular wards.

As time was short, the Chair requested that the Borough Commander provide some figures on Ward specific details on patterns in crime across boundaries. ACTION (B.C. Caroline Haines.)