Select Committee on Public Accounts Minutes of Evidence

Supplementary memorandum from the Home Office

Question 27 (Nigel Griffiths):   On which partnerships have been successful and less successful in tackling violent crime.

  1. The table at Appendix A sets out police recorded violence against the person rates for the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and Community Safety Partnerships. The data table provides an indication of partnerships' success in tackling violence against the person. The table is based on data from 2006-07 which is the latest available.

  The recorded crime figures are published information.

2. EXAMPLE OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICE DEVELOPED BY A PARTNERSHIP

OPERATION CALL TIME ON GLASS

  This project, undertaken by the Bournemouth Alcohol Licensing Enforcement (ALE) team aimed to address the high volume of glass related serious assault injuries taking place in town centre licensed premises during 2004-05. Identified as a problem by the analyst assigned to the team, 46% of all glass related assault injuries in the town centre were found to be of a serious nature (26 such assaults, 12 serious injuries) in the financial year 2004-05. The approach taken was the glaringly obvious but difficult solution. Removal of the glass item from circulation in the first place in late night venues, no glass drinking vessel or glass bottle equates to no "at hand" offensive weapon.

  Three stages were necessary to reach the desired outcome of replacing glassware with a suitable non breakable product:

(i) Influence manufacturers by assuring them that there was a need, and therefore a market, for a complete range of quality polycarbonate drinking vessels to satisfy the requirements of the trade as suitable alternatives to glassware. Desired outcome—Full range of products developed.

(ii) "Marketing" the voluntary change from glassware to polycarbonate to local licensees as a responsible measure to take. Until the Licensing Act 2003 came into force in November 2005 Police ability to force or persuade a change was virtually non-existent. Desired outcome—Voluntary change by licensees.

(iii) Enforcing the change from glassware to polycarbonate in premises that displayed a history of violence involving glass related injuries, particularly where licensees displayed reluctance to undertake the change voluntarily. Desired outcome—Change from glassware to polycarbonate in all problem premises. Evaluation was ongoing at each stage by checking against the desired outcomes. All were reached beyond our expectations. Glass related injuries fell from 26 in 2004-05 (12 serious injury) to 10 in 2006-07 (1 serious injury). Over half of town centre late night venues have switched from glassware to polycarbonate and the drive to do so continues.

  There have been many tangible benefits achieved by this project:

—  Number of glass related crimes have greatly reduced, meaning fewer victims

—  Police and Health staff now deal with fewer glass related assaults thus saving substantial amounts of time and money

—  Visitors to town centre licensed venues can feel safer

—  Fewer glass injuries as a result of broken glass on dance floors

—  The product far outlasts traditional glass, can be reused if dropped with no likelihood of chipping and cracking

—  Less damage to floors—wooden floors would not require refurbishing or polishing so often

—  Less staff costs due to fewer glass collectors being required

—  Reduction in insurance premiums

—  Drinks stay cold longer

  The following case studies, while not directly related to violent crime, are illustrative of how partnerships can work together to share information and best practice about particular issues within their local area. This way of problem profiling and joined up working will be promulgated in relation to the new PSAs.

CASE STUDY—KINGSTON UPON HULL

  The Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy for 2005-08 recognised that there were substantial issues relating to crime and disorder in the city and to that end stretching targets were set across all the British Crime Survey (BCS) comparator crimes.

—  PSA 1 crime reduction target of 30%

—  October 2006 Hull Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) was not on trajectory to deliver their target

—  CDRP recognised they need additional support and approached the Government Office and Home Office (HO)

—  Two week Support Programme delivered in December 2006 by a joint HO and Government Office Team

—  Key areas of improvement identified and implemented:

1. Stronger and more effective management of crime and disorder

2. Put in place common joint tasking arrangements

3. More effective community engagement and communication

4. Bringing all crime and disorder work under one management structure

5. Implement local problem solving arrangements

6. Implement transparent performance management

—  As part of the Priority 44—they delivered several "weeks of action" focusing on crime and disorder hot-spot areas.

RESULTS

  Home Office is very confident that Kingston upon Hull will now deliver their PSA1 crime reduction target

  The CDRP has demonstrated use of resources and tactical deployment has impacted on outcomes and performance measures.

  Vehicle crime in Hull has fallen significantly through a combination of approaches from target hardening and increased use of "Smartwater" to increased car park checks and awareness raising.

  Dwelling House burglary and all acquisitive crimes have fallen substantially again through a concerted effort to target harden and deal more effectively with the "prolific and priority" offenders through the PPO route and DIP following arrest and positive test on a trigger offence.

  The sanction detection rate has also increased showing that more offenders are being brought to justice and crimes whilst falling are being detected.

  The night time economy has seen improvement in the way in which early issues are dealt with by the police and with the introduction of council funded Street Marshalls.

This improved performance is a tribute to both the hard work of individuals and their contributions within a strong partnership. This success could not have been delivered by one organisation alone.

CASE STUDY—STOKE ON TRENT

—  Stoke on Trent have reduced crime against the 2003-04 baseline by 19.2% and are only 186 crimes away from target which they are expected to meet. This is a remarkable reduction given that in February 2007 they had achieved only a reduction of 5.7% and were still 3400 from target. As a result of this under performance the Home Office offered to support the CDRP through a Partnership Support Programme.

—  In April 2007 a Partnership Support Programme (comprehensive root and branch review of the Community Safety Partnership arrangements) was undertaken against the National Standards and Hallmarks of Effective Partnerships.

—  The structure of the community safety and drug and alcohol action officer teams have been integrated and include both strategic and operational functions.

—  The structure of the Community Safety Partnership has been streamlined, with a strong focus on leadership, delivery and accountability.

—  The data/analytical capacity of the Partnership has been improved, with the establishment of a central data repository function, supported by information sharing protocols.

—  Short-term actions plans have been established based on analysed data to focus on areas of concern, ie criminal damage, vehicle crime and violence with supporting action groups—they have adopted the volume crime management model approach to help them focus efforts and deploy resources.

—  Anti-Social Behaviour-related tools are in the process of being amended; Anti Social Behaviour Order, Alcohol Restriction Zones, High Hedges, Gating Orders and Section 30 Dispersal Order have been completed to date.

—  Respect Action Weeks have been delivered in nearly all of the 16 identified priority neighbourhoods in the city.

Question 59 (Mr Curry):   On international comparisons of good practice.

  1. It is difficult to make any meaningful comparisons between countries for a number of reasons:

(i)  Research considering or comparing the whole-system approaches of different countries to this type of crime, and evaluating their effectiveness is not readily available;

(ii)  Social, economic, cultural and other factors mean that the nature and existence of violent crime problems vary considerably between countries, as do the strategies required to tackle them;

(iii)  Crime statistics from different countries are often not directly comparable due to differences in offence classifications (for example what is regarded as a violent crime may vary between countries—possession of weapons may be a violent offence in England & Wales but not in Scotland) and recording practices—so that for example homicide figures may vary as one country includes homicides of nationals who are killed abroad while another country excludes them, or one country may retrospectively re-record a homicide when it is subsequently discovered to be a suicide or a death by natural causes while another country may not.

  As a further example of differences in practice, the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 while in Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway) it is 15.

  2. Example of practice from another country:

OPERATION CEASEFIRE

  Originally developed by the Boston Police Department, Operation Ceasefire is a problem-solving police strategy that seeks to reduce gang violence, illegal gun possession, and gun violence in communities. The program is just one element of a collaborative, comprehensive strategy (which also includes the Boston Gun Project and Operation Night Light) implemented in Boston to address escalating gang activity and rising violent crime rates.

  The key strands of the programme are firstly deterrence and prevention, and secondly suppression and enforcement. The prevention strategy is centered on an ambitious communications campaign involving meetings with both community groups and gang members. Everyone in the community is informed that gang violence will provoke a zero-tolerance approach, and that only an end to gang violence will stop the targetting of gang members for law-enforcement. The objective is to convince offenders that the costs of offending outweigh the benefits. For those who go on to offend, there are aggressive law enforcement and prosecution efforts aimed at recovering illegal handguns, prosecuting dangerous offenders, securing long sentences for repeat offenders, aggressive enforcement of probation restrictions and deployment of Federal rather than state enforcement powers. Simultaneously, service providers, probation and parole officers, and faith and other community groups offer gang members services and help in avoiding offending.

  Operation Ceasefire was officially implemented in May 1996. Boston had averaged 44 youth homicides per year from 1991 through 1995, and in 1996 the number of youth homicides decreased to 26 and further decreased to 15 in 1997. A comparison of Boston's youth violence trends with other cities during the program period suggests that Operation Ceasefire may have been effective in reducing youth homicides, gun assault incidents, and shots fired. The intervention was associated with a statistically significant decrease (63 percent) in the monthly number of youth homicides. However, Operation Ceasefire was but one element of a collaborative, comprehensive strategy implemented in Boston, and it is not possibly to fully isolate the effect of the project. The Operation Ceasefire programme has been replicated in other cities, including Minneapolis, St. Louis and Los Angeles.

  Operation Ceasefire has been adapted for use in the UK, and forms the basis of Manchester's Multi-Agency Anti-Gang Strategy (MAGS). It has also been adopted by the Five Borough Alliance (FBA) in south London. The FBA is a best practice project and focuses on the prevention of group offending and serious violence. It includes Southwark, Lambeth, Lewisham, Croydon and Greenwich. The FBA are currently developing work to implement their own version of this model.

  3. Example of practice from another country:

CO -ORDINATED COMMUNITY RESPONSE—DULUTH, MINNESOTA, USA

  The Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) was developed in 1980. It was the first project of its kind to coordinate the intervention activities of every criminal justice agency in one city. This project has served as a model nationally and internationally. It is based on these principles:.

  Coordination of the responses of those in the community who come into contact with domestic violence issues can significantly increase victim protection and perpetrator accountability. The primary goal of coordination should always be increased victim safety. Coordinating responses without focusing on victim safety can, in fact, be harmful to victims. Coordination that is based on increased victim safety can be beneficial in four different ways:

—  The effectiveness of many responses depends on the effectiveness of others. For example, court orders are not effective if police do not respond to calls about violations. Police response to these calls is, in turn, more effective when prosecutors prosecute violations. The effectiveness of prosecutors' response is likewise dependent on the quality of police work.

—  Different agency may encounter victims at different points and in different settings. Each has opportunities others may not have to help victims locate the resources they may need. For example, women who may not be willing or able to contact an advocate or shelter may still seek medical assistance; consequently health services may be a critical avenue through which victims might access support or assistance.

—  Reaching out to different members of the community to ask for their participation in a coordinated community response can increase the effectiveness of the response. The legal system is a critical part of any response. However, other community institutions (religious, economic, medical, media, education) may have a more powerful impact than the legal system.

—  A comprehensive community response can address related social problems that work to prevent women from gaining protection. Emergency shelter and criminal prosecutions are not the only needs that victims may have. Coordinated response programs increasingly focus on related social problems that make it difficult for women to seek protection from abuse, such as poverty and unemployment or the lack of affordable housing.

  This model forms the basis of the co-ordinated community response which is being developed and promulgated in this country as the way to tackle domestic abuse in local areas.

  4. Example of practice from another country:

  The Committee specifically referred to the Scandinavian countries. The Government's coordinated prostitution strategy, developed following a comprehensive consultation process, follows the principles of the Swedish model for tackling prostitution. The strategy aims to tackle the demand side of the market, whilst supporting those who sell sex to develop routes out. However, Sweden have gone one step further than the UK by criminalising paying for sex in any situation and we are in the process of looking again at whether this option would enable us to tackle demand more effectively.

Question 102 (Dr Pugh):   On characteristics of young offenders.

  1. Most youth offending in England and Wales is committed by young men, the majority of whom are White and aged between 15 and 17 years of age. The most common offences committed during 2006-07 were:

—  theft and handling

—  violence against the person

—  criminal damage

—  motoring offences

  The number of offences resulting in a disposal in 2006/07 by children and young people aged between 10 and 17 years of age was 295,129. This is an increase of 7,246 (2.5%) since 2003/04, but a decrease of 6,731 (2.2%) from 2005/06. This rise, is attributed, in part, to a police target to increase the number of offences brought to justice (including adult offences) to 1.25 million by March 2008. It is likely that a number of high-profile crimes committed by, and on, children and young people has affected the public's perception of youth crime and their confidence in the youth justice system.

2. AGE

  The age distribution of violence against the person offences by young people resulting in disposals is:

Age	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	Total
Offences	534	1,479	3,338	6,049	9,079	12,635	12,327	10,145	56,226

3. GENDER

  During 2006-07 the number of offences committed by young men fell by 2% when compared to 2003-04. However, over the same period, the number of offences committed by young women rose by 25%. However, young males are still responsible for 80% of the offences committed by young people.

  The gender distribution of violent against the person offences resulting in disposals is 40,554 by males, 15,672 by females. Most of the violent offences by females recorded were minor fights between girls, sometimes in school playgrounds. The rise in violence is likely to be due to a media focus on crimes involving girls and to a growing unwillingness among the public to intervene. The population has increased, so more offences would be expected and there may be some link between girls using alcohol and the increase in offences.

  It is also likely that that the response to girls by agencies—schools, police, other people—has changed, so that girls are perhaps being prosecuted for offences they weren't being prosecuted for before:

  (Note paras 1 to 3 are from data in The Youth Justice Annual Workload Data 2006-07 publication).

4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP

  The best proxy indicator of income we have is the ACORN classification. This classifies households according to the demographic, employment and housing characteristics of the surrounding neighbourhood and is useful in determining the social environment in which households are located. Although there are a total of 56 ACORN types, a five-group breakdown has been constructed from the 56 types and has been used here The main ACORN groups are characterised as follows:

Wealthy achievers—wealthy executives, affluent older people and well-off families.

Urban prosperity—prosperous professionals, young urban professionals and students living in town and city areas.

Comfortably off—young couples, secure families, older couples living in the suburbs and pensioners.

Moderate means—Asian communities, post-industrial families and skilled manual workers.

Hard pressed—low-income families, residents in council areas, people living in high-rise, and inner-city estates.

  Findings from the Offending, Crime and Justice Survey 2005, a survey of offending among young people aged 10—25 years. The following table show the proportions of each of these groups who identified themselves as offenders. Overall, three-quarters (75%) of young people had not offended in the last 12 months. Of the 25% that committed at least one of the offences in the last 12 months, many had offended only occasionally or committed relatively trivial offences. The proportion of young people committing an offence remained stable across all three waves of the survey. This pattern held for serious offenders.

ACORN category	% of category who are offenders (10-15 year-olds)	% of category who are serious offenders (10-15 year-olds)	% of category who are offenders (16-25 year-olds)	% of category who are serious offenders (16-25 year-olds)
Wealthy achievers	23	10	26	11
Urban prosperity	26	16	25	11
Comfortably off	27	13	25	12
Moderate means	28	15	20	10
Hard pressed	31	16	25	14

Note: offenders are those who say they have committed an offence in the last 12 months. Serious offenders are those who say they have committed one of the following: theft of a vehicle; burglary; robbery; theft from the person; assault resulting in injury; selling Class A drugs Question 132 (Mr Mitchell):   On the ethnicity of those involved in youth-on-youth violent crime.

  1. The Home Affairs Select Committee second report on over-representation of young black people in the CJS 2007 said that:

—  Statistics show that young black people are overrepresented at every stage of the criminal justice system. However, it is important to place this in perspective. In 84.7% of offences in 2004-05 involving young offenders aged 10-17, the young people involved classified their ethnicity as white. Over 92% of young black people in the year 2003-04 were not subject to disposals in the youth justice system. Robbery offences, for which young black people are particularly overrepresented, constitute only 1.8% of juvenile offending. Robbery offences committed by black young people represent less than 0.5% of all offences overall.

—  Patterns of offending which are commonly attributed to black groups are found among young people from other ethnicities. In the words of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick of the Metropolitan Police, "much of what you will say about young black people in the criminal justice system could also be applied to other young people from a variety of different communities, but probably not all of it". Like black groups, for example, people of "mixed" ethnic origin are more likely than white people to be convicted of drugs offences and robbery. Asian young people are twice as likely to be stopped by the police as white people. Research by the Youth Justice Board has found young people of mixed parentage experience higher rates of prosecution and conviction and are less likely to receive a pre-court disposal than black, Asian or white males.

—  Evidence from the Home Office's OCJS suggest white young people and those from mixed ethnic origin are more likely to report offending behaviour than young males in other ethnic groups, including black people. The findings from the Home Office self-report surveys have been similar over time. The most recent sweep of the survey found white males aged 10-25 were "far more likely" to have committed an offence with in the last year than young males in other ethnic groups (28% compared with a range 12% to 19% for other ethnic groups. The survey found that once young black people had committed an offence, they were more likely to come to the attention of the police. The Youth Justice Board MORI survey of young people have, however, produced different results. The discrepancy between self-report surveys is a warning against relying too heavily or drawing simplistic conclusions from only one indicator involving crime.

—  Young black people's over-representation must be placed in the context of youth offending as a whole, which has not increased since 2001 according to a survey commissioned by the Youth Justice Board from MORI in 2004. Public perceptions of rising crime among young people may not reflect reality. NACRO stated that:

"There remains a gap between perceived and actual levels of crime. As with crime overall, youth crime appears to have been falling in recent years, although the predominant perception among the public is of a rise".

  2. The breakdown of violence against the person offences by young people resulting in disposals is:

Ethnicity	Asian	Black	Other	Mixed	White	n/k	Total
Offences	1,659	3,365	161	1,838	47,830	1,373	56,226

  Against an overall rise in offences resulting in a disposal of 2.5% from 2003-04 to 2006-07, numbers of offences rose by 3.5% for White young people, and by 2.5% for the Asian ethnic group, while for Black young people they fell by 0.5%. There was a large increase in numbers of offences for the small Mixed Ethnicity group, and large decreases for the small "other" and "not known" groups. The performance indicator for 2006-07 is to ensure that any significant difference between the ethnic composition of offenders on all pre-court and court disposals and the ethnic composition of the local community is reduced year on year. The indicator focuses on achieving a significant reduction (with a 90% confidence interval) in the disproportionality of the ethnic group most over-represented in 2005-06.

  Nationally, the Black ethnic group is the most over-represented ethnic group in the youth justice system. Black young people account for 2.8% of the 10 to 17-year-old general population, but 5.8% of the 10 to 17-year-old offending population.

  Asian young people are the most under-represented in the youth justice system. Asian young people account for 6.1% of the 10 to 17-year-old general population compared to 3.4% of the young offender population.

  These figures are for all offences, not just for violent offences though the proportions are broadly similar for violent offences and all offences:

  (Note para 2 is from The Youth Justice Annual Workload Data 2006-07 publication)

Question 138 (Mr Mitchell):   On the breakdown of knife crime possession by police force area.

Number of defendants found guilty at all courts for the offence "Having an article with a blade or point in a public place", in each police force area, England & Wales, 2006 (1)(2)(3)

Force	Found guilty
Avon and Somerset	168
Bedfordshire	61
Cambridgeshire	67
Cheshire	83
City of London	11
Cleveland	75
Cumbria	39
Derbyshire	77
Devon and Cornwall	119
Dorset	66
Durham	91
Essex	173
Gloucestershire	38
Greater Manchester	389
Hampshire	160
Hertfordshire	84
Humberside	123
Kent	6
Lancashire	143
Leicestershire	111
Lincolnshire	68
Merseyside	218
Metropolitan Police	1,680
Norfolk	61
North Yorkshire	57
Northamptonshire	1
Northumbria	215
Nottinghamshire	144
South Yorkshire	149
Staffordshire	91
Suffolk	106
Surrey	37
Sussex	138
Thames Valley	177
Warwickshire	30
West Mercia	96
West Midlands	380
West Yorkshire	170
Wiltshire	67
Dyfed-Powys	29
Gwent	56
North Wales	113
South Wales	153
England & Wales TOTAL	6,320

(1) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations. (2) The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. are taken into account when those data are used. (3) This data is a further breakdown of that published in the Criminal Statistics, England and Wales for 2006. Source; CJEA-OCJR, MOJ Question 171 (Mr Mitchell):   On the breakdown of types of firearm weapons.

  Please see below table of firearm offences (excluding air weapons) by type of weapon: England and Wales (Published April 2008):

Weapon type	Year ending Dec 06	Year ending Dec 07	% change
Shotgun	600	609	+2
Handgun	4,213	4,163	-1
Rifle1	62	77	+24
Imitation firearm2	2,502	2,663	+6
Unidentified firearm	1,262	1,346	+7
Other firearm3	955	1,109	+16
Total	9,594	9,967	+4

1 Because of the small number of offences involving rifles, the percentage change should be treated with caution. 2 Imitation handguns, which are converted to fire bullets like handguns, are counted as handguns. 3 Other firearms include CS gas, disguised firearms, machine guns, pepper spray, stun guns and other specified weapons (majority are paintball guns)

APPENDIX A

LOCAL AUTHORITIES—POLICE RECORDED VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PERSON OFFENCES 2005-06 TO 2006-07

Force	LA name	Violence against the person offences recorded 05/06	Violence against the person offences recorded 06/07	Violence against the person change 05/06-06/07 (%)	Violence against the person offences per 1,000 population 06/07
Avon & Somerset	Bath and North East Somerset	2,877	3,000	4	17
Avon & Somerset	City of Bristol UA	13,372	12,746	-5	32
Avon & Somerset	Mendip	1,473	1,578	7	15
Avon & Somerset	North Somerset	3,358	3,640	8	19
Avon & Somerset	Sedgemoor	1,513	1,631	8	15
Avon & Somerset	South Gloucester	3,563	3,720	4	15
Avon & Somerset	South Somerset	2,354	2,336	-1	15
Avon & Somerset	Taunton Deane	1,635	1,804	10	17
Avon & Somerset	West Somerset	351	426	21	12
Avon & Somerset	Total	30,496	30,881	1	20
Bedfordshire	Bedford	2,451	2,410	-2	16
Bedfordshire	Luton	4,835	4,397	-9	24
Bedfordshire	Mid Bedfordshire	884	785	-11	6
Bedfordshire	South Bedfordshire	1,636	1,547	-5	13
Bedfordshire	Total	9,806	9,139	-7	16
Cambridgeshire	Cambridge	2,009	2,173	8	18
Cambridgeshire	East Cambridgeshire	525	527	0	7
Cambridgeshire	Fenland	1,222	1,273	4	15
Cambridgeshire	Huntingdonshire	1,533	1,623	6	10
Cambridgeshire	Peterborough UA	4,156	4,017	-3	25
Cambridgeshire	South Cambridgeshire	713	808	13	6
Cambridgeshire	Total	10,158	10,421	3	14
Cheshire	Chester	2,536	2,392	-6	20
Cheshire	Congleton	879	896	2	10
Cheshire	Crewe	2,351	1,983	-16	17
Cheshire	Ellesmere Port & Neston	1,661	1,694	2	21
Cheshire	Halton	2,805	2,697	-4	23
Cheshire	Macclesfield	2,125	2,055	-3	14
Cheshire	Vale Royal	2,259	1,858	-18	15
Cheshire	Warrington	3,901	3,694	-5	19
Cheshire	Total	18,517	17,269	-7	17
Cleveland	Hartlepool	2,919	2,653	-9	29
Cleveland	Langbaurgh (Redcar & Cleveland)	2,957	2,739	-7	20
Cleveland	Middlesbrough	4,560	5,119	12	37
Cleveland	Stockton	3,876	3,417	-12	18
Cleveland	Total	14,312	13,928	-3	25
Cumbria	Allerdale	1,634	1,476	-10	15
Cumbria	Barrow-in-Furness	1,947	1,654	-15	24
Cumbria	Carlisle	2,341	2,135	-9	20
Cumbria	Copeland	1,389	1,297	-7	18
Cumbria	Eden	577	559	-3	11
Cumbria	South Lakeland	1,318	1,066	-19	10
Cumbria	Total	9,206	8,187	-11	16
Derbyshire	Amber Valley	1,764	1,853	5	16
Derbyshire	Bolsover	1,132	1,318	16	18
Derbyshire	Chesterfield	2,121	2,399	13	24
Derbyshire	Derby	5,300	4,790	-10	20
Derbyshire	Derbyshire Dales	685	742	8	11
Derbyshire	Erewash	1,675	1,601	-4	15
Derbyshire	High Peak	1,436	1,474	3	16
Derbyshire	North East Derbyshire	972	1,004	3	10
Derbyshire	South Derbyshire	875	884	1	10
Derbyshire	Total	15,960	16,065	1	16
Devon & Cornwall	Caradon	920	884	-4	11
Devon & Cornwall	Carrick	903	984	9	11
Devon & Cornwall	East Devon	1,240	1,303	5	10
Devon & Cornwall	Exeter	2,570	2,305	-10	20
Devon & Cornwall	Isles of Scilly	26	23	-12	11
Devon & Cornwall	Kerrier	1,119	1,040	-7	11
Devon & Cornwall	Mid Devon	836	710	-15	10
Devon & Cornwall	North Cornwall	1,080	1,072	-1	13
Devon & Cornwall	North Devon	1,702	1,780	5	20
Devon & Cornwall	Penwith	876	896	2	14
Devon & Cornwall	Plymouth	6,198	6,209	0	25
Devon & Cornwall	Restormel	1,299	1,261	-3	13
Devon & Cornwall	South Hams	771	732	-5	9
Devon & Cornwall	Teignbridge	1,688	1,474	-13	12
Devon & Cornwall	Torbay	2,863	3,023	6	23
Devon & Cornwall	Torridge	722	854	18	14
Devon & Cornwall	West Devon	492	477	-3	9
Devon & Cornwall	Total	25,305	25,027	-1	15
Dorset	Bournemouth	4,892	4,692	-4	29
Dorset	Christchurch	579	469	-19	10
Dorset	East Dorset	429	479	12	6
Dorset	North Dorset	519	504	-3	8
Dorset	Poole	2,520	2,376	-6	17
Dorset	Purbeck	463	405	-13	9
Dorset	West Dorset	867	987	14	10
Dorset	Weymouth & Portland	1,661	1,893	14	29
Dorset	Total	11,930	11,805	-1	17
Durham	Chester-le-street	764	875	15	16
Durham	Darlington	1,708	1,791	5	18
Durham	Derwentside	1,391	1,460	5	17
Durham	Durham	1,166	1,340	15	15
Durham	Easington	1,690	1,707	1	18
Durham	Sedgefield	1,699	1,533	-10	17
Durham	Teesdale	152	162	7	7
Durham	Wear Valley	1,329	1,149	-14	19
Durham	Total	9,899	10,017	1	17
Dyfed-Powys	Carmarthenshire	2,737	2,824	3	16
Dyfed-Powys	Ceredigion	992	1,045	5	13
Dyfed-Powys	Pembrokeshire	1,897	2,045	8	17
Dyfed-Powys	Powys	2,085	1,780	-15	14
Dyfed-Powys	Total	7,711	7,694	0	15
Essex	Basildon	2,162	2,403	11	14
Essex	Braintree	1,571	1,485	-5	11
Essex	Brentwood	904	908	0	13
Essex	Castle Point	773	708	-8	8
Essex	Chelmsford	2,243	2,157	-4	13
Essex	Colchester	2,983	2,462	-17	15
Essex	Epping Forest	1,627	1,609	-1	13
Essex	Harlow	2,187	1,990	-9	26
Essex	Maldon	593	573	-3	9
Essex	Rochford	605	603	0	8
Essex	Southend	3,111	2,989	-4	19
Essex	Tendring	1,950	1,916	-2	14
Essex	Thurrock	2,601	2,426	-7	17
Essex	Uttlesford	570	594	4	8
Essex	Total	23,880	22,823	-4	14
Gloucestershire	Cheltenham	2,923	2,765	-5	25
Gloucestershire	Cotswold	703	874	24	11
Gloucestershire	Forest of Dean	1,024	1,098	7	14
Gloucestershire	Gloucester	3,249	3,333	3	30
Gloucestershire	Stroud	1,463	1,694	16	15
Gloucestershire	Tewkesbury	1,134	1,067	-6	14
Gloucestershire	Total	10,496	10,831	3	19
Greater Manchester	Bolton	5,685	6,180	9	23
Greater Manchester	Bury	3,163	3,345	6	18
Greater Manchester	Manchester	13,654	14,403	5	33
Greater Manchester	Oldham	3,693	4,260	15	19
Greater Manchester	Rochdale	4,520	4,340	-4	21
Greater Manchester	Salford	4,515	5,891	30	27
Greater Manchester	Stockport	4,409	4,571	4	16
Greater Manchester	Tameside	5,714	5,346	-6	25
Greater Manchester	Trafford	3,275	3,740	14	18
Greater Manchester	Wigan	4,167	4,738	14	15
Greater Manchester	Total	52,795	56,814	8	22
Gwent	Blaenau Gwent	1,436	1,510	5	22
Gwent	Caerphilly	3,441	3,435	0	20
Gwent	Monmouthshire	1,249	1,167	-7	13
Gwent	Newport	3,691	3,933	7	28
Gwent	Torfaen	1,686	1,672	-1	19
Gwent	Total	11,503	11,717	2	21
Hampshire	Basingstoke & Deane	3,213	3,460	8	22
Hampshire	East Hampshire	1,160	1,611	39	14
Hampshire	Eastleigh	1,821	2,147	18	18
Hampshire	Fareham	1,576	1,859	18	17
Hampshire	Gosport	1,898	2,146	13	28
Hampshire	Hart	976	914	-6	10
Hampshire	Havant	3,149	3,069	-3	27
Hampshire	Isle of Wight	3,197	3,057	-4	22
Hampshire	New Forest	2,065	2,265	10	13
Hampshire	Portsmouth	6,797	6,172	-9	33
Hampshire	Rushmoor	2,159	2,042	-5	23
Hampshire	Southampton	7,745	8,515	10	38
Hampshire	Test Valley	1,620	1,722	6	15
Hampshire	Winchester	1,310	1,590	21	14
Hampshire	Total	38,686	40,569	5	22
Hertfordshire	Broxbourne	1,532	1,404	-8	16
Hertfordshire	Dacorum	1,939	2,155	11	16
Hertfordshire	East Hertfordshire	1,499	1,565	4	12
Hertfordshire	Hertsmere	1,199	1,300	8	14
Hertfordshire	North Hertfordshire	1,629	1,612	-1	13
Hertfordshire	St Albans	1,597	1,713	7	13
Hertfordshire	Stevenage	2,049	2,075	1	26
Hertfordshire	Three Rivers	942	853	-9	10
Hertfordshire	Watford	2,285	2,606	14	33
Hertfordshire	Welwyn / Hatfield	1,535	1,607	5	16
Hertfordshire	Total	16,206	16,890	4	16
Humberside	East Riding of Yorkshire	4,112	4,628	13	14
Humberside	Kingston upon Hull	9,405	9,692	3	39
Humberside	North East Lincolnshire	5,165	5,717	11	36
Humberside	North Lincolnshire	3,833	3,832	0	24
Humberside	Total	22,515	23,869	6	27
Kent	Ashford	1,548	1,499	-3	14
Kent	Canterbury	1,965	2,021	3	14
Kent	Dartford	1,744	1,998	15	23
Kent	Dover	1,747	1,773	1	17
Kent	Gravesham	2,007	2,043	2	21
Kent	Maidstone	2,202	2,389	8	17
Kent	Medway	5,347	5,536	4	22
Kent	Sevenoaks	933	962	3	9
Kent	Shepway	1,746	1,800	3	18
Kent	Swale	2,280	2,180	-4	17
Kent	Thanet	2,885	2,759	-4	22
Kent	Tonbridge & Malling	1,260	1,287	2	11
Kent	Tunbridge Wells	1,127	1,269	13	12
Kent	Total	26,791	27,516	3	17
Lancashire	Blackburn with Darwen	3,306	2,973	-10	21
Lancashire	Blackpool	5,392	5,206	-3	36
Lancashire	Burnley	2,561	2,331	-9	27
Lancashire	Chorley	1,489	1,460	-2	14
Lancashire	Fylde	801	764	-5	10
Lancashire	Hyndburn	1,492	1,354	-9	17
Lancashire	Lancaster	2,885	2,502	-13	18
Lancashire	Pendle	1,724	1,357	-21	15
Lancashire	Preston	3,710	3,419	-8	26
Lancashire	Ribble Valley	471	426	-10	7
Lancashire	Rossendale	1,056	898	-15	14
Lancashire	South Ribble	1,448	1,578	9	15
Lancashire	West Lancashire	1,187	1,290	9	12
Lancashire	Wyre	1,319	1,233	-7	11
Lancashire	Total	28,841	26,791	-7	19
Leicestershire	Blaby	982	986	0	11
Leicestershire	Charnwood	3,044	2,994	-2	19
Leicestershire	Harborough	750	767	2	10
Leicestershire	Hinckley and Bosworth	1,601	1,612	1	16
Leicestershire	Leicester	11,156	10,662	-4	37
Leicestershire	Melton	660	638	-3	13
Leicestershire	North West Leicestershire	1,534	1,586	3	18
Leicestershire	Oadby & Wigston	932	875	-6	16
Leicestershire	Rutland	341	285	-16	8
Leicestershire	Total	21,000	20,405	-3	21
Lincolnshire	Boston	1,125	1,098	-2	19
Lincolnshire	East Lindsey	2,096	2,157	3	16
Lincolnshire	Lincoln	2,878	2,777	-4	32
Lincolnshire	North Kesteven	813	703	-14	7
Lincolnshire	South Holland	1,144	985	-14	12
Lincolnshire	South Kesteven	1,876	1,821	-3	14
Lincolnshire	West Lindsey	794	716	-10	8
Lincolnshire	Total	10,726	10,257	-4	15
London, City of	City of London	942	967	3	105
Merseyside	Knowsley	3,074	1,906	-38	13
Merseyside	Liverpool	16,430	12,073	-27	27
Merseyside	Sefton	4,439	3,688	-17	13
Merseyside	St. Helens	4,578	3,400	-26	19
Merseyside	Wirral	6,276	4,927	-21	16
Merseyside	Total	34,797	25,994	-25	19
Metropolitan Police	Barking & Dagenham	5,288	5,150	-3	31
Metropolitan Police	Barnet	6,393	5,512	-14	17
Metropolitan Police	Bexley	4,373	3,742	-14	17
Metropolitan Police	Brent	8,253	6,216	-25	23
Metropolitan Police	Bromley	5,499	5,697	4	19
Metropolitan Police	Camden	7,370	6,586	-11	29
Metropolitan Police	City of Westminster	9,445	8,413	-11	34
Metropolitan Police	Croydon	7,763	6,741	-13	20
Metropolitan Police	Ealing	7,878	7,641	-3	25
Metropolitan Police	Enfield	5,256	5,342	2	19
Metropolitan Police	Greenwich	7,713	7,486	-3	33
Metropolitan Police	Hackney	7,471	7,148	-4	34
Metropolitan Police	Hammersmith & Fulham	5,041	5,054	0	28
Metropolitan Police	Haringey	6,921	5,651	-18	25
Metropolitan Police	Harrow	3,028	2,870	-5	13
Metropolitan Police	Havering	4,172	3,639	-13	16
Metropolitan Police	Hillingdon	6,261	5,911	-6	23
Metropolitan Police	Hounslow	6,434	5,502	-14	26
Metropolitan Police	Islington	7,002	6,289	-10	34
Metropolitan Police	Kensington & Chelsea	3,325	3,597	8	18
Metropolitan Police	Kingston upon Thames	3,240	3,003	-7	20
Metropolitan Police	Lambeth	8,991	8,344	-7	31
Metropolitan Police	Lewisham	8,463	8,062	-5	33
Metropolitan Police	Merton	3,664	3,361	-8	17
Metropolitan Police	Newham	8,421	7,578	-10	31
Metropolitan Police	Redbridge	3,976	4,323	9	17
Metropolitan Police	Richmond upon Thames	2,345	2,122	-10	11
Metropolitan Police	Southwark	9,065	8,435	-7	33
Metropolitan Police	Sutton	3,161	2,989	-5	17
Metropolitan Police	Tower Hamlets	7,455	7,727	4	36
Metropolitan Police	Waltham Forest	6,831	6,052	-11	27
Metropolitan Police	Wandsworth	6,139	5,647	-8	20
Metropolitan Police	Total	196,637	181,830	-8	24
Norfolk	Breckland	1,440	1,351	-6	11
Norfolk	Broadland	814	739	-9	6
Norfolk	Great Yarmouth	2,276	2,156	-5	23
Norfolk	Kings Lynn & West Norfolk	1,826	1,628	-11	12
Norfolk	North Norfolk	1,133	1,083	-4	11
Norfolk	Norwich	3,971	3,641	-8	29
Norfolk	South Norfolk	1,044	984	-6	9
Norfolk	Total	12,504	11,582	-7	14
Northamptonshire	Corby	1,427	1,523	7	28
Northamptonshire	Daventry	747	668	-11	9
Northamptonshire	East Northamptonshire	842	782	-7	10
Northamptonshire	Kettering	1,434	1,315	-8	15
Northamptonshire	Northampton	4,308	4,103	-5	21
Northamptonshire	South Northamptonshire	459	390	-15	5
Northamptonshire	Wellingborough	1,275	1,332	4	18
Northamptonshire	Total	10,492	10,113	-4	16
Northumbria	Alnwick	249	363	46	11
Northumbria	Berwick	443	422	-5	16
Northumbria	Blyth Valley	1,011	1,268	25	16
Northumbria	Castle Morpeth	460	521	13	10
Northumbria	Gateshead	2,655	2,961	12	15
Northumbria	Newcastle upon Tyne	5,289	6,019	14	22
Northumbria	North Tyneside	2,452	2,917	19	15
Northumbria	South Tyneside	2,637	2,711	3	18
Northumbria	Sunderland	5,472	5,492	0	19
Northumbria	Tynedale	449	499	11	8
Northumbria	Wansbeck	878	1,076	23	17
Northumbria	Total	21,995	24,249	10	17
North Wales	Conwy	2,119	2,513	19	23
North Wales	Denbighshire	2,113	2,475	17	26
North Wales	Flintshire	2,217	2,619	18	17
North Wales	Gwynedd	2,268	2,581	14	22
North Wales	Isle of Anglesey	1,117	1,405	26	20
North Wales	Wrexham	2,496	2,830	13	22
North Wales	Total	12,330	14,423	17	21
North Yorkshire	Craven	674	603	-11	11
North Yorkshire	Hambleton	841	683	-19	8
North Yorkshire	Harrogate	1,922	1,586	-17	10
North Yorkshire	Richmondshire	601	548	-9	11
North Yorkshire	Ryedale	413	394	-5	8
North Yorkshire	Scarborough	2,030	1,969	-3	18
North Yorkshire	Selby	1,182	1,019	-14	13
North Yorkshire	York	3,810	3,285	-14	18
North Yorkshire	Total	11,473	10,087	-12	13
Nottinghamshire	Ashfield	1,914	1,881	-2	17
Nottinghamshire	Bassetlaw	1,984	2,226	12	20
Nottinghamshire	Broxtowe	1,386	1,415	2	13
Nottinghamshire	Gedling	1,465	1,488	2	13
Nottinghamshire	Mansfield	2,518	2,669	6	27
Nottinghamshire	Newark & Sherwood	1,435	1,480	3	13
Nottinghamshire	Nottingham	9,516	9,865	4	35
Nottinghamshire	Rushcliffe	1,098	914	-17	8
Nottinghamshire	Total	21,316	21,938	3	21
South Wales	Bridgend	1,990	1,757	-12	13
South Wales	Cardiff	6,101	6,121	0	19
South Wales	Merthyr Tydfil	1,016	1,145	13	21
South Wales	Neath & Port Talbot	1,948	1,781	-9	13
South Wales	Rhondda Cynon Taff	4,144	3,809	-8	16
South Wales	Swansea	4,105	3,480	-15	15
South Wales	Vale of Glamorgan	1,744	1,740	0	14
South Wales	Total	21,048	19,833	-6	16
South Yorkshire	Barnsley	4,350	4,158	-4	19
South Yorkshire	Doncaster	9,897	8,494	-14	29
South Yorkshire	Rotherham	5,117	5,260	3	21
South Yorkshire	Sheffield	9,811	10,043	2	19
South Yorkshire	Total	29,175	27,955	-4	22
Staffordshire	Cannock Chase	2,169	2,443	13	26
Staffordshire	East Staffordshire	2,336	2,365	1	22
Staffordshire	Lichfield	1,380	1,375	0	14
Staffordshire	Newcastle-under-Lyme	3,080	2,968	-4	24
Staffordshire	South Staffordshire	1,347	1,369	2	13
Staffordshire	Stafford	2,431	2,516	4	20
Staffordshire	Staffordshire Moorlands	1,601	1,541	-4	16
Staffordshire	Stoke on Trent	7,758	7,937	2	33
Staffordshire	Tamworth	2,125	2,214	4	30
Staffordshire	Total	24,227	24,728	2	23
Suffolk	Babergh	725	724	0	9
Suffolk	Forest Heath	798	1,072	34	17
Suffolk	Ipswich	2,878	2,940	2	25
Suffolk	Mid Suffolk	599	608	2	7
Suffolk	St. Edmundsbury	1,454	1,509	4	15
Suffolk	Suffolk Coastal	1,265	1,054	-17	9
Suffolk	Waveney	2,298	2,283	-1	20
Suffolk	Total	10,017	10,190	2	15
Surrey	Elmbridge	1,216	1,554	28	12
Surrey	Epsom & Ewell	788	1,046	33	15
Surrey	Guildford	1,659	1,850	12	14
Surrey	Mole Valley	632	778	23	10
Surrey	Reigate and Banstead	1,495	1,952	31	15
Surrey	Runnymede	728	737	1	9
Surrey	Spelthorne	1,353	1,553	15	18
Surrey	Surrey Heath	717	1,033	44	13
Surrey	Tandridge	599	712	19	9
Surrey	Waverley	826	898	9	8
Surrey	Woking	1,225	1,410	15	16
Surrey	Total	11,238	13,523	20	13
Sussex	Adur	797	777	-3	13
Sussex	Arun	2,158	2,422	12	17
Sussex	Brighton & Hove	7,069	7,628	8	30
Sussex	Chichester	1,141	1,202	5	11
Sussex	Crawley	2,694	2,564	-5	26
Sussex	Eastbourne	2,450	2,381	-3	26
Sussex	Hastings	2,947	3,139	7	37
Sussex	Horsham	1,148	1,337	16	11
Sussex	Lewes	1,563	1,388	-11	15
Sussex	Mid Sussex	1,445	1,449	0	11
Sussex	Rother	1,193	1,178	-1	14
Sussex	Wealden	1,428	1,204	-16	9
Sussex	Worthing	1,834	1,955	7	20
Sussex	Total	27,867	28,624	3	19
Thames Valley	Aylesbury Vale	2,367	2,746	16	16
Thames Valley	Bracknell Forest UA	1,750	1,776	1	16
Thames Valley	Cherwell	2,332	2,600	11	19
Thames Valley	Chiltern	1,100	1,265	15	14
Thames Valley	Milton Keynes	5,373	5,975	11	27
Thames Valley	Oxford	3,503	4,228	21	28
Thames Valley	Reading UA	4,052	4,567	13	31
Thames Valley	Slough UA	2,886	3,468	20	30
Thames Valley	South Bucks	756	972	29	15
Thames Valley	South Oxfordshire	1,431	1,578	10	12
Thames Valley	Vale of White Horse	1,334	1,693	27	14
Thames Valley	West Berkshire	1,565	2,288	46	16
Thames Valley	West Oxfordshire	934	1,281	37	13
Thames Valley	Windsor & Maidenhead UA	2,309	2,552	11	18
Thames Valley	Wokingham UA	1,358	1,418	4	9
Thames Valley	Wycombe	2,937	3,014	3	19
Thames Valley	Total	35,987	41,421	15	19
Warwickshire	North Warwickshire	588	647	10	10
Warwickshire	Nuneaton & Bedworth	2,001	2,318	16	19
Warwickshire	Rugby	1,155	1,378	19	15
Warwickshire	Stratford-upon-Avon	1,096	1,115	2	9
Warwickshire	Warwick	1,729	1,933	12	14
Warwickshire	Total	6,569	7,391	13	14
West Mercia	Bridgnorth	407	426	5	8
West Mercia	Bromsgrove	1,020	982	-4	11
West Mercia	Herefordshire	2,389	2,417	1	14
West Mercia	Malvern Hills	600	619	3	8
West Mercia	North Shropshire	567	649	14	11
West Mercia	Oswestry	397	558	41	14
West Mercia	Redditch	1,619	1,663	3	21
West Mercia	Shrewsbury & Atcham	1,180	1,185	0	12
West Mercia	South Shropshire	237	284	20	7
West Mercia	Telford & Wrekin	3,016	2,795	-7	17
West Mercia	Worcester	2,041	2,048	0	22
West Mercia	Wychavon	960	979	2	8
West Mercia	Wyre Forest	1,266	1,405	11	14
West Mercia	Total	15,699	16,010	2	14
West Midlands	Birmingham	25,267	26,280	4	26
West Midlands	Coventry	7,512	7,592	1	25
West Midlands	Dudley	4,631	4,975	7	16
West Midlands	Sandwell	5,049	5,437	8	19
West Midlands	Solihull	3,480	3,149	-10	16
West Midlands	Walsall	5,599	5,059	-10	20
West Midlands	Wolverhampton	5,448	5,298	-3	22
West Midlands	Total	56,986	57,790	1	22
West Yorkshire	Bradford	11,389	9,647	-15	20
West Yorkshire	Calderdale	5,318	3,933	-26	20
West Yorkshire	Kirklees	8,448	7,729	-9	20
West Yorkshire	Leeds	15,800	14,628	-7	20
West Yorkshire	Wakefield	7,924	7,330	-8	23
West Yorkshire	Total	48,879	43,267	-11	20
Wiltshire	Kennet	651	836	28	11
Wiltshire	North Wiltshire	1,150	1,344	17	10
Wiltshire	Salisbury	1,269	1,578	24	14
Wiltshire	Swindon	2,789	3,185	14	17
Wiltshire	West Wiltshire	1,629	1,733	6	14
Wiltshire	Total	7,488	8,676	16	14
England and Wales		1,044,405	1,029,506	-1	19

General notes:

All crime rates are based on mid-2005 population estimates supplied by the Office for National Statistics.

Caution needs to be taken when considering crime rates of city centre areas, due to the very small population and household levels in these areas. The very high reported crime rates in city centres are partly due to the small resident populations

See Crime in England & Wales 2006-07 for detailed definition of the offence types included in recorded violence against the person

---

---

---

Prepared 23 October 2008