Venue: Cabinet Suite - Shire Hall, Gloucester. View directions
Contact: Stephen Bace 01452 324204
Declarations of Interest
No additional declarations made.
Minutes agreed as a correct record.
22.1 The Chairman explained that following a recruitment process William Alexander had been appointed as the second independent co-optee.
Cllr Colin Hay and Cllr Steve Robinson had been on the interview panel with the Chairman. Cllr Hay explained that in future it would be important to consider how the position was advertised to ensure that there was diversity in the candidates.
22.2 Members requested that in future an action sheet be provided with the minutes to committee.
ACTION Stephen Bace
22.3 The Panel asked for confirmation
that HMIC would be returning in September and an update on the
outcome of their report. Some members noted the work the County
Council had been doing to improve their services in response to the
Ofsted inspection and asked what the Constabulary was doing. It was
explained that the Commissioner’s Office were waiting for the
report to come back but that the Constabulary was confident that
there would be a better outcome. Regular meetings were being held
between the Commissioner and Chief Constable. The Panel requested
an update at the November meeting.
22.4 Some members queried when the summit (involving all those partners and organisations to decide how best to support vulnerable children) would be arranged as detailed at the previous meeting. The Commissioner welcomed the opportunity to update detailing that he had met with facilitators in the previous week and had spoken to partners with the aim to have something held at the end of Autumn. This was not about ‘pointing fingers’ but about understanding what ‘good looked like’.
22.5 One member asked for an update on
the new neighbourhood policing offer. The Commissioner explained
that the Constabulary had asked to have until January to deliver
this to ensure that the offer was robust. The Panel asked whether
an update might be provided at the next meeting. The Commissioner
would discuss with the Chief Constable if he was available to
update the Panel at the next meeting.
23.1 Paul Trott presented the report detailing Freedom of Information requests and Complaints. He explained that there had been a slight rise in complaints in comparison to the previous five years.
23.2 The crime data was set out within the report and showed that crime had risen over the previous 6 months with a spike in March and April. This had been replicated across the Country. In most parts of the County, districts were performing well against comparators across the country, the exception was Cheltenham and the Constabulary was taking action to address that. Access had been given to IQuanta data which could not be published but was more up to date. Encouragingly, despite the rise in crime across the country, 5 out of 6 districts were performing very well against comparators. In response to a question regarding Cheltenham it was explained that there had been an increase in violent crime but that resources were being redeployed into that area.
23.3 The Criminal Justice Board had previously been chaired by the former Chief Constable but since her retirement was now being chaired by the Police and Crime Commissioner. It was felt that there was now greater ownership of the issues that needed to be addressed. The Board would be reviewed to consider its effectiveness. Members understood that the Inspectorate examination of the Probation Trust had not been favourable. The Commissioner expressed concern that the companies carrying out the work were not sharing the figures. This report would be circulated to the Panel.
ACTION Paul Trott
23.4 One member noted the 17 complaints
that had been recorded as one complaint. The rationale for this was
that it was the same letter circulated as part of a campaign
related to the badger cull. The particular complaint centred around
the use of the radio technology issued by DEFRA to the
23.5 It was suggested that the Panel
receive an item on wildlife crime, detailing the resources put into
it and number of prosecutions. The Commissioner explained that this
was part of the police and crime plan called the
He suggested the item could include the compassionate approach to
animals and environmental footprint of the constabulary.
23.6 Cllr Colette Finnegan referred to an incident In Gloucester and referred to the professional manner in which the Constabulary had responded. She asked that the congratulations from herself and the Cabinet Member at Gloucester City Council be passed on.
23.7 Some members commented that some thought needed to be given to the way in which agendas were structured and the items the Panel chose to focus on.
23.8 One member asked for details of how a
complaint was classified as ‘unknown’ within the
report. The Office would provide clarification.
23.9 The Panel discussed the recent update regarding ‘Emergency Service Collaboration’ within the report. Members had been circulated a report from the consultants who had worked on behalf of the Commissioner to consider the viability of ... view the full minutes text for item 23.
The Panel are to review the Commissioner’s Annual Report.
As the Commissioner was unavailable, the Annual Report would be deferred until the next meeting.
ACTION Martin Surl/ Stephen Bace
25.1 Richard Bradley reminded the Panel of the review of community safety conducted the previous year. As a result of that review, Safer Gloucestershire had been created. The first meeting had been held in July and, from that meeting, a number of documents were being prepared. This included the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and a protocol to share information. The main thrust of the meeting was to ensure an integrated approach. At the next meeting on 8 October those documents would be brought forward. The meetings were ‘closed’ officer meetings held at police headquarters.
25.2 One member asked whether Safer Gloucestershire included Road Safety. It was explained that Safe and Social Driving was a priority within the plan and that work was underway with colleagues in Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service. The Lead of the priority Stewart Edgar explained that officers continued to work hard on Road Safety. The Chief Constable and Chief Fire Officer continued to have regular discussions and there were a number of opportunities created through the change in the Constabulary’s operating model.
The purpose of the Police and Crime Plan Priorities Quarterly Highlight Report is to provide all stakeholders with an update that monitors progress in respect of each of the Priorities, to include:
· activities achieved during the current quarter;
· activities expected during the next quarter;
· any risks or issues identified will be managed through the risk and issue registers;
· overview of budget.
This report is a summary against activities
26.1 One member commented on the Motorcycle Safety Operation in the Forest of Dean and asked that this be brought to the Cotswolds.
26.2 One member questioned the recruitment of the Youth Support Workers as detailed on page 35 of the agenda pack. It was explained that the Constabulary made a contribution to that.
To receive an update on this priority.
27.1 Kate Langley, strategic lead for youth justice in Gloucestershire was the lead on the priority area for the Commissioner. Chief Inspector Paul Dutton was the head of emergency response for Gloucestershire and Chair of the youth justice partnership board. Paul outlined the six objectives of the partnership:
· Raise awareness of young people – ensure young people have a voice, dignity and respect.
· Reduce first time entrants into the criminal justice system – reducing the time they spend with the police.
· Anti-social behaviour – supporting through early intervention
· Create strong and successful partnership for young people
· Communication strategy across Gloucestershire
27.2 The Panel were informed of the overarching piece of work, ‘Children First – restorative intervention.’ The focus was to keep young people out of the criminal justice system, based on the evidence that young people were more likely to continue to offend once in it.
27.3 Consultation had been undertaken since April with project support from the Constabulary to further develop it. A key stakeholder group had been established who met fortnightly, this included the Police, Youth Support Team, Restorative Gloucestershire and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. The project would be going live from 6 November.
27.4 Members were provided with the aim of Children First:
To divert children and young people away from the formal criminal
justice system wherever possible and reduce unnecessary
criminalisation particularly of vulnerable groups e.g. children in care, learning difficulties, mental
To encourage children and young people to take responsibility for
their own actions and promote reintegration into their
To ensure children and young people are offered the right support
in order to prevent further offending at the earliest
To make restorative Interventions the
norm and default disposal for children and young people who
To see the child first and offender second
• To put the victim at the heart of the youth justice system
27.5 The Panel were informed of the creation of informal pre-court disposals - interventions which would not result in a criminal record. There was still ‘teeth’ in response to non compliance with the processes that would then come into play. The key to the work was information gathering from a range a sources to ensure a comprehensive picture of the young person could be developed.
27.6 It was explained that the work could have an impact on the adult system through preventative measures – early identification of children in need.
27.7 Members understood that the work had been carried out by Surrey who had seen real outcomes in significant reductions in children in care offending as well as reductions in the number attending court and a reduction in youth crime.
27.8 One member stated that this work would specifically help with BME communities. In addition he commented that the County Council had difficulites recruiting social workers and asked about the amount of social workers that managed to get to the magistrate court. In response it was ... view the full minutes text for item 27.