college.police.uk

DigestJanuary 2017A digest of police law, operational policing practice and criminal justice

BetterEvidenceforBetterPolicing

™

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL

© College of Policing Limited 2017

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Non-Commercial College Licence v1.1 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence visit http://www.college.police.uk/Legal/Documents/Non_Commercial_College_Licence.pdf

Where we have identified any third-party copyright information, you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available for download at college.police.uk

Any enquiries regarding this publication or to request copies in accessible formats please contact us at digest@college.pnn.police.uk

The Digest is a primarily legal environmental scanning publication intended to capture and consolidate topical and key issues, both current and future, impacting on all areas of policing.

During the production of the Digest, information is included from governmental bodies, criminal justice organisations and research bodies. As such, the Digest should prove an invaluable guide to those responsible for strategic decision making, operational planning and police training.

The College of Policing is also responsible for Authorised Professional Practice (APP). APP is the official and most up-to-date source of policing practice and covers a range of policing activities such as: police use of firearms, treatment of people in custody, investigation of child abuse and management of intelligence. APP is available online at www.app.college.police.uk

Any enquiries regarding this publication or to request copies in accessible formats please contact us at digest@college.pnn.police.uk

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL

Overview 4Legislation 5 Bills before parliament 5 Policing and Crime Bill 5 Criminal Finances Bill 5 Statutory Instruments 6 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (Commencement No. 15) Order 2016 6 Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (Commencement No. 1 and Transitional Provisions) 6 Regulations 2016

Case law 7 Crime 7 R v Browne-Morgan (Samuel) [2016] EWCA Crim 1903 7 Evidence and procedure 8 R v Embleton [2016] EWCA Crim 1968 8 General police duties 10 Chief Constable of Merseyside Police v McCarthy [2016] EWCA Civ 1257 10Policing practice 12 Crime 12 Progress of the Psychoactive Substances Act 12 Home Secretary announces plans for stalking protection orders 12 Police 14 European Court rule on retention of communications data 14 HMIC reports on legitimacy and leadership published 15Criminal justice system 17 CPS and NPCC publish honour-based violence and forced marriage protocol 17 Forensic Science Regulator annual report published 18Parliamentary issues 19 New inquiry on policing for the future 19

3

Contents

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 4

This month’s edition of the Digest contains a summary of issues relating to police law, operational policing practice and criminal justice.

There are case reports on:

• the standard to be applied to Criminal Behaviour Orders

• non-disclosure of prosecution evidence

• whether the use of a Taser by a police officer was unreasonable in the circumstances.

We look at:

• the European Court of Justice ruling on data retention

• HMIC reports on legitimacy and leadership

• the CPS and NPCC joint protocol on forced marriage and HBV

• the Forensic Science Regulator’s annual report

• the progress of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016

• the newly announced Stalking Protection Orders

• the Home Affairs Committee inquiry on policing for the future.

The progress of proposed new legislation through parliament is examined and relevant Statutory Instruments are summarised.

Overview

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 5

LegislationPolicing and Crime BillThe Home Office has introduced a Policing and Crime Bill to enhance the democratic accountability of police forces and fire and rescue services, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of emergency services through closer collaboration and build public confidence in policing. A summary of the Bill can be found in the March Digest.

Progress

The House of Lords returned the Bill to the House of Commons with amendments. The amendments were considered on the floor of the House on 10 January 2017. Some amendments were agreed to but a number of amendments were disagreed to. The Lords will now consider the Commons reasons for disagreeing to those amendments.

The Bill can be accessed in full at services.parliament.uk

Criminal Finances BillThe Criminal Finances Bill, which was introduced in September, amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, make provisions in connection with terrorist property and creates corporate offences relating to tax evasion. A summary of the Bill can be found in the September Digest.

Progress

The Public Bill Committee on the Bill has now completed its work and has reported the Bill to the House with amendments.

The Bill will next be considered at report stage and third reading. A date for these stages has not yet been announced.

Please see services.parliament.uk

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 6 Statutory InstrumentsLegislation

Statutory InstrumentsSI 1201/2016 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (Commencement No. 15) Order 2016

Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (‘the Act’) provides that where a witness’s video recorded evidence in chief has been admitted under section 27 of the Act the court may direct that the video recorded cross-examination and re-examination of that witness may also be admitted as evidence.

This SI brought section 28 into force on 2 January 2017 for the purposes of proceedings before the Crown Court sitting at Kingston-upon-Thames, Leeds or Liverpool, where the witness is aged 16 or 17 at the time of the hearing.

Please see legislation.gov.uk

SI 1233/2016 Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (Commencement No. 1 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2016

These are the first commencement regulations made under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (the 2016 Act). They brought into force, on 30 December 2016, the provisions of the 2016 Act relating to the retention of communications data. Part 4 of the 2016 Act gives the Secretary of State power to give a notice requiring the retention of communications data, including internet connection records (‘a retention notice’). Oversight by the Information Commissioner of retained communications data and provision for reimbursement of the costs of telecommunications operators are also commenced.

The provisions of Part 4 requiring approval by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner of the decision of the Secretary of State to give or vary a retention notice are not commenced, as the Commissioner has not yet been appointed. Similarly, the provisions for requesting a review of a retention notice are not commenced.

The Regulations also brought into force the repeal of sections 1 and 2 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (‘the 2014 Act’). Schedule 9 of the 2016 Act provides that a retention notice given under the 2014 Act continues to have effect for a period of six months from the 30 December (‘the transitional period’) as if it were a notice given under Part 4 of the 2016 Act. Schedule 9 to the 2016 Act also provides that the amendments made by sections 3 to 6 of the 2014 Act to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 continue to have effect until the relevant provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 are repealed by the 2016 Act.

Please see legislation.gov.uk

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 7

CrimeR v Browne-Morgan (Samuel) [2016] EWCA Crim 1903

The appellant in this case appealed against the imposition and terms of a criminal behaviour order following his conviction for three counts of possession with intent to supply. The order being appealed prohibited the appellant from entering certain areas, from being with seven named associates, and from carrying a knife or bladed article in a public place. The specific issues on appeal were whether the first condition was satisfied to the required standard, whether the prohibitions would prevent the behaviour and whether the geographical exclusions should be amended.

For an order to be imposed the court must firstly be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the offender engaged in behaviour that caused, or was likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. Secondly, the making of an order must help in preventing an offender from engaging in such behaviour.

The court considered the appropriateness of prohibitions imposed and found upon consideration of the facts that the required standard to impose the order had been met and that the prohibitions imposed would in fact prevent the behaviour. Part of the appeal was allowed to the extent that the order was amended in relation to the geographical exclusions for Southwark and was replaced with the following prohibition: the appellant must not ‘congregate in a public place in a group of two or more persons in a manner causing or likely to cause any person to fear for their safety’.

The judgment can be accessed in full at bailii.org

Case law

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 8

Evidence and procedureR v Embleton [2016] EWCA Crim 1968

Embleton was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His two co-defendants were also convicted of murder. A fourth individual was acquitted at the direction of the judge in a previous trial. The Court of Appeal dismissed Embleton’s appeal against conviction. The Criminal Cases Review Commission renewed Embleton’s application on the basis of material non-disclosure by the police in relation to their contact with a key witness in the case. The prosecution also failed to disclose that one of the officers in the case was being investigated at the time of the trial for serious misconduct and perverting the course of justice.

The victim died as a result of a severe assault and it was the prosecution case that he had been attacked after disturbing Embleton and his co-defendants during a burglary. The evidence against Embleton was as follows:

• he was implicated by one of his co-accused – however this was marred by the fact that his co-accused had provided a number of differing accounts

• there was ‘moderate’ forensic evidence in the form of clothing fibres providing a link between him and the deceased

• a key witness, Mrs Clark, stated that Embleton had turned up at her house at about 4am on the night of the murder. He had an injury to his hand and was agitated.

On 20 May 1999, the witness, Mrs Clark, contacted the police and reported her concern that items left at her home by Embleton might be stolen. The police spoke with her the following day. She was informed that Embleton had been arrested and the reason for his arrest. Her response was recorded as the defendant having visited her some 2-3 weeks before at 3-4am, stating that he had hit someone and had bust his right hand. He stated that he was going to hospital to have his injuries checked and that his girlfriend was with him when he had hit the man. Mrs Clark felt able to identify the date as 21 April 1999 because she collected her benefit in the morning and she recalled that she had two payment slips left in her benefits book at the time. Following the conversation with the police on 21 May 1999, Mrs Clark was asked to make a statement. She did so but omitted to mention Embleton’s intention to go to hospital or that his girlfriend was with him at the time of the offence.

The potential significance of her initial comments were recognised by the police because a year later, on 30 May 2000, Mrs Clark was visited by another officer and asked to clarify the information she gave. She stated that the original officer had misinterpreted her comments and that the defendant’s girlfriend was not with him when the assault took place. On 5 June 2000 the original officer noted in a memo that he may have been mistaken in thinking that the defendant’s girlfriend was present at the scene of the crime, when she may in fact have been present when Embleton attended Clark’s home. The report into what Mrs Clark told the police was never disclosed to the defence during the trial nor did Mrs Clark’s evidence at trial include the full details of what she had told the police. Embleton had denied presence at the scene and relied on his 16-year old girlfriend to provide an alibi.

Evidence and procedureCase law

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 9

The appellant’s girlfriend was subsequently interviewed by the police and stated that she could not be sure whether the defendant was with her on the night in question, although she felt it likely. During the interview, the police informed her that the witness Clark had indicated that Embleton attended her house at 4am on the night of the murder with an injured hand. The defendant’s girlfriend stated that the only times the appellant had cut his hand were during a later assault on another male and during a car accident.

In considering Embleton’s appeal, the court reminded itself of its obligations when considering an issue of ‘non-disclosure’. The court had to be satisfied that the material which was withheld was such which ought to have been disclosed and whether, in the light of such non-disclosure, the court considered the conviction to be unsafe. The court found that Mrs Clark’s evidence as to the date of the visit was significantly undermined by the information that was subsequently disclosed. In her discussion with the police, Mrs Clark was recorded as saying that the defendant attended her home 2-3 weeks earlier. This would have fit within the timeframe of the unrelated assault upon the other male on 29 April 1999. The defendant’s girlfriend had also mentioned this in her interview and hospital records showed the defendant had attended for treatment on that date.

The court was dismissive of the validity of the subsequent investigation into the report 12 months later and the claim of Mrs Clark that she was misquoted or of the officer who stated that he may have been mistaken. The court highlighted the fact that the police investigation into the detail of the log recognised rightly the significance of the information contained within it. This was a detail which was unknown to the jury at the original trial.

The court did accept that Embleton was a violent offender who had been untruthful in the past, however they did not consider that these particular factors strengthened the matter before them. They also took the view that the failure of the defendant’s young girlfriend to provide definitive evidence of a certain alibi was irrelevant to their consideration. The court concluded that the evidence of the key witness was pivotal to the prosecution case against Embleton, in ‘shoring up the otherwise weak case against him’. The new disclosure cast doubt on her evidence and that evidence related to a crucial point, namely, the date he attended her home. The Court also held that the remaining evidence was dubious. As such they allowed the appeal and quashed Embleton’s conviction.

The full case can be found at bailii.org

Evidence and procedureCase law

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 10

General police dutiesChief Constable of Merseyside Police v McCarthy [2016] EWCA Civ 1257

The Respondent was involved in a violent incident, to which an officer of the Appellant’s force attended. During this incident the officer fired his Taser with approximately a six second charge (Taser 1) which failed to keep him still. The officer fired his Taser again (Taser 2) for ten to eleven seconds. The Respondent fell to the ground and suffered a cardiac arrest. He was resuscitated at the scene but continues to complain of consequential symptoms.

The Respondent brought a claim for damages, part of which concerned a claim for battery relating to Taser 2, for which the Recorder found against the Appellant. When the officer fired Taser 2, he genuinely and reasonably believed the Respondent was about to attack other males at the scene and fired to prevent him from doing so. He kept his finger on the trigger for approximately eleven seconds, having intended to fire it for five seconds. The officer accepted the use of force for the further six seconds was excessive and unnecessary but said it was unintentional. Had he fired it for five seconds, his use of force would not have been unlawful. The Recorder found that the officer’s failure to exercise essential and appropriate control of the Taser was not justified and in the circumstances was unreasonable.

The Court stated that there were two issues to be resolved on this appeal:

i) Was it open to the Recorder to find that the use of force in Taser 2 was unreasonable in all the circumstances?

ii) Was it open to the Recorder to find that the use of force for the full eleven seconds was unreasonable in all the circumstances?

The Court stated that it was clear from the material put before the Recorder that the training given the officers in the use of Tasers was extensive and covered every aspect of their use. While they are trained to use the Taser in an initial five second burst and discouraged from keeping their finger on the trigger longer, it is accepted that a longer discharge may be necessary. The courts must have regard not only to the rights of the person at the receiving end of the Taser but also to the challenges facing a police officer endeavouring to maintain law and order in a volatile situation.

The Court stated that to find that the second burst was unreasonable ignored the realities of the situation and the Recorder’s own findings. The Recorder found that the officer was justified in firing the Taser, that he only maintained the pressure on the trigger because he was distracted by a possible attack and that he did not intend to maintain the pressure. Yet, because the officer was not ‘physically overpowered’, knew excessive discharge of a Taser created a ‘reasonably foreseeable risk of serious injury’ and ‘failed to exercise sufficient control over the Taser’, he found the force was unreasonable.

General police dutiesCase law

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 11

The Court stated that the officer was involved in a violent, noisy, fast moving and highly charged situation. The officer genuinely and reasonably believed the Respondent intended to attack others and that he was probably going to be attacked himself. In the agony of the moment, he failed to release the trigger after the initial burst of five seconds. He did not intend to keep his finger on the trigger for longer but was distracted by a possible attack. In those circumstances to find that the use of force was unreasonable was, in the Court’s view, to set the bar that the Appellant must meet too high.

The appeal was allowed.

The judgment can be accessed in full at bailii.org

General police dutiesCase law

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 12

Policing practiceCrimeProgress of the Psychoactive Substances Act

The Home Office has published a press release on the success of the new Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. The Home Office indicated that since the Act came into force on 26 May 2016 they had stopped 332 shops across the UK from selling the substances, formerly referred to as ‘legal highs’, and 31 headshops had closed down. In addition, four people had been given terms of imprisonment upon conviction, with other cases still progressing through the criminal justice system.

Penalties for offenders and powers for law enforcement include:

• up to 7 years in prison for the supply, production, possession with intent to supply, importation or exportation of a psychoactive substance

• up to 2 years in prison for possessing a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution

• prohibition and premise orders which will allow police to shut down headshops and online dealers, with up to 2 years in prison for those who fail to comply.

Full details can be found at gov.uk

Home Secretary announces plans for stalking protection orders

The Home Secretary has announced her intention to introduce new stalking protection orders. Amber Rudd stated that the orders were designed for early intervention, to stop ‘stranger stalking’ before it escalates and to keep victims safe. The Home Secretary recognised that seriousness of stalking and the far reaching consequences it can have on its victims.

Following on from the specific stalking legislation that was introduced four years ago, the new orders offer protection at the earliest possible stage. Victims will no longer have to wait for a perpetrator’s behaviour to escalate before something can be done.

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 13

The new orders will enable the police to apply to the courts for an order – with specific conditions attached, which may include:

• restrictive conditions; prohibiting perpetrators from making contact with their victims and restricting internet use

• rehabilitation requirements; such as addressing behaviour/mental health issues

• similar to non-molestation orders, a breach of the order will be a criminal offence

• a maximum penalty of up to five years imprisonment.

There is no requirement for there to have been an intimate relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, this helps those who are the targets of strangers, work colleagues, as well as professionals such as doctors who may be targeted by patients.

Since the introduction of the stalking legislation in 2012 there have been over 2,000 prosecutions under the new offences, with 1,102 in 2015 to 2016 alone. The orders are designed to protect victims before a perpetrator’s behaviour even gets to the point where a prosecution is required.

The new orders are part of the Government’s commitment to the provision of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) services. A new £15 million fund has been allocated to support best local practice. A ‘National Statement of Expectations’ has also been published, setting out requirements for local services and ensuring victims’ needs are at the heart of what they do.

The VAWG service transformation fund is open to Police and Crime Commissioners, local authorities and health commissioners. The aim is to provide support for local services and promote best practice. Further information about the fund and who can apply can be found via the following link gov.uk

CrimePolicing practice

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 14

PoliceEuropean Court rule on retention of communications data

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has published its judgment following a referral by the Court of Appeal on the retention of communications data. It found that member states may not impose a general obligation to retain data on providers of electronic communications data.

The case before the CJEU followed two references in relation to the general obligation imposed, one arising from a case in Sweden and the other from the UK. The latter challenged the UK rules on the retention of data, contained in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which enabled the Secretary of State to require public telecommunications operators to retain all data relating to communications for a maximum period of 12 months. The CJEU was requested to state whether national rules that impose a general obligation on providers to retain data, and which make provision for access by the competent national authorities to the retained data, where, amongst other things, the objective pursed by that access is not restricted solely to fighting serious crime, and where access is not subject to proper review by a court or an independent administrative authority, are compatible with EU law.

The CJEU found that EU law precludes national legislation that prescribes general and indiscriminate retention of data. It confirmed that the national measures at issue did fall within the scope of the directive on privacy and electronic communications, and that while the directive enables members states to restrict the scope of the obligation to ensure confidentiality of communications and related traffic data, it cannot justify the exception to that obligation, particularly the prohibition of storage laid down that that directive, from becoming the rule.

The Court also found that the protection of the fundamental right to respect for private life requires that derogations from the protection of personal data should apply only in so far as is strictly necessary. The retained data, taken as a whole, is liable to allow very precise conclusions to be drawn concerning the private lives of the data subjects. Legislation that provides for the retention of traffic data and location data must therefore be considered to be particularly serious. As a result, only the objective of fighting serious crime is considered by the court to be capable of justifying such interference.

The Court made clear that the directive does not preclude national legislation from imposing a targeted retention of data for the purposes of fighting crime provide that such retention of data is limited to what is strictly necessary. It stated however that legislation that prescribes a general and indiscriminate retention of data, which does not require a relationship between the data and a threat to public security, exceeds the limits of what is strictly necessary. As a result it cannot be considered to be justified within a democratic society.

PolicePolicing practice

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 15

The court stated that any national legislation must be clear and precise and must provide for sufficient guarantees of the protection of data against misuse. As regards the access of the competent national authorities to the retained data, the Court confirmed that any legislation must be based on objective criteria, in order to define the circumstances and conditions under which access to the data can be granted. As a general rule, access can be granted in relation to the objective of fighting crime, only to the data of individuals suspected of planning, committing or having committed a serious crime or of being implicated in one way or another in such crime.

Further, the court considered that it was essential that access to retained data should, except in cases of urgency, be subject to prior review by either a court or an independent body. In addition, where access to retained data has been granted, the competent national authority must notify the persons concerned of that fact. Finally, the court stated that national legislation must ensure that data is retained within the EU and provide for the irreversible destruction of the data at the end of the retention period.

DRIPA expired at the end of 2016, however the judgment will impact on the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which received royal assent on 29 November and replaced the powers contained in DRIPA.

The CJEU press release can be accessed at curia.europa.eu

The judgment can be accessed in full at curia.europa.eu

HMIC reports on legitimacy and leadership published

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has published two reports as part of its annual PEEL assessment following inspections on police legitimacy and police leadership.

The inspection into police legitimacy looked at the extent to which:

• forces treat people with fairness and respect

• they ensure their workforces act ethically and lawfully, and

• those workforces themselves feel they have been treated with fairness and respect by the force.

HMIC graded two forces, Derbyshire and Kent, as outstanding, 36 forces as good and five as requiring improvement. None were graded as inadequate.

PolicePolicing practice

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 16

HMIC stated that while forces acknowledge the seriousness of the problem of abuse of authority for sexual gain, some are still failing to recognise it as a form of serious corruption. As a result, cases are not always being referred to the IPCC. HMIC believes the problem requires a coherent, comprehensive national policing response, including clear messages about the seriousness of this form of corruption, and significant action in relation to prevention.

The report also found a number of additional areas in which improvements could be made:

• many forces need to improve the ways in which they elicit feedback, particularly from groups which are less likely to complain or have low levels of trust in the police

• too many forces are not complying with the national vetting policy

• most forces do not have fair and effective processes for managing the individual performance of officers and staff.

Alongside this, HMIC published a report on police leadership, examining the degree to which leadership is understood within policing, how forces work to develop leadership, and how well leadership is displayed by a force.

HMIC found that many forces are demonstrating that they expect and demonstrate good leadership, and have a range of leadership programmes in place to develop their current and future leaders. HMIC has recommended that forces can improve in the following areas to:

• improve the consistency with which they assess leadership as part of their performance review processes

• demonstrate a broader understanding of the skills, background and experience of their leadership teams to allow for more targeted development; and

• ensure that they have fairer processes in place for performance reviews which will help them to identify and develop talented individuals.

HMIC will return to forces to examine police legitimacy and leadership next year and to assess progress.

PEEL – Police legitimacy 2016 can be accessed at justiceinspectorates.gov.uk

PEEL: police leadership 2016 can be accessed at justiceinspectorates.gov.uk

PolicePolicing practice

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 17

Criminal justice systemCPS and NPCC publish honour-based violence and forced marriage protocol

The CPS and the NPCC have published a joint protocol on honour based violence and forced marriage, outlining their commitment to the successful investigation and prosecution of these crimes. The protocol highlights the unique complexities of these cases and the barriers victims face in coming forward to report. It emphasises the importance for multiagency working and engagement with specialist third sector organisations. The development of the protocol forms part of a wider commitment to improve performance in this area. The protocol enables police and prosecutors to quickly understand the action they must take when a crime is reported to the police and referred to the CPS for a charging decision, ensuring the safety of the victim is at the heart of the process.

The protocol highlights:

• A number of offences can be committed in the context of honour-based violence/abuse and forced marriage, including common assault, GBH, harassment, kidnap, rape, threats to kill and murder.

• A victim’s family and/or members of their community may go to great lengths to discover their whereabouts once a crime has been reported. The risks to the victim from their entire family, the offender’s family and the community should be considered – not just the direct risk of the immediate perpetrators on the victim.

• Cases may involve vulnerable victims and witnesses who may have the least confidence in the criminal justice process. Victims often feel a loyalty to their family/community and this may make them particularly reluctant to support a prosecution.

The protocol can be accessed in full at cps.gov.uk

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 18

Forensic Science Regulator annual report published

The Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) has published her annual report, stating that not all police forces were fully committed to reaching the required standards, with some failing to recognise the impact of quality failures in the area. It also states that the main challenge to achieving quality forensic science over the past year was financial and called on police forces and the Legal Aid Agency to make more funding available. The second annual Forensic Science Regulator’s report also calls for investment in the forensic systems currently used by police to ensure they can keep up with increasing amount of work.

Other key findings from the report include:

• The regulator found there is still a significant risk of DNA contamination in police custody and warns that if guidance is not followed as a matter of urgency, contamination could compromise evidence or mislead the courts.

• There is also a risk of contamination at Sexual Assault Referral Centres which provide support for alleged victims of rape and sexual assault. An investigation by the regulator is currently ongoing following a case last year when contamination at a centre meant that a complainant’s samples could not be used.

• The report found that forensic science carried out by instruction from defence lawyers has also been under significant financial pressure because of the current legal aid funding.

• Police forces are required to reach the required standards for digital forensics by 2017. Although there has been a substantial effort within policing to assist forces in reaching the required standards for digital forensics, few will receive accreditation within the timeframe.

• There is still a risk of incorrect classifications by investigators who classify firearms to establish whether they are illegal weapons.

• There is a risk that some forensic medical examiners being commissioned do not have the required level of training and qualification.

The Forensic Science Regulator will continue to work with police and other agencies across the criminal justice system to improve quality of forensic science.

The report can be accessed in full at gov.uk

Criminal justice system

OFFICIALDigest January 2017

© College of Policing (2017)

OFFICIAL 19

Parliamentary issuesNew inquiry on policing for the future

The Home Affairs Committee has launched an inquiry exploring the challenges of modern policing and examining whether police forces are sufficiently equipped and resourced to keep the public safe and to respond effectively to evolving demands and changing patterns of crime. The inquiry, ‘Policing for the future: changing demands and new challenges’ invites written evidence on the following issues:

• reforms which may be necessary to ensure the police service has the ongoing capacity and capability to fulfil its primary task of ensuring public safety, in the face of new and evolving threats and challenges.

• current and future crime trends and their implications for policing in England and Wales, including emerging or growing categories of crime (such as online crime and child sexual abuse) and under-reported types of crime.

• the extent to which the police are sufficiently equipped to deal with these changing patterns of crime and other operational demands, such as mental health crisis work, and where gaps in capacity and capability are likely to lie.

• the relationship between public expectations of the police, including desired visibility and perceived priorities, and the operational realities of policing within the current financial context.

• police funding levels, efficiency and cost-effectiveness, including the role of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in driving innovation and reform.

• the role of digital technology in policing, including take-up, risks and barriers to use.

• international best practice examples of innovation in policing, and the extent to which they could be replicated in England and Wales.

Written submissions should be submitted online by midday on 16 February 2017.

Further information can be accessed at parliament.uk

C366|0117BetterEvidence

forBetterPolicing™

About the College

We’re the professional body for everyone who works for the police service in England and Wales. Our purpose is to provide those working in policing with the skills and knowledge necessary to prevent crime, protect the public and secure public trust.

college.police.uk