Police contact with woman prior to her death - Metropolitan Police Service, October 2020

1) The IOPC recommends the Metropolitan Police reminds officers of the following crime reporting requirements, importance, and responsibilities to:
(i) record allegations of crime reported directly to them
(ii) record counter allegations on separate crime reports.

This follows an IOPC investigation following the death of a female who had previously been arrested by the MPS following a domestic incident with her husband in September 2020. The MPS contact followed a call to police from a female who alleged a domestic incident with her husband. Following police attendance, she was arrested for assault offences against her husband and her daughter. However, the female informed both the officers of the primary investigation team and the OIC who subsequently interviewed her that her husband had assaulted her, and she had sustained injuries. Whilst this information was added to the Crime report this was together with the allegations against her and no further investigation was completed regarding her allegations. The charges against the female were subsequently dropped and within a month of this incident she was murdered by her husband.
However the NCR states: ‘All reports of incidents, whether from victims, witnesses or third parties and whether crime related or not, will, unless immediately recorded as a crime, result in the registration of an auditable incident report by the police’.

This is reflected in the MPS crime recording/crime outcomes policy which states; ‘All officers, staff and members of the extended police family must, if they receive information that suggests that a notifiable offence has been committed or alleged, ensure that a CRIS record is created in that regard.’
A second report was never created to reflect the female’s allegations. During the IOPC investigation evidence suggested there appeared to be a belief that as all allegations were recorded on one crime report this was sufficient. Secondly a belief that for an allegation to be recorded by the police the female had to relay this to the ‘front desk’, as it was not appropriate for the officer who was investigating her a suspect to do so.

Furthermore there is a suggestion that by failing to record the allegations from the female none of the requirements for treating her as a victim were completed, such as a DASH risk assessment for the female or putting the allegations to the alleged perpetrator. This could also prevent the MPS from obtaining an accurate picture about the relationship between the two and inhibit future management and risk assessments.

Recommendation accepted:

The MPS accepts recommendation (i). The MPS Crime Recording and Crime Outcomes Policy contain mandatory crime recording rules for officers and staff, as drawn from the Home Office Counting Rules, and the National Crime Recording Standard. It includes directions on recording incidents and creating CRIS (crime recording database) reports, including information as to when crimes should be recorded and how they should be recorded in accordance with guidance and legislation. The MPS General Investigation Policy is a generic set of instructions which acts as a foundation to all investigations from the outset and complements the Crime Recording and Crime Outcomes Policy. Within the policy, officers are informed of the crime assessment principles: “In terms of investigating crime we will work from the basis that all crime reported to us will be investigated. This investigation commences at the first point of contact with the victim, whether that be face -to -face on the street or in a police station, online or over the telephone. It is therefore vital that information is recorded accurately and that we employ ‘professional curiosity’ to identify viable lines of enquiry in order to prove or disprove a person’s involvement in an offence.” An Operational Notice will be published on the MPS internal website within the next couple of weeks, reminding officers of their obligations to record allegations of crime reported directly to them, with reference made to pertinent sections of our current MPS policies. The MPS does not , however, agree with recommendation (ii) to record counter allegations on separate crime reports. The Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR), and the National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS) are clear that great care should be taken when taking the decision to record a counter/cross allegation, with each case being treated on its own merits. The HOCR state: “Very often, however, offenders claim that they were acting in self-defence and make counter allegations of assault. Great care should be taken before routinely recording such allegations as crime. For example, when the offender in a case of GBH or ABH makes a counter allegation of assault this should only be recorded as such if on the balance of probability the offence took place (in accordance with the NCRS). The absence of any evidence such as personal injury or independent witnesses may show that the allegation is false and care should be taken before recording as a crime. Each case should be treated on its own merits. It should be noted that any decision not to record such counter allegations as a crime should be recorded for disclosure purposes”. At the Strategic Crime and Incident Recording Group on 14th January 2022 this particular case was discussed and it was agreed that a separate allegation should have been recorded in this instance, but there was nothing that should be deemed as a counter/cross allegation. Having two crime reports live for one incident is likely to cause confusion and potentially lead to further risk, as all of the information is not collated in one place. The police have a duty to conduct a balanced and fair investigation, therefore if an alleged suspect does turn out to be the victim, a diligent investigation should identify this and it should be appropriately dealt with, with risk managed appropriately. Officers within the MPS will ensure that where a single crime report is used to further an investigation, they are clear about the labelling of involved parties as victims and suspects in order that the legally afforded rights and protections are made available at the earliest opportunity, and that the investigation progresses as it should, based upon these designations as victim/suspect. Current MPS policies cater for officers obligations in relation to crime recording.

The IOPC recommends that the MPS domestic abuse policy is updated to reflect the national College of Policing APP guidance which suggests when investigating a domestic incident where counter allegations are made risk assessments should be conducted for both parties.

This follows an IOPC investigation following the death of a female who had previously been arrested by the MPS following a domestic incident with her husband in September 2020. The MPS investigation derived from a female who called the MPS and reported a domestic incident between herself and her husband. On police arrival they spoke with both the female and her husband who both alleged the were the victim of assault and both displayed injuries.

The female was arrested for assault offences against her husband and her daughter. However, the female informed both the officers of the primary investigation team and the OIC who subsequently interviewed her that her husband had assaulted her and she had sustained injuries.

The APP guidance for Domestic abuse investigations; Arrest and other positive approaches, Dual Arrest states:
‘Risk assessment and signposting to support agencies can and should still be carried out for both parties.’
This is also detailed in the section titled, Determining the primary perpetrator and dealing with counter-allegations which notes:
‘If both parties claim to be the victim, officers should risk assess both. There may also be circumstances where the party being arrested requires a risk assessment, as in the case of a victim retaliating against an abuser.’
This is not currently reflected in MPS policy and therefore officers may be less likely to be aware of the requirement and the considerations around why this is necessary.

Recommendation accepted:

The Metropolitan Police Service (“MPS”) has reviewed and accepts the recommendation by the IOPC. The new MPS Domestic Abuse Policy was implemented on 27th September 2021 and uses the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice (APP) as the primary source for its content. The new policy was communicated to all MPS officers and staff via an Operational Notice on the MPS internal website on 28th September 2021. The MPS policy includes specific guidance on matters that are unique to the MPS (or Basic Command Unit practice), such as local procedures, guidance and forms and for wider national policy relating to domestic abuse, the MPS apply the latest information from the College of Policing APP. In relation to this specific recommendation, the MPS Domestic Abuse Policy states: “Identifying the Primary Aggressor” Identify primary aggressor and take positive action. Where counter-allegations are made at the scene, officers should evaluate each party’s complaint separately to determine whether there was a primary perpetrator. If both parties claim to be the victim, officers should risk assess both. There may also be circumstances where the party being arrested requires a risk assessment, as in the case of a victim retaliating against an abuser. Officers should bear in mind the possibility that the relationship is a mutually abusive one. DASH* should be completed in cases for both parties where counter allegations are made. Officers are reminded of their duty under Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) to record allegation(s) on a crime report (CRIS) and if necessary ensure it is transferred to the appropriate department or force”. *DASH is a risk assessment tool for Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment