Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
TUESDAY 22 JANUARY 2008
CHIEF CONSTABLE
BRIAN MOORE
AND MS
JUDE WATSON
Q1 Chairman: Mr Moore and Ms Watson,
I welcome you to this session of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Today we begin to take formal evidence on our inquiry into domestic
violence and forced marriages. We are very pleased to have both
of you here. We have a busy session with a number of witnesses
and so we shall be brief in putting our questions and we hope
that you will respond in the same way, again with apologies for
keeping you waiting. I draw the attention of everyone to the interests
that Members have registered in respect of their dealings in Parliament
and beyond. Mr Moore, for a long time domestic violence was regarded
as a private matter in which the police were very reluctant to
intervene. Has there been a cultural change in the way the police
have dealt with this issue?
Chief Constable Moore: Yes, there
has been a change and I advance four reasons for it: first, there
has been a change in social attitudes and political engagement
in this very serious crime; second, the prevention of violence
has become a higher priority for the Police Service anyway; third,
there are clear performance requirements upon the Police Service
to eradicate domestic violence where it comes across it; and,
fourth, the focus of senior managers in the Police Service and
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Taken together, those
are the four factors which have contributed to this change in
culture. Although we still have work to do I am pleased with the
progress that the service is making.
Q2 Chairman: The figures are pretty
stark, are they not? Victim Support produced figures to the Committee
which show that it helped 403,000 women last year. That is a very
large figure. Do you think there has been an under-reporting of
the figures?
Chief Constable Moore: Yes. The
issue of under-reporting for both female and male victims remains
a significant concern. Some of the academic research with which
you will be familiar dating back three years suggests that in
this country the incidence of domestic abuse is probably of the
order of 30 million incidents per annum which is huge. If that
is correct the scale of under-reporting is considerable.
Q3 Chairman: You mentioned male victims.
Do you think there may be a prejudice in not being as helpful
to male victims as to female victims because of underlying social
trends?
Chief Constable Moore: Police
Service policy is gender neutral and we try as far as we can to
deal with male and female victims in exactly the same way. It
is suggested to me that more male victims tend to be arrested
where there are cross-allegations, but it is also suggested to
me that males make malicious counter-allegations against their
partners to undermine female victims and muddy the waters, so
to speak. We are looking into it but we cannot see a discernible
picture, so overall we continue to follow the evidence and make
sure that our policies are implemented fairly for both men and
women. Under-reporting by men is an issue. There are concerns
about appearing to be weak and coming forward to speak to the
authorities. You do not want to be seen as a weak male who is
subject to domestic abuse. That is a significant and live issue
by virtue of feedback I have received over a considerable time.
Q4 Chairman: You mentioned a cultural
change, but you also referred to people right at the top of the
pyramid. Do you think that change has also affected those who
go and see victims of domestic violence, for example the police
constable who is called out late at night?
Chief Constable Moore: Yes, I
do. There will always be individuals who let down the service
in terms of personal attitudes, but there is enough systemic requirement,
governance and pressure to make sure that far the majority of
officers follow the policies put in place to positive effect in
terms of keeping people safe from domestic abuse.
Q5 Chairman: In your written evidence
to us you talk about the gap between reported crimes and successful
prosecution. What do you think can be done to close that gap?
Chief Constable Moore: It is a
matter of getting all parts of the process joined up in a consistent
way so it is nationally available. Much of the good practice is
well known. The Police Service is doing a good investigation in
gathering the evidence. My colleague prosecutor is well trained
to draw out all relevant evidence and present it well. There are
specialist courts and consistent support throughout the process
to victims of crime. Those are the elements we need. But as we
look across the country I cannot say with confidence that all
of those elements are in place all the time in every area, so
we look to government and to committees of this influence to make
sure that all parts of the process are ubiquitous across the country
and are available at all times. Most things are there. I am less
satisfied that we understand enough about perpetrators in the
process. Nearly all our effort, quite properly, has been directed
towards protecting victims, but there is an emerging gap in the
knowledge of the authorities about how to manage perpetrators.
There is no domestic abuse register onto which perpetrators should
be placed, for example.
Q6 Chairman: Do you think there should
be a register?
Chief Constable Moore: I think
it should be given considerable extra thought by virtue of the
direct correlation between domestic abuse, homicide and serious
violence, and those who go from relationship to relationship across
boundaries should be amenable and subject to proportionate tracking
to make sure we can protect those in the next relationships they
go into.
Q7 Margaret Moran: Given that some
of the research seems to show we are talking here about repeat
offenders and those who are likely to have committed other forms
of crime as well as domestic violence, why is it that the various
police authorities are not taking this more seriously? Surely,
it will improve performance statistics if nothing else. Why is
that information and knowledge not being used within policing?
Chief Constable Moore: In the
previous question and answer we talked about the gap between knowing
someone and police intelligence, that is, those who pose a risk
and those who are convicted. We need to consider carefully whether
we would want to rely on police intelligence effectively to set
up a tracking regime and register, whereas generally it is a conviction
of a certain significance and seriousness which attracts people
onto the sex offenders register, for example. There is a significant
gap between what we know by way of intelligence and what we can
prove, and I think that threshold needs to be more clearly delineated
before I can commend all police services to follow a particular
course.
Q8 Margaret Moran: All the evidence
we have received and what you have just highlighted demonstrate
that there are huge inconsistencies in performance across police
authorities. I say that with some heartfelt concern because my
own police authority in Bedfordshire has been given a very poor
performance rating and domestic violence is a key element there.
If we asked whether there was one single thing to improve consistency
of performance what would it be?
Chief Constable Moore: The single
factor that would improve overall consistency of all agencies,
not just the police, would be a consistent risk management regime
across and between agencies. There is inadequate information sharing
between agencies. Each agency may have part of the picture, but
if it is operating only on that it will never properly understand
the risks someone faces and prevent further harm by risk management.
It is only when all the pieces of information from the police,
education, social services and local housing authorities are put
together that you have the clearest picture of those most at risk.
To that extent I say that the law in this regard is inadequate.
The law and information-sharing are passive. You may share but
there is no sliding scale of obligation upon authorities to share
where someone is at risk of harm. The MARAC process, of which
I am sure you have heard much, goes a significant step down that
route, but again it is based on co-operation rather than statutory
obligation. For me, the biggest gap is information sharing between
agencies to inform appropriate risk management processes, though
I am pleased to say that MARAC works well and is a positive step
in that direction.
Q9 Margaret Moran: I wonder why you
have not referred to specialist domestic violence units since
the evidence seems to show that where they are consistent and
are not pulled away to deal with other operations and have an
investigative capacity they work. Why is that not a performance
pattern across police authorities?
Chief Constable Moore: Where specialist
domestic violence units are in place within forces they work extremely
well. It is a matter for the discretion of each chief constable
how to deploy his or her staff. We give clear advice about what
best practice looks like, and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary
inspects against these high and clear standards. Only two forces
were considered to be poor in terms of their domestic violence
performance last year. The bulk of it occurred in the middle quartile
of fair or good and a small number were excellent. Overall, we
can see clear migration over the past two years towards most forces
attaining the things you are talking about and moving towards
fair or good performance overall which includes the use of specialist
teams and investigators.
Q10 Margaret Moran: There is a target
to train all front line police officers in domestic violence by
2008. Where are we against that target?
Chief Constable Moore: Every person
who has joined the police service is receiving training and has
been trained to the Centrex standard. That training covers not
only front line officers but those who receive the 999 call. Our
front counter staff whom you meet when you walk into the police
station and all first responders are trained. All our investigators
are being trained. We have to go back and do remedial training
in respect of those who entered the Police Service earlier than
three or four years ago. There is a mixed picture across the Police
Service about remedial and follow-up training, and I and the HM
Inspectorate of Constabulary are working through that programme
with the forces.
Q11 Mr Streeter: I was interested
in what you said about information sharing. You thought that a
change in the law was necessary. Is it the case that agencies
are hiding behind data protection or sub judice? Why is
not information being shared? Specifically, what change in the
law do you seek?
Chief Constable Moore: There are
a number of issues and the answer is not straightforward. Some
people are extremely risk averse; some quite properly place huge
emphasis upon patient and client confidentiality; and others,
frankly, do not understand the data protection law. Nearly all
I am talking about can be done. To some extent a change in the
law would not be necessary if people pursued the present law to
its logical conclusion, but they do not. ACPO has been talking
about this for some years and I do not see evidence of change.
Therefore, if the present law does not work we have to find ways
to adjust it. I am talking about a statutory duty to co-operate
in this context with MARAC. If MARAC had a statutory duty to call
for information from any public authority it would go a long way
towards providing some sensible parameters about what could be
released and in what circumstances to keep people safe. To me,
that is the missing part.
Q12 Mr Streeter: Do you not think
that slightly more robust Home Office guidelines would do the
job? Are you talking about a new statutory duty to co-operate?
Chief Constable Moore: My colleagues
at the Home Office are at variance with me on this. They think
that given time and the right regime we may not resort to law.
I wish I could share their optimism. Given the scale of the public
bodies involved in this, there are thousands of protocols about
sharing information. That must tell us that there is no clear
system. Frankly, I am not optimistic that given the number of
people who die each year as a result of domestic abuse we can
wait for some undefined period when everybody has migrated to
a common view of risk management. We have to act now because people
are losing their lives year in year out because of this gap in
the law.
Q13 Mr Streeter: That is very clear,
and we certainly want to follow up on that. You have held a number
of domestic violence enforcement campaigns. How have you used
what you have learnt from them to improve performance, and what
changes have subsequently been made?
Chief Constable Moore: The domestic
violence enforcement campaigns have been extraordinarily helpful
and they are designed to enrich the number and types of tactics
available to each force. They are published by the Police Standards
Directorate and shared with every police force across the land,
and also HM Inspectorate inspects against our forces following
good practice. It comes with some funding which is always helpful.
If the funding is not there immediately forces feel somewhat deprived
of the ability to use those tactics outside their mainstream funding,
but we have seen some very excellent things. I highlight one in
particular: the use of body-worn video cameras during these campaigns
to make sure evidence is gathered immediately and is available
to prosecutors. It is a very helpful campaign. Its slight weakness
is that when funding is withdrawn not all forces can maintain
the level of commitment to the specific set of tactics without
the funding associated with it.
Q14 Patrick Mercer: Chief Constable,
you will be very much aware of the recent legislation providing
increased powers to deal with domestic violence. How effective
do you think they are, and do you have any data to support that?
Chief Constable Moore: I assume
we are talking about the 2004 Act. If I may be candid, there is
some disappointment associated with the implementation of the
Act. There is no question that the sections in it are helpful,
but many who sit behind me and who lobbied for this Act did not
expect gaps between enactment and implementation. There have been
some significant gaps between when parts of the law should have
been enacted and when it has been implemented. We understand this
is because of the inability to resource the implementation of
parts of the legislation, which is something of a disappointment.
Sections 1 to 4 which deal with the criminalisation of breaches
of non-molestation orders are very welcome, though I understand
literally on the steps of the committee room that there is some
concern as to how effectively that has been implemented across
the country. Given that it was only in July 2007 that that particular
part came into being, I anticipate there are some early education
and implementation difficulties associated with that, but that
should be very powerful and helpful to us. Another part in which
there is much interest is section 9: homicide reviews and learning
lessons from domestic violence. That has not been implemented
yet. If my information is correct, that may well be because there
is a difference of view as to whether that represents a new duty
on local authorities which should be paid for by the Home Office
or it should be mainstream business for local authorities, but
whatever the reason that is not yet in being. Many see learning
lessons from such tragedies as very important to improving our
future capability to prevent homicides. Therefore, the Act itself
is helpful and thoughtful but disappointment has been expressed
to me about the way in which aspects of it have been implemented;
indeed, there is some confusion out there as to which parts have
been implemented. There is some learning for all of us in terms
of this kind of legislation in future.
Q15 Mr Streeter: That is very helpful.
I see a lot of nodding in the audience which is also helpful.
You have answered the other questions that I was going to deal
with. To raise just one matter, you mentioned non-molestation
orders. Do you think it makes victims more reluctant to report
and pursue domestic violence cases?
Chief Constable Moore: For some
it will and it will clearly help others who are not. If I had
more time I would like to talk about the gap in the law for people
accessing civil injunctions. If someone decides not to go down
the criminal route and does not want a prosecution—he or
she is perfectly entitled to do so—but wants the violence
to stop there is adequate provision for access to civil law injunctions
across the country. Again, it is an inconsistent patchwork. In
my opinion it leaves some gaps by way of a postcode lottery as
to how and when people can access a civil injunction to protect
themselves if they do not want to go down the criminal route.
Mr Streeter: Chairman, would it be possible
for the chief constable to write a note on that matter?
Q16 Chairman: That would be very
helpful. Would you drop the Committee a little note on that?
Chief Constable Moore: I shall
be pleased to.
Mr Streeter: I am sorry we do not have
more time because that is very interesting.
Q17 Gwyn Prosser: Ms Watson, we note
that the discontinuance and conviction rates for domestic violence
are far worse than for other offences. What are the barriers to
continuing these cases and obtaining convictions?
Ms Watson: What we have found
in prosecuting cases of domestic violence is that very often the
victim, usually a female, will withdraw the allegation. Therefore,
we are looking at ways to gather evidence from other than the
victim herself but alongside the victim and other ways wherein
we can perhaps encourage victims to come forward. As we have trained
our prosecutors across the Crown Prosecution Service we have found
that far fewer cases are being discontinued because we are pursuing
a combination of the use of other evidence—999 tapes, photographs,
evidence from other people who may have witnessed the violence—and
encouragement of the victim. In encouraging the victim one needs
to look at the support and safety of the individual, and one of
the big steps forward for the criminal justice system linked to
the specialist domestic violence courts as well is to ensure that
victims have support and are not on their own in terms of coming
to court. We have seen a reduction from 37% of cases being discontinued
in 2004-05 to 24% in September to December 2007, so there has
been a dramatic change in culture within the CPS.
Q18 Gwyn Prosser: I guess that all
that training and those changes are ongoing work. Would you like
to suggest any other ways to reduce the attrition?
Ms Watson: The main way this has
been done within CPS, as well as the work on specialist courts
and the training of staff, is by having a very rigorous performance
management system. We have a system within CPS where each area's
performance on domestic violence is measured every quarter in
terms of successful prosecution and discontinuances and whether
bind-overs are still being used instead of more stringent measures
to deal with these cases. Therefore, all of these things hand
in hand mean we have been able to be far more robust in the prosecution
of cases. In local areas we have been able to work with community
organisations far more successfully. Therefore, we have a domestic
violence co-ordinator in every area who works with the local domestic
violence forum, which is encouraged where possible, and local
partnerships. We place great emphasis on community engagement
and support and links with other agencies to share information
where appropriate.
Q19 Gwyn Prosser: We have received
written evidence about the specialist domestic violence court
programmes. How effective are they?
Ms Watson: We have just carried
out a review of the very first 23 specialist domestic violence
courts that have been set up. We have done a lot of in-depth work
on what is and what is not working within those courts. We have
recently reported to the inter-ministerial group on domestic violence
that we have been able to measure success in those courts not
just in terms of improved prosecutions but in terms of support
and safety for victims and improved public confidence. What we
can report to you today is that of the 23 specialist courts that
we reviewed 10 achieved over 70% successful outcomes, which is
a dramatic result in terms of domestic violence. That is generally
better than the non-specialist courts in the same areas against
which we were able to compare them. Those courts also had the
least number of cases discontinued where no evidence was being
offered. We now have 64 specialist courts. I have looked at the
data for the first two quarters. We find that by the second quarter
of this year nearly half of those courts have achieved a success
rate of over 70%. They are dramatically improving prosecutions,
but we believe that what they are doing to improve the safety
of and support for victims is of equal importance. In six months
of the first 23 specialist courts practising nearly 6,000 victims
were referred to independent domestic violence advisers to provide
them with support. Just under three-quarters of those clients
were supported by those advisers and just under two-thirds were
high or very high risk victims. Therefore, they were supported
through the multi-agency risk assessment system and looked at
in terms of what safety measures were needed. We looked at safety
as well as support. Last, in terms of public confidence we visited
a number of these specialist courts to talk to the local agencies
working there to see whether we needed just the independent domestic
violence advisers or the multi-agency risk assessments or did
we need the specialist courts system as a whole which is more
than just the IDVAs and MARACs? Those courts said unanimously
that we must look at them together and that IDVAs and MARACs alone
were not enough in the specialist court system to link it up,
and we should be moving towards linking it to a broader co-ordinated
community response going beyond even the criminal justice system.
| 
