Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales
REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN EVIDENCE
1. (Q139) You discussed offences that
count as a detection. Please provide some background to this issue
and a list of offences which count and do not count. Where is
this held and who has determined "what counts".
A sanctioned detection is a notifiable recorded
crime resulting in:
Charge;
Summons;
Caution;
Taken into consideration (TIC);
Penalty notice.
Increasing the offences brought to justice is
a priority for the Criminal Justice System. Sitting within Domain
2 of the Police Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF) bringing
offenders to justice is an important part of the overall picture
used to assess individual force and national policing performance
in the investigation of crime.
Police force and BCU performance is measured
in terms of sanctioned detections applying the Home Office Counting
Rules for Recorded Crime
NB. The National Criminal Justice Board has
determined that CPS should share the sanction detection target
to reflect the contribution they make by delivering early legal
advice and in making charging decisions.
There has been considerable effort and attention
directed towards improving the sanction detection rate as a measure
of police performance. Where such effort has been directed there
have been significant improvements in the detection rate. However,
the attention towards sanction detections arguably diverts resources
and effort away from other key areas of policing that do not get
measured in the same way. The Association cited the offences of
drink/drug driving and disqualified driving that do not fall within
the Home Office counting rules. The offences listed within the
counting rules are exhaustive and range from the abstraction of
electricity to fraudulent use of a car tax disc.
It is the submission of the Association that
the offences of drink/drug driving and disqualified driving, which
research has indicated can also be clearly linked to other criminality
should be included in the Home Office Counting Rules. If they
were to be so included, it is our contention, that the police
service would deploy additional effort against these serious offences
and thereby having a positive effect upon road safety and community
reassurance.
2. The Association's benchmarking exercise
recorded how many forces had an "ACPO Roads Policing Champion".
Please can you explain what this role is and its importance.
The role of Champion is that of a supporter,
someone who is prepared to champion the cause of roads policing
within the force. It is a recognised role, but not one that is
formally set down in any command structure. Each area of business
would have a champion. It would not be unusual to have at local
command, a member of the BCU command team championing a particular
area of activity. However, without support of a roads policing
champion at ACPO level, practitioners will find it difficult to
see roads policing activity assume the importance it deserves.
The importance of this role is to act as an
advocate, to add weight to any bids for resources or to support
participation in national roads safety campaigns for example the
seasonal drink drive campaigns.
3. Would you welcome the introduction of
"random breath testing" or "targeted breath testing"
powers? Why?
The powers currently available to the police,
allow police officers to administer a breath test to any driver
who has been involved in a collision, or who the officer suspects
has consumed alcohol. Police officers have the power to stop any
vehicle on a road. The application of these powers provides adequate
opportunity to prevent and detect offences of drink driving. Arguably,
it is the robustness of enforcement of current powers that provides
the answer to the question. When the police service makes a determined
effort to enforce drink drive powers, for example during the seasonal
drink drive campaigns, both the motoring public and the police
officers recognise the seriousness of the issue and the message
is forced home.
The position of the Association is that the
current powers are sufficient and that there is no operational
imperative to introduce random testing.
However, the Association does recognise the
argument that emphasises the positive message that random testing
would send to the motoring public and therefore act as a deterrent
factor.
4. What do you think the impact would be
of reducing the penalty from 3 points to 2 for driving at 39 mph
on a 30 mph limit road?
The Association supports the principle of graduated
penalties, but it is the case that collisions occurring between
speeds of 30 mph and 39 mph are the most critical in determining
the severity of injury. The message this would send to the motoring
public and in particular those who are inclined to drive to the
recognised margins of enforcement would be contrary to the desired
aims of reducing the unacceptable level of death and serious injuries
on our roads.
The Association does not support the proposal
to reduce penalty points in such circumstances.
3 April 2006
| 
