Investigation into a serious injury afflicted by a man on police bail - Essex Police, April 2022
In April 2022, we began an independent investigation into Essex Police’s contact with a woman who sustained serious injuries and a man who was on police bail at the time of the incident. The man was subsequently convicted for attempted murder. This came to our attention as a death or serious injury referral, although following a conduct assessment for one of the officers involved, the investigation became a conduct matter.
We specifically investigated:
• the actions and decision making of Essex Police officers and staff in relation to the handling of concerns the man in March 2022, including call handling, risk assessments, safeguarding and police response
• the actions and decision making of police officers and staff regarding the decisions to further bail him on 1 April 2022.
During our investigation, we obtained witness statements from numerous police officers and interviewed one officer under a misconduct caution. We interviewed the victim, reviewed various documentation including incident reports, crime reports and risk assessments. We obtained radio transmissions and recordings of calls and reviewed these alongside the body worn video footage.
Our investigation revealed that different teams were assigned allegations reported by the victim, in particular in the weeks leading up to the offence of attempted murder. There is an indication that there could have been improvements to the way that the victim’s allegations were investigated and progressed, including how information was recorded and the communication between teams whilst they handled allegations separately. In addition, there could have been improvement with the overall supervision of the investigations, and how the work was safeguarded.
We concluded the detective sergeant did not have a case to answer for misconduct but should have recorded decision making and safeguarding matters.
We considered it appropriate that the officer reflect on the incident and recommended they went through the reflective practice review process (RPRP).
An officer reflecting on their actions is a formal process reflected in legislation. The reflective practice review process consists of a fact-finding stage and a discussion stage, followed by the production of a reflective review development report. The discussion must include:
- a discussion of the practice requiring improvement and related circumstances that have been identified, and
- the identification of key lessons to be learnt by the participating officer, line management or police force concerned, to address the matter and prevent a reoccurrence of the matter.
We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.
We identified several key areas of organisational learning and issued recommendations to address our concerns.
IOPC reference
Recommendations
The IOPC recommends that Essex Police should ensure that where there are multiple investigations relating to the same suspect/ victim, methods of communication between teams are reviewed, and guidance developed, to include supervisors from each team having contact and recording this contact on the case management record.
This follows an IOPC investigation where it was found that whilst there were numerous teams working with the victim and suspect, there was an indication that there was poor communication between the teams. Essex procedures do not currently have a process in place relating to communication between teams where there are multiple investigations. The investigation found there was little evidence that officers were communicating effectively to progress investigations and included errors such as one investigating officer taking the victim's phone for downloading and not directly emailing another investigating officer about the temporary phone number, leading to the victim not being contacted for a number of days. This resulted in delays to the investigation as enquiries were not progressed.
Recommendation accepted:
Following this review and changes to the Home Office Counting rules, a new Standard Operating Procedure has been implemented between Domestic Abuse Investigation Teams (DAIT) and Public Protection Investigation Unit (PPIU) dealing with RASSO matters. (Attached below)
PDF: North LPA Domestic Rape & Serious Sexual Offences SOP
This ensures contact between supervisors and OIC’s throughout complex investigation involving different departments to avoid the issues seen in this case.
The IOPC recommends that Essex Police takes steps to ensure that officers and staff have accurate and up-to-date knowledge in relation to domestic abuse and breaches of bail and breaches of civil orders. This should include consideration of issuing communications to officers on this matter and/or ensuring that it is adequately covered in appropriate training.
This follows an IOPC investigation where it was found that officers missed opportunities to arrest a suspect for breach of bail offences. Furthermore, it was found that there was some confusion within the Domestic Abuse Investigation Team regarding the validity of the non-molestation order that was in place on the suspect, and it took a few days to resolve this query and seek confirmation from the courts. This led to a delay in progressing enquiries regarding the allegations and delayed the arrest of the suspect. It also potentially impacted upon the decisions to bail rather than remand the suspect when he was arrested, as it was stated that the validity of the non-molestation order still needed to be confirmed. Additionally, information received during the investigation indicated that investigating officers could have considered applying for a Stalking and Protection Order on the suspect and there appeared to be a general lack of understanding around this type of order.
Recommendation accepted:
Essex Police have annual Continuous Professional Development (CPD) days for Domestic Abuse that is delivered to all Local Policing Teams as a part of ‘flex training’.
The DA Flex training in 2023 runs between August-October, covering over 1,000 staff and providing a 6-hour input.
This year’s training is focused on preventative orders, with inputs around; Stalking Prevention Orders, Domestic Violence Prevention Orders, Non-Molestation Orders and ‘evidence led’ investigations.
Additionally, we deliver specialist courses to officers working within Domestic Abuse, which cover DA related areas, and included an input on preventative orders in this training.
Domestic Abuse Problem Solving Teams (DAPST). Essex Police ran two courses (3-day duration) over June and July 2023 to train all DAPST staff
Domestic Abuse Review Team (DART). Essex Police ran one course (3-day duration) in July 2023 to train all DART staff
Domestic Abuse Specialist Investigators Course, for officers from Domestic Abuse Investigation Teams (DAIT). This is a 5 day course with an ongoing commitment from Learning and Development to deliver a minimum of 6 courses per year.
Essex Police have received funding from the Home Office to deliver the College of Policing ‘DA Matters Training’ to over 1,500 ‘front line’ staff. We are in are the process of procuring this package from approved suppliers for delivery in 2024.
The IOPC recommends that Essex Police should revise its custody procedures in order to ensure that when authorising bail the custody sergeant should upload the advice given to them by the relevant detective sergeant, or any advice given by officers or other professionals in the case, onto the custody record.
This follows an investigation whereby a man received pre-charge bail for a number of offences including recent breaches of a non- molestation order and a historic allegation of rape. The custody sergeant, and the duty inspector, when making his bail application rationale, recorded that they had received advice from the detective sergeant from the Domestic Abuse Investigation Team stating that further enquiries were required and could not be completed within the current bail timeframe. However, the detective sergeant had not recorded her decision making in relation to bail and remand considerations and the attempts made to progress the investigations. During the investigation it was evident that there was disparity in views between the detective sergeant, who ascertained that the man should be released on pre-charge bail, and officers in her team, who had expressed their views that the man should be remanded. Whilst Essex pre-charge bail procedures stipulate that the custody sergeant must seek authority from an inspector, it does not provide guidance on obtaining and recording advice from the detective sergeant or other professionals in the case, although it is evident that this advice is heavily relied upon when making bail and remand decisions. Recording the rationale within the custody record would have meant that it was easier to understand the reasoning underpinning the detective sergeant’s advice to the custody sergeant and duty inspector.
Recommendation not accepted:
Essex Police would ask that this recommendation is not implemented in its current form. All of the material will be already held on the ATHENA Investigation and Case records. As such it is not understood why this would be uploaded to the Custody Record as it would be a duplication on the same system.
The Custody Sergeant can access any documentation they require accordingly and can reference this in their bail rationale.
On this basis, we would ask that recommendation is amended so it places a requirement for the Custody Sergeant to reference the fact they have reviewed the bail rationale documented by the DS or relevant investigative lead.
The IOPC recommends that Essex Police should revise their guidance to include that when decisions are being made in relation to bail, investigating officers or their sergeants should record interim safeguarding plans onto the Athena record whilst awaiting DV5 safeguarding planning by the Central Referral Unit (CRU).
This follows an investigation whereby the detective sergeant of the Domestic Abuse Investigation Team (DAIT) did not record safeguarding onto the Athena case management record following the release on pre-charge bail at 10pm of a suspect for a range of offences against his ex-partner. During the investigation the DAIT sergeant stated she believed that she had completed safeguarding activity by countersigning the domestic abuse risk form as high, therefore triggering a referral to the Central Referral Unit. However, CRU officers are not available on a 24 hour basis and therefore the referral was not picked up until the next morning. A safeguarding plan (a DV5) was then completed on the victim. Approximately 26 hours after the suspect was released on pre-charge bail he committed a serious assault on his ex-partner, which resulted in him being convicted for Attempted Murder. Whilst the safeguarding plan completed by the CRU was in place at this time, the investigation found that there had been a gap between when the suspect was released and when the plan was completed by the CRU of over 12 hours which was concerning given that the victim had been assessed as high risk and had two young children. Essex procedures states that any decision to bail or release a suspect under investigation will require a review of the safeguarding plan that is in place. It stipulates that in high risk cases CRU, where available, will be updated prior to release of a suspect, to enable this to be done, but if there is no CRU Officer available the detective sergeant will review the safeguarding prior to the release of the suspect. However, it does not state how this should be completed or recorded.
Recommendation accepted:
Following the introduction of DASH to DARA, the CRU function in Essex ceased and a Domestic Abuse Review Team (DART) were introduced. The safeguarding functions moved to a collaborative effort between IDVA services and the Investigating Officer, meaning the OIC understands that safeguarding is their responsibility ‘out of hours’.
With regards to the bail decision, Custody Command have been working closely with DA to resolve. Unfortunately, due to current IT processes and systems, this isn’t as simple as it should be to remedy. As such, we have come up with short, medium and long-term goals to address this issue.
Short. Custody Command will be contacting all Custody Sgts to reenforce the requirement to check safeguarding (DV5 etc) when considering bail for a DA matter.
Medium Term. There isn’t a way to measure compliance of this currently, so the Performance Team within Custody will design a governance process to measure compliance with this requirement.
Long Term. We will seek to change the Athena ‘pre-release’ risk assessment check list to add this requirement to the check list. Given Athena is a national product this will need the agreement of all Athena forces in order to request the change, and Essex will make this request formally through the Athena working group (sponsored by Custody Command). On the presumption this will be accepted, this workstream will be added to the AMO worklist and given a scheduled date for completion, balanced against other priorities.
The IOPC recommends that Essex Police should monitor the compliance of officers activating their body-worn cameras when attending domestic abuse incidents, and consider methods to raise awareness of this policy with officers.
This follows an IOPC investigation whereby it was found that few of the officers attending the incidents reported by the victim, which included breaches of non-molestation order, activated their body worn cameras. This was despite clear local guidance and policy around activation of body worn cameras in domestic abuse incidents. Whilst this did not seem to have had a significant impact on the investigations conducted by Essex Police, officers should be reminded of the importance of activating body worn cameras including capturing victims’ accounts.
Recommendation not accepted:
Essex Police would ask for this recommendation not to be implemented, based on the following -
Essex Police has clear policies in place around use of Body Worn Video at incidents of Domestic abuse, and the communications to officers about these requirements have been extensive.
Essex Police have a robust dip sampling procedure around body worn footage as well as numerous review panels that scrutinise footage and correct capture regularly, all of which are overseen by the Force BWV Lead.
If it is shown that officers have not activated their BWV at a Domestic Incident, in the absence of a written rational recorded on the incident log, Essex Police take the view this is a breach of policy and a likely to be a ‘conduct’ matter.
Policy/procedure extracts
3.3 The following encounters are required to be recorded:
• When exercising any police power;
• Use of force situations;
• All Stop and search/accounts;
• Making an arrest;
• When attending domestic incidents;
• The escort of any detainee in police custody or police vehicle;
• Any other situation that an officer may feel is of evidential value or where a use of force is pre-planned or likely to occur.
All users must use BWV when:
• Attending premises in order to affect an arrest.
• Attending ANY report of a domestic incident (and subsequent recording of the DV1 and/or MG11 procedure). If officers do not record an incident of this nature, they must record a clear rationale. This must be considered an exception rather than the rule and officers will need to be able to justify their decision.
3.6 Supervisors will review BWV on a regular basis and as they feel appropriate or necessary as part of their supervisory role.